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

reply to post by jude11

Originally posted by links234
I couldn't get farther than:
"Roll your window down for me."
"This is fine."

Immediately disrespecting the officer. Then giving the officer probable cause. Windows not down, can't see the eyes and can't smell any strong scent of alcohol on the breath. Can't easily see any possible weapons in the

The video wouldn't even need to exist if he would have just rolled down his window.

As for the bits I've read about ID being asked for: If you're operating a motor vehicle on a public road the officers have every right to check your driver's license. Most people only have a driver's license as a form of photo ID.

His 'rights' were being violated for the security of others. Not because he's special but because their job is the protection of the public, not the individual. Another libertarian mobfest has already ensued.

This sentiment is very silly. This checkpoint is but one spot in a huge state in an even bigger nation. If you decide that individual rights can and should be violated in exchange for the false promise of some sort of public safety then you are either not American or have lost your perception of what it actually is to be free.

The world is a scary place, danger is all around and every time you step out your door could be your last. Truly free people decide, assess and plan for that risk the best way they see fit to live their lives the way they want too. People who live in totalitarian dictatorships let the government decide those things for them.

These checkpoints are used to generate revenue and promote an agenda of acceptance to what will come later when the TSA moves to train stations, bus terminals and eventually the highway as has been stated to be the ultimate goal. The government on any level cares nothing about your personal safety, they only commit acts of tyranny under that guise.

reply to post by Nephalim


Personally (strictly), I'd be OK with being stopped everyday at a check point if it meant that it was another person not getting behind the wheel drunk. At the very least, stopping another person stopped from killing themselves or someone else because they're drunk.

Originally posted by Nephalim
But what do you do about the drunk drivers?

Doing a quick Google check for example, one check point stopped 1700 cars and got 2 DUI arrests, but they also got 19 people without a driver license (mostly illegal aliens) , 7 with suspended ones, and a number of wanted people.

I remember when I was a kid they had check points that forced the cars to weave around some cones and if a driver hit one they were checked, but today it seems your guilty until proven innocent.

To answer your question, you can't stop stupid, or even slow it down, but you also can't assume everyone is drunk either.

reply to post by defcon5

They can also enact “no refusal” checkpoints. These are checkpoints where a judge is standing by to write warrants requiring that you submit to their testing, even blood draws, so you cannot refuse to take the tests.

Wow!

That's even more terrifying than the vid.

No refusal means no rights...and a judge is complicit in the action.


Peace

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by jude11

 

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

DUI checkpoints have to be advertised in advance, as well as their exact procedure for pulling people over.

Is it legal? According to the supreme court, yes it is.

What is not legal is if they alter the procedure from what was advertised. So if they advertise that they will be pulling over every 3rd car, and they start being lazy and pulling over 3 cars at a time, if you can show this in court, everything gets thrown out.

Dogs are completely legal to use as they can do a search without entering the property, and if they alert it gives the officer has instant reasonable suspicion to further investigate. This is why dogs are used in the first place.

They can also enact “no refusal” checkpoints. These are checkpoints where a judge is standing by to write warrants requiring that you submit to their testing, even blood draws, so you cannot refuse to take the tests.

You contractually agree to submit to a DUI check, and waive your constitutional rights, as part of the process of getting a Drivers License.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

edit on 7/5/2013 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)

Much of what you said is decided on a state by state basis. Some states require notification by sign and some do not. Checkpoints are not legal in any fashion in some states. The instances where judges are present to issue warrants for blood on the spot are rare but extremely disturbing, I have seen the methods they use to do this and I can't believe it's America when I watch it happen.

While driving in America, you do have certain obligations but I challenge the statement of waiving any Constitutional rights upon applying for a drivers license, I strongly do not agree that this is the case.

reply to post by jude11

The Constitution says:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Which means that because you contractually submit to being stopped by law enforement as part of getting a license, if they have sufficiant probable cause during that stop, and a judge issues a warrant, you must submit to any search that the judge requires.

