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

reply to post by jude11

Damned if you do and Damned if you don't huh? I have posted many vids like this where it was blatantly clear rights were being violated but this one is just a puzzler for me. Since he left his car willingly does that now give them the right to search the vehicle? Might that be a factor? Peace

No, he did not give consent and at least to me the video illustrates quite clearly that the K9 handler issued a false alert gesture on the driver side window, that however is just my opinion. He in no way gave up any of his rights by exiting the vehicle and if he had not exited when told to do so I can promise you he would have ended up in handcuffs for obstruction. The legality of that is questionable at best but again, you would have to fight that in court and expect to pay around 5 thousand dollars in bail, impound fees and legal costs.

Asserting your rights is expensive because the legal system we currently have does not allow for the proper consequences regarding officers who display gross negligence in their duties outside of civil recourse. Guess who pays when you win the case? You and your neighbors in the community through taxes.

Criminal penalties and individual responsibility for officers would fix these sort of issues and are long overdue.

Consent to allowing my self or my property to be searched. Hell no

I am retired and have all the time in the world so why not waste the officers time by having him get a search warrant.

By the way I have seen a DUI check point in calif where they had a judge on site to sign search warrants

Thanks to all so far.

This is something that everyone should be questioning IMO.

I'm sure that many of your answers here will help others.

Peace

reply to post by jude11

There's a very good question Jude.. legal doesn't have to mean lawful.
Bumped by the way.

It looks like Implied Consent before you can even get into a public party.
Here was a nice shot from Yahoo News on my dashboard yesterday:
wow she looks dangerous.

I'd be livid right now if I wasn't more flouridated than a family sized tube of Crest

you know the system is not going to get any better.. I mean these cops did an illegal search, harassed a citizen because he asked questions and said NO...


Oh and this is the way cops act around my neck of the woods...

that video needs to find itself into the hands of a civil rights lawyer, or hate to say it, the ACLU..


That is bullcrap..

Originally posted by Bicent76
you know the system is not going to get any better.. I mean these cops did an illegal search, harassed a citizen because he asked questions and said NO...


Oh and this is the way cops act around my neck of the woods...

that video needs to find itself into the hands of a civil rights lawyer, or hate to say it, the ACLU..


That is bullcrap..

edit on 5-7-2013 by Bicent76 because: (no reason given)

I know that it's been seen many times before when someone just casually states their rights and a cop goes out of their way to bully, intimidate into submitting to demands.

So it seems that the common feeling in the thread is to quietly and respectfully assert your rights and then go to court later. This is done out of fear tho isn't it?

Fear of getting assaulted by the cop or worse. Fear of planted evidence and made-up charges...which we all know happens more often these days it seems.

So the choice seems to be...either submit to illegal actions on the part of law enforcement only to incur court costs to fight it and more which many cannot afford, or live in fear if you don't.

Not much of a choice is it?

Peace

reply to post by jude11


yea, and we have already seen them in BOSTON, go door to door, and search homes illegally!

so perhaps there will come a time, when we try to stay outta a bad position and cannot, because they will be kicking our doors in.. I mean this was someone's car, these yahoo's have the attitude where they would have there dog sniff around our house and say the dog smelled something in a window, and barge into our HOMES!!

I dunno bout you guys, but I am not gonna put up with that crap...

I am getting tired of seeing these YAHOO'S, treating us like the enemy... We are citizens...

reply to post by jude11


Driving while intoxed is not legal. That's for damn sure. So what you got there is likely a high rate of DUI or DWI happening over time and the local police responding with a checkpoint at times when dui/dwi is most likely. During celebration.

Originally posted by Nephalim
reply to post by jude11

 

Driving while intoxed is not legal. That's for damn sure. So what you got there is likely a high rate of DUI or DWI happening over time and the local police responding with a checkpoint at times when dui/dwi is most likely. During celebration.

Possible

Except in this case he wasn't asked if he was drinking nor was he asked to take a breathalyzer test.

That seems strange for a DUI check point IMO.

Peace

Originally posted by Rikku
"is this legal?"
probably yes.
but if not sure, ask in a internet forum.

what is the problem?

Its call a rhetorical question to generate dialogue.

And no it is not, but they still get away with it.

My question would be who do I send the paint and dent repairs to? That is a big dog and it would have dented my hood. It is funny how the cops openly say "he knows his constitution" as they break it without any concerns. They did the whole dog routine and search because they were pissed he would not follow all their unconstitutional requests.

Boy it must really piss cops off who typically expect everyone do anything they want as they feed their power trips. Dance MO FO Dance!!!

Icing on the cake..... "It was a DUI check point and they never asked me if I was drinking".....end of story there.


In your best German accent say "Give me your papers!!"

You see Rikku we are not required by the Constitution to give papers just to check.

Originally posted by jude11
My only question is...Is this legal? I sure as hell hope not.

