The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 5, 2013, 11:51 AM   #1
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,985
DUI checkpoints: another example of how they can be abused

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/co...ui-checkpoint/

I hardly know where to start on this one. I can't think of anything remotely non-inflammatory regarding the conduct of this stop and apparently illegal search. Probable cause? Who needs it? We'll manufacture it with the assistance of a suitably trained K-9.
csmsss is offline  
Old July 5, 2013, 02:30 PM   #2
JN01
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2005
Location: SW Ohio
Posts: 494
I wonder how Officer Friendly would have reacted if the driver had been legally armed.
JN01 is offline  
Old July 5, 2013, 06:45 PM   #3
glh17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2013
Location: Middle TN
Posts: 160
Those guys have worked I-24 for years. Surprised the guy was not taken in on a drug charge.

Last edited by glh17; July 6, 2013 at 01:01 AM.
glh17 is offline  
Old July 5, 2013, 06:52 PM   #4
iraiam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2012
Location: Lakewood, CO
Posts: 864
Yep, That's why I built an automotive DVR with a few higher end IP cameras, I can video in and around my vehicle, while driving and stopped, and for a couple hours without the engine running. I haven't run into an officer who wants to violate my rights yet.
__________________
NRA Lifetime Member Since 1999

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials." George Mason
iraiam is offline  
Old July 5, 2013, 06:56 PM   #5
iraiam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2012
Location: Lakewood, CO
Posts: 864
Quote:
Those guys have worked I-24 for years. Surprised the guy was taken in on a drug charge.
I didn't get out of the video or the article that he was arrested on a drug charge.
__________________
NRA Lifetime Member Since 1999

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials." George Mason
iraiam is offline  
Old July 5, 2013, 07:58 PM   #6
PawPaw
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 24, 2010
Location: Central Louisiana
Posts: 3,108
You're just seeing one side of the story, and while it isn't complimentary to my brethren in blue, it's what passes these days for activism. Good for him. If he wants to roll up on DUI checkpoints with a camera rolling, then he should go for it.

I read the comments at the bottom of the linked page. Evidently, the kid didn't even file an AI complaint, he simply wanted to post a YouTube video telling his side of the story. Well, he did that, and like most YouTube videos, it isn't vetted, nor is it evidence. Without the complaint, it's nothing.

Were I the local sheriff, I'd probably investigate. I'd darn sure want to see the officer's report. Did the officer do anything wrong? I don't know, I've only seen one side of the story. Was the officer able to articulate his concerns? Were there exigent circumstances? Were they looking for a courier driving the same make/model/color of car?

Everyone at the linked page seems to be outraged. Okay, I get that, but I don't know the other side of the story. There are too many questions that are unanswered.
__________________
Dennis Dezendorf

http://pawpawshouse.blogspot.com
PawPaw is offline  
Old July 5, 2013, 08:10 PM   #7
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,985
Dunno about that. What I saw is an officer go into #1 hostile/aggressive mode once the citizen made it clear he knew the law and his rights. That officer clearly felt challenged by the citizen's knowledge, not by any presumed misconduct the driver had committed.

Remember that we as citizens are not entering these roadblocks because we desire the thrill of interacting with law enforcement. We're on our way home, or to work, or wherever, and pulled over with no probable cause to believe we've done anything illegal. So, if anyone needs to bite his tongue and be more tactful, politic and thick-skinned, it's the police officer, NOT the citizen.

Police officers work for the public, not the other way around. Public servants, as much as you may hate it, owe the citizens you work for the basics of courtesy, civility, and calm, rational behavior. The officer in this case went ballistic not because the citizen did anything wrong, but because he wasn't adequately submissive. That's totally unacceptable.

Oh, and by the way, what possible relevance do the Facebook comments below the video have to this discussion?
csmsss is offline  
Old July 5, 2013, 08:24 PM   #8
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,397
The one problem I have with the kid is his refusal to roll his window down a bit further.

It's a DUI checkpoint. It's not hard to imagine that the reason someone doesn't want to roll down their window is because they're drunk and don't want the officer to smell them.

Otherwise, don't answer questions if you don't want, all the rest of it is fine.

IMO, he clearly created the confrontation on purpose and probably expected that leaving the window up would get him the confrontation.

