It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

4th of July DUI Checkpoint - Drug Dogs, Searched Without Consent. Is This Legal?

page: 9
88
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by jude11
 


Last I heard they're not supposed to be able to search your stuff without a warrant unless they have probable cause which seems like a shady loophole imo. Now a DUI checkpoint I am not sure about because it's out in public and public domain is their territory.




posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 11:52 AM
link   


yes, we should tell the cops to stop it with the DUI checkpoints. wat nonsense is that, people NEVER get obliterated drunk and drive home. if some super drunken fool crashed into one of your kids cars you]d be screaming, WHY WAS THERE NO DUI CHECKPOINT IT WAS THE 4TH OF JULY FOR GODS SAKE!
reply to post by christoph
 


The old "Hassle everyone in case there is a drunk driver"

Please refrain from telling me what to think or what I would say.

Continue living in your fraidy cat world where you need the cops to stop everyone.

Just in case somebody might be drunk. I hope you are not American.

If you are...Some History teacher needs to be hung for treason.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 12:07 PM
link   
I like how the driver has ads running on his Youtube video with 1.5 million views hahahahahah take that cop

edit on 6-7-2013 by WormwoodSquirm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 12:37 PM
link   
I can say many times I've seen cars wandering across lanes with an obviously impaired driver - I've even called them in to LEO to no avail. Guess they were too busy manning static speed traps and check points which generate far more revenue (that is what these are really all about, eh?) than catching individuals right in the act where there would be no question nor need to violate others civil rights in dragnet style stops.

On the leading of the dog, I witnessed a stop on interstate about a month ago where the LEO was kicking the dog in the haunches multiple times in order to make it look like it "pointed" at the auto that was pulled over, WTH! this is an area where the local PD makes its budget using seizure laws and is well known for abuse of travelers.

In the video the person never ever should have gotten out of the car nor pulled over out of lane as that indeed is detainment from travel with no probable cause - should have kept right on repeating "am I being detained" until he received either a yes or no answer.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by christoph
edit: but its more fun to say 'we should be fighting for our rights' online, anonymously, to a buncha anons instead of do it in your local community.


Don't think anyone really wants us to stop with the DUI checkpoints. They help keep the drunks in check, they don't prevent them.

The real argument was the fact that this LEO treated the citizen with deep-seated hatred for people who aren't compliant with overstepping authority with underlying intrusive intentions. What I know of drug dogs, when they get a hit, they sit. We cannot see how the dog behaved off camera, but we can surely see the dogs reaction to the verbal and physical cues from his handler. The LEO's drug dog charade was used to bend the law in his favor to force dominance in this situation.

Hope this guy files a civil suit against the local police/sheriff that this LEO works for. True, it isn't fair to exploit or imply blame to the entire police dept. It also isn't fair for this LEO to pass judgment on this citizen...who knew exactly what he was doing - he had his camera rolling.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by jude11
 


This is my town, and I've had several friends post about it on facebook; and they went through this checkpoint. It's not the first time these lousy cops have abused power here and I've been subjected to it as well. I'm glad (and ashamed) it's actually getting media coverage.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Before the fraud and sophistry of the Global War On Terror, there was that and more in the (Global) War On Drugs.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Salander
Before the fraud and sophistry of the Global War On Terror, there was that and more in the (Global) War On Drugs.



And now the war on air fresheners.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by jude11
 


I am just so pleased that there are such noble officials as Officer Ross that are sufficiently concerned about the well being of us ordinary citizens that have to negotiate the highways under threat of so many hazards caused by the inappropriate behaviour of other motorists.

Only one thing to say

and
reply to post by WormwoodSquirm
 


with 1.5 million views, hahahahaha

You got that right, Officer Ross will be man of the year.

OK, and and just in case - some ATSers may need access to this facility.

I guess it all boils down to how things are done. The authoritarian approach seems to require the least amount of ...........

edit on 6-7-2013 by KenArten because: fix link



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by whyamIhere
Gestapo type checkpoints...

"Show me your papers".

Dogs are just a ploy to obtain a phony warrant.

This should go viral....The kid still has rights.
edit on 5-7-2013 by whyamIhere because: punctuation



I question if that dog actually made a "hit", or not. Most drug dogs I've witnessed sit when they make a hit, not start scratching at the object. That cop wanted in that car, and his buddies made sure he did.

That's a scarey looking, aggressive bunch of good old boys in that town. That cop has aggression problems. It doesn't take Freud to see that.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 01:34 PM
link   
They don't need consent. They bend that law by saying they are exercising THEIR right to TELL you they have some reason to MAKE it a legal search. In court...that's all they need. Tell the judge they THOUGHT they MIGHT have seen an empty can or bottle of something in the back sticking out or something...and that gives them the RIGHT to call for dog. All that is how they do this. Law enforcement only needs to use THEIR right to feel a crime is committed, or that their MAY be contraband in the vehicle. They got us.

This absolutely can and does get tossed out of court by the judges...but...what does that matter? They still got us stopped...they still called the dog...and in the manner of Homeland Security...they were protecting us.
It will continue..

For all our constitutional rights...they have twice as many pseudo legal ways to "protect" us by breaking them...and those ways we give them as "law enforcement". And don't argue that they cant get away with that. Yes they can...and do. By the time all is said and done...and youre now free to go...they've already done it. And they win.