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by jude11

 

The Constitution says:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Which means that because you contractually submit to being stopped by law enforement as part of getting a license, if they have sufficiant probable cause during that stop, and a judge issues a warrant, you must submit to any search that the judge requires.

What is happening though in this case is that the judge that is present on the scene is deciding that there IS probable cause to issue such a warrant. As ridiculous as I deem it to be, no rights are being given up by the individual, the judge is determining that there is probable cause and then a search is conducted.

Originally posted by Helious
Excellent post. This is exactly what is needed because as of now, there is no such records that indicate to anyone how many times any specific animal is right or wrong. All that is logged is training that is given and a handlers "score card" that relates to overall performance.

I would say under strict record keeping that should absolutely have to be done, if the dog falls under 95% then he is dismissed from service and even then 5% of Americans having their rights violated because of an animal still quite frankly disgusts me.

That "hit" where the cop tapped the window and gave a command and the dog jumped against the window quickly is not a "hit". I been around a lot of drug dogs and the ones I have seen have very specific moves if they do get a "hit".

I seen some sit quietly on a hit as example. A German Shepard that jumps around being normally high strung and jumps around a car and is called a "Hit" is something I would love to see in court.

Originally posted by links234
I couldn't get farther than:
"Roll your window down for me."
"This is fine."

Immediately disrespecting the officer.

Wait. Who's disrespecting who in this situation? The driver was arbitrarily and forcibly stopped, then harassed, intimidated, and searched after the cop's sociopathic ego was offended.

reply to post by Helious


I don't think it's silly at all. I also don't think a DUI checkpoint is a false pretense of public safety. If you want to get into the wishy-washy arguments on individual freedom; I don't believe in a high level of individual freedom on public roadways.

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by Helious
Excellent post. This is exactly what is needed because as of now, there is no such records that indicate to anyone how many times any specific animal is right or wrong. All that is logged is training that is given and a handlers "score card" that relates to overall performance.

I would say under strict record keeping that should absolutely have to be done, if the dog falls under 95% then he is dismissed from service and even then 5% of Americans having their rights violated because of an animal still quite frankly disgusts me.

That "hit" where the cop tapped the window and gave a command and the dog jumped against the window quickly is not a "hit". I been around a lot of drug dogs and the ones I have seen have very specific moves if they do get a "hit".

I seen some sit quietly on a hit as example. A German Shepard that jumps around being normally high strung and jumps around a car and is called a "Hit" is something I would love to see in court.

It most certainly wasn't a hit, in most cases a K9 that has been trained to seek drugs, will either sit and remain very calm during a "hit" or he will "scratch" with one paw. Neither of those things can be witnessed in the video in question, all that can be seen is that the handler taps the glass and dog jumps up in response and his paws and subsequently his claws make contact with the window.

The officer clearly admits it wasn't a "strong hit" and then goes on to berate the citizen by saying,....... "yeah, hes completely innocent and he knows his rights". Criminal conduct by uniformed officers.

Originally posted by defcon5
Which means that because you contractually submit to being stopped by law enforement as part of getting a license, if they have sufficiant probable cause during that stop, and a judge issues a warrant, you must submit to any search that the judge requires.

So lets say this happens and they find nothing at all in your car and you read zero on the blood test etc... In the mean time they have detained you too, so this kind of goes back to the drug dog that can do fake "hits" to get around the constitution, in the end they had zero probable cause since there was actually nothing probable at all, nothing, so what can one do?

reply to post by links234

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by Helious

 

I don't think it's silly at all. I also don't think a DUI checkpoint is a false pretense of public safety. If you want to get into the wishy-washy arguments on individual freedom; I don't believe in a high level of individual freedom on public roadways.

And I guess the NSA spying is all good because they are doing it to every one. You don't expect privacy on the information highway do you?

Originally posted by jude11

Originally posted by Nephalim
reply to post by Bicent76

 

Hey I agree, you guys should really look at what ive said. But what do you do about the drunk drivers? Just because you dont like the checkpoints and may collectively have a say in whether theyre done or not, doesnt mean the drunks just magically go away too.

would you have your dwi laws taken out? Thats going to be very tough to do when they start pulling up statistics and gory images and saying, now you see why were doing dwi checkpoints?