Of course it's not legal, but since when have these guys followed the law, they make up the law as they go. They are there to protect and serve.. To protect and serve the corporations, and in order to do this, they have to keep the prisons full and the money rolling in.

Originally posted by Nephalim

Driving while intoxed is not legal. That's for damn sure. So what you got there is likely a high rate of DUI or DWI happening over time and the local police responding with a checkpoint at times when dui/dwi is most likely. During celebration.

Good, but still an unconstitutional stop if they do anything past talking to him without anything else to go on. By your logic I think they should do unwarranted house to house searches in Chicago looking for illegal guns since there is a lot of murders there by guns.

reply to post by jude11


Yea probably. But the guy is siting the fourth amendment there when the law actually works two ways.
If you're DWI you are a "danger to the public." You may have it in your mind that youre not out to harm someone, but just being drunk on the road creates the potential. By removing a drunk driver from the road the officer ensures the right of the people to be safe in their person, effects and homes. Thats how that one works ya see. lol odd I know.

as to methods, An officer would have no way of knowing whether or not you were dui unless they "checked." a check begins with a visual observation of the vehicles movements and the condition of the person behind the wheel who is in control of the vehicle. Followed by the stop, questioning, and a search if necessary based on all of that.

The cops will tell you hey, just comply and get your ass down the road. Start some mess and youre going to jail and they use "obstruction" to determine whether or not your preventing them from doing their job which is what, protecting the public. O.o

I hate checkpoints too. I think theyre a danger to police and the public, but I also understand why theyre there. and its because some stupid ahole cant understand that dwi's result in death. So if you want to be upset, thats what the public should be upset about. The very fact that this bs has to happen in the first place.

Just my two on it.

First, without probable cause there should be no search. At least that is how it is in my state. Refuse if feel you can.

Something I am curious as to is his action of only cracking his window when asked to roll it down. I wonder if that made the officer suspicious. It is not unusual for most people to speak through the fully open window. I would not start off a stop doing that as I imagine that just going to get the officer suspicious and to have more attitude. Pick you battles. It's a game both sides can play.

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.

Originally posted by roadgravel
First, without probable cause there should be no search. At least that is how it is in my state. Refuse if feel you can.

Something I am curious as to is his action of only cracking his window when asked to roll it down. I wonder if that made the officer suspicious. It is not unusual for most people to speak through the fully open window. I would not start off a stop doing that as I imagine that just going to get the officer suspicious and to have more attitude. Pick you battles. It's a game both sides can play.

Probable cause can likely be determined by the number the dwi's in the area, especially during holidays. If a state has this many issues with dwi's, they're probably right to do this.

Originally posted by roadgravel
First, without probable cause there should be no search. At least that is how it is in my state. Refuse if feel you can.

Something I am curious as to is his action of only cracking his window when asked to roll it down. I wonder if that made the officer suspicious. It is not unusual for most people to speak through the fully open window. I would not start off a stop doing that as I imagine that just going to get the officer suspicious and to have more attitude. Pick you battles. It's a game both sides can play.

Well, if you roll your window down it allows them the ability to search. Kind of like leaving your front door open at your house and they happen to walk up to it. In this case you should leave it cracked a few inches and when you get out lock your doors. If not they are going to pull you over to the side and then search your car when you can't see them do it.

BTW what right did that cop have touching the camera. That is private property in the guys car and I don't see how that plays into a drug search.

Originally posted by Freezer

Originally posted by jude11
My only question is...Is this legal? I sure as hell hope not.

Of course it's not legal, but since when have these guys followed the law, they make up the law as they go. They are there to protect and serve.. To protect and serve the corporations, and in order to do this, they have to keep the prisons full and the money rolling in.

I always assumed this was not legal but the reason I ask now is that it just seems to be happening more and more with no sign of change.

So I started to think that maybe the cops have been given more powers due to some Patriot Act mumbo jumbo and this would be the reason that it is happening more and more.

But as I've learned here, it's not from actual law but rather fear, apathy etc that keeps the practice alive and well.

I was thinking that it was a new law that people gave up the fight for or perhaps are even in the process of challenging, rather than it still being illegal and no one doing anything about it.

As long as the people submit they really don't have to pass any new laws or give cops more rights tho, do they?

Peace

In Florida they decided if they block a road and check every one they did not infringe on any one persons civil liberties. If they do it in mass they have the right but not if they single out a single person.

I just saw this video from another source and saw this thread. The guy in this video handled himself very well IMO. He was respectful and knew his rights and the law. The more people that call these public servants out on their illegal and unconstitutional actions the better.

I am really surprised the video made it out of the situation. They knew they were screwed the moment the one LEO saw the camera and pointed it out to the other. Right after stating the person they were searching was innocent and knew his rights.

I hope whatever state that was takes a good long look at the officers involved in that checkpoint, and its policies for future checkpoints because people are waking up and they wont get away with this kind of crap for much longer.

DC