Remember too...you can refuse a breathylizer test on the spot...and they will tell you "fine"...then we are taking you in to do a blood test....and thats legal...and BECAUSE you are being takin in for testing...the dog has the right to sniff your car.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Helious
reply to post by Nephalim
 


Drug sniffing dogs have no place at DUI checkpoints. The Constitutional authority for these checkpoints that lawmakers have allowed for is paper thin and clear definitions of what the check point is for is how it is determined legal or not legal.

The grounds on which this person could sue and most likely win is that there was zero probable cause to have him pull over and impede his travel to begin with. The issue of the dog "alerting" is moot, there was no reason to stop and detain him in the first place because nobody asked him if he had been drinking at a DUI checkpoint.
edit on 5-7-2013 by Helious because: (no reason given)


Cop says "I smelled alcohol in the car". Impossible to verify, counts as probable cause. A cop used that one on me last year to search through my car. After saying I was driving irregularly as reason to pull me over.
edit on 6-7-2013 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Okeyd57

Originally posted by whyamIhere
Gestapo type checkpoints...

"Show me your papers".

Dogs are just a ploy to obtain a phony warrant.

This should go viral....The kid still has rights.
edit on 5-7-2013 by whyamIhere because: punctuation



I question if that dog actually made a "hit", or not. Most drug dogs I've witnessed sit when they make a hit, not start scratching at the object. That cop wanted in that car, and his buddies made sure he did.

That's a scarey looking, aggressive bunch of good old boys in that town. That cop has aggression problems. It doesn't take Freud to see that.


Some drug and cadaver dogs are excellent...

Most are just tools of intimidation and a way for judges and street cops to obtain a warrant.

These dogs do not testify. There are no universal alert responses.

Scent discrimination is very difficult to teach to even the smartest dogs.

To be proficient it takes constant and rigorous training.

I have trained dogs all of my life. Until they learn to speak.

They should not be used as a shield for illegal searches. With that said...

Dogs do belong in many jobs in LE. Just not as a way to violate our fundamental rights.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by jude11
 


i saw that this morning. its bullship.

I would think the best way to fight them would be to use there own tools against them. Use social media websites as an indicator on were the dui check points are.

Back before Facebook back when cell phones were stupid, and no one had time for their Myspace account my friends and I would use our cell phones and text were the dui check points were as to avoid them. Not because were were wanting to go out and drink and drive, but because we knew that cops are shady.

Now that everyone is on facebook and phones can communicate easier before should work together to not give a corporate goon the opportunity to take your money time and information
edit on 6-7-2013 by DocHolidaze because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by jude11
 



Did he give consent simply by stepping out of the vehicle? Is he even required to step out of the vehicle when asked? Well, ordered actually.

nope. consent to search must be either through a warrant, probable cause (that can be taken to court), or given by the owner.

he also didn't need to step out, as only lawfully given orders must be followed. that does not meant that they wouldn't attempt to remove him, however it gives strength to a case in court.

this is conditioning being carried out unknowingly by power hungry individuals.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 01:55 PM
link   
What a bunch of mindless tools. Don't these idiots know they are always on camera?



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 02:02 PM
link   
Next time or anytime that a cop pulls you over and asks if they can search your car, ask them for the court ordered Search warrant. Then will threaten you by saying "if you don't allow me to search your car, I will arrest you and put you in jail". Ask them again for the search warrant.

They can not search private property without a warrant. (unless you allow them).



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Thats nothing around my area police searching cars without consent and calling in the dogs without probable cause is a daily occurrence, honestly the only way i feel like you can get them to stop is by taking out ur phone and recording them but i havent heard of anyone either trying it or succeeding in it.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Found this, for what it is worth...



You have been pulled over at the side of the interstate for going 75mph in a 65mph zone. The weather is cold and unpleasant. The officer who pulled you over already has your license. Now he asks that you step out of your vehicle so he can pat you down.

You might wonder if you have to comply.

The BEST answer: Yes, you should get out of the car. You should tell him you do not consent to the search, but you should cooperate fully and not resist if he insists on patting you down.

The CORRECT answer: Yes, you must get out of the car. No, he’s not allowed to pat you down.

The WRONG reaction: Refuse to get out of the car or resist his attempts to pat you down.

The U.S. Supreme Court decided many years ago, in a case called Pennsylvania v. Mimms, that an officer may order someone who he has stopped for a traffic violation to get out of the car. Thus, you do not have a choice in the matter....
...
However, you will likely remember from other posts that a person is never entitled to resist a police officer. If the officer insists upon violating your rights and patting you down, you cannot resist him. All you can do is come to court later and assert a civil action or attempt to exclude any evidence the officer finds during the pat-down.

owenlawyers.com...



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Does it really matter whether it's legal or not? How many times has government (countless) done what it wants to do regardless of what the law is?

Drunk drivers are a future source of income as are terrorist. Both can be easily taken off the street. But let's face it - Government has an incurable appetite for money.

If our government really wanted to stop terrorism wouldn't they change their foreign policy? Whatever it is it can only be fixed at the source of the problem.



new topics

top topics



 
88
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join