I get your point but if the driver is not asked about alcohol nor subjected to testing for alcohol, has his personal property invaded, is it truly a DUI check point?

DUI stops are perhaps a necessary evil but when the cops act outside of the law and SOP for a DUI check, then it is no longer anything but a Gestapo Check Point. IMO

Peace

Maybe what I highlighted in bold was the obstruction? Im not sure. If the cop never got the chance to ask because the guy was incooperative? O.o I dont know. Only the officer would know. But I would say if at any time the officer said dwi/dui checkpoint, the person stopped would understand. This is the intended purpose of the check right? See most people they come to the stops and they dont make a big deal, so the few who do, well its likely seen as out of place right? Odd to some. why is this guy making an issue over a checkpoint if hes not drunk? lol For a cop, theyre probably just pissed because youre creating issue, when in their minds, its no big deal, no issue UNLESS youre drunk.

The problem for the public is the innocence. "If im not drunk nor have I committed any crime, leave me the hell alone", and its understandable. A likely opinion shared by everyone. The second problem is, if youre not drunk and no issues/evidence are found, the police then dont appear in the brightest of light, because the person is innocent and detained for what? On the chance that he is drunk? See how that works? I dont envy officers of their job, nor anyone dealing with this sort of issue. Just being honest there. Looks like it sucks all the way around.

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by Helious

 

I don't think it's silly at all. I also don't think a DUI checkpoint is a false pretense of public safety. If you want to get into the wishy-washy arguments on individual freedom; I don't believe in a high level of individual freedom on public roadways.

Fortunately for me, you didn't frame the Constitution nor do you get to decide how much your opinion of personal freedom and it's merit affects my rights as an American. If you would like to feel safer on public roadways, stop driving on them. Calling for other Americans to have there rights violated so you can feel safer is quite frankly offensive to my patriotic sentiment.

And where does it end? Is there a line? How about individual freedom on public sidewalks, parks, malls, stores, perhaps your own lawn? Where is it acceptable to have freedom that doesn't scare you?

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by jude11

 

The Constitution says:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Which means that because you contractually submit to being stopped by law enforement as part of getting a license, if they have sufficiant probable cause during that stop, and a judge issues a warrant, you must submit to any search that the judge requires.

Ok,

So, for the sake of the video...what was probable cause here? On this point I'm confused.

I have seen other vids where a person asserts their rights, asks if they are being detained and for what reason.

They don't roll down their windows all the way and some even refuse to show their license.

The cops seem to know that they are overstepping and let them go.

What is it about this case that's any different?



Peace

Originally posted by Helious
The instances where judges are present to issue warrants for blood on the spot are rare but extremely disturbing, I have seen the methods they use to do this and I can't believe it's America when I watch it happen.

You want disturbing? Replace the cops with soldiers and the judge with a Gestapo agent type as authority...

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by Helious
The instances where judges are present to issue warrants for blood on the spot are rare but extremely disturbing, I have seen the methods they use to do this and I can't believe it's America when I watch it happen.

You want disturbing? Replace the cops with soldiers and the judge with a Gestapo agent type as authority...

Well, you and I both know thats coming brother. It might sound incredible and silly to some people now, I wonder how incredible it will sound 5 years from now if something isn't done and done soon.

reply to post by Xtrozero

in the end they had zero probable cause since you there was actually nothing probable at all, nothing, so what does one do?

Apparently suck it up. As Defcon pointed out when you get your license it's a contract and you have to submit to some things.

The dog thing bothers me. Those dogs are incredibly smart and sensitive to their handlers. I don't doubt for a second that many are trained to alert with a covert command. I've seen videos (I'm sure most have too) of dogs that are trained to do 'math' and will tap their paw when given a TINY signal by the owner. So someone gives a tiny bit of lip, oh no the dog found coc aine! Let's rip this car apart!

I'm all for harsh penalties for drunk drivers, but I'm not comfortable with random stops (even if previously posted, only the people driving by that are alert and pass the new checkpoint frequently will know).