I'm not excusing the officers attitude, at all, nor to I excuse the well-known but no less wrong intentionally using the dog to bypass the consent to search but the kid should have rolled down his window. That's not an unreasonable request. If you want to roll down the window and state your rights, go ahead, but roll down the window.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old July 5, 2013, 11:16 PM   #9
dakota.potts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 25, 2013
Location: Saint Augustine, Florida
Posts: 1,083
Brian, although he maybe SHOULD have rolled it down, I don't think there's anything that can compel him to roll the window down. I think he has the right to keep his windows rolled up.
dakota.potts is offline  
Old July 6, 2013, 01:04 AM   #10
glh17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2013
Location: Middle TN
Posts: 160
iraiam,
I meant to say surprised he "was not" taken in on a drug charge. Went back and edited to include not.
glh17 is offline  
Old July 6, 2013, 01:42 AM   #11
allaroundhunter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 6, 2012
Location: Southeast Texas
Posts: 1,670
Re: DUI checkpoints: another example of how they can be abused

Quote:
Originally Posted by dakota.potts View Post
Brian, although he maybe SHOULD have rolled it down, I don't think there's anything that can compel him to roll the window down. I think he has the right to keep his windows rolled up.
At a border control checkpoint what do you think happens if an officer motions you to stop? You must interact with them, and it just makes it easier on everyone if you are polite. If you don't have anything to hide, then just be civil. I am sick and tired of people not even wanting to talk to police officers because they "know their rights". If you are arrested then yes, keep your mouth shut. But if it is a checkpoint then roll down your window, speak to the officers, and be on your way.

If any police officer motions for you to pull over, then do so. And expect to obey them. You don't have to, but then expect to be arrested for obstruction.
allaroundhunter is offline  
Old July 6, 2013, 02:24 AM   #12
dakota.potts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 25, 2013
Location: Saint Augustine, Florida
Posts: 1,083
Hunter, I respect your opinion and in all reality that is probably how I would handle a situation.

However, after complying with a stop, there should be no reason to ask a person to roll their window down past speaking distance. If you ask and that person decides to (as I might after an initial exchange with an officer), I would do so. On a tangent, I would also provide ID or at least verbally identify myself without detainment unless I had some reason not to. But it is within the rights of others not to.

If a cop suspects a person is behaving erratically, he or she may then have reasonable suspicion to ask the person to submit to a breathalyzer or other alcohol test. At this point I would think that person would have to submit or be arrested.

Likewise, if an officer saw a bunch of orange pill bottles with no labels on the floorboard, I think that should prove more than reasonable suspicion for a search to verify what the drugs are.

This kind of activism does make people more aware of their rights. It makes them draw a line in their mind. "I will talk to a cop and give identification but will not submit to any searches" "I will not provide any information without reasonable cause" etc. And when something happens in the future and the checkpoints progress to be more intrusive (as will happen due to human nature) they will be more aware of their rights and where to take a stand.

Consider many people would love a machine gun but don't think it's part of their right under the 2nd amendment and feel they will never be able to own one.

So too should many people enjoy their 4th and 5th amendment protections and be more aware of what they are afforded.

Comparing the 4th and 5th amendments to the 2nd once again, this is like open carrying an AK pistol in a Federal park with your hand on the grip and looking for a police officer. If you want to open carry an M249 for your protection because you legitimately believe it is your best bet, do so. Doing so for the point of posting a YouTube video and rallying a community is ill-advised and should be done very carefully. Likewise, if you want to enjoy your protection from unreasonable searches because you legitimately think it's in your best interest, do so.

Disclaimer: I haven't seen the video yet so I'm not protecting the guy in question, just a hypothetical person.
dakota.potts is offline  
Old July 6, 2013, 03:49 AM   #13
kxkid
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 17, 2011
Posts: 135
Re: DUI checkpoints: another example of how they can be abused

What most of you do not realize is that when a peace officer gives you a lawful order like roll your window down more you have to. The kid thinks he knows the law and got himself in trouble. I have delt with this being a police officer myself. Also there is no command for giving a "false alert" for a dog. I worked a lot hand in hand with my departments k9's, yes sometimes dogs do hit on cars that Dont have anything in them, usually there has been something in there. Just because he says he's had nothing in it, he does not know what his friends have brought in it. I have also had dogs hit on brand new cars that roll right off the show room. They are trained on orders and some drugs like meth and cocaine they use everyday cleaner products that we all have under our sinks and in our garages and cars. Yes the officer had a attitude but he's probably been dealing with people like this kid all night and is fed up with it, you forget they are human too and they have seen and dealt with things that you would never want to see or deal with or he just came from a accident where someone died because of a drunk.
kxkid is offline  
Old July 6, 2013, 05:01 AM   #14
Old Stony
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 31, 2013
Location: East Texas
Posts: 623
Sorry....you just can't excuse an officer for being rude or going beyond the bounds of normal police work by saying he might have been having a bad day. They are hired to do a job and the state of their liver should not enter into their performance. Police regularly overstep their bounds anymore as they do unnessary...and illegal searches... of people, and expect people to obey them as they would the word of god.
There is a situation anymore where the police basically do anything they want to meet their agenda and let the city paid attorneys sort it out. The poor citizen is left to hire their own attorney and go bankruptcy trying to defend themselves. There has been a barrage of lawsuits against city officers the past 20 yrs. or so...and some, though admittably not all of it, is justified.
Police work is a tough demanding job, but if a person can't handle the stress of it, they should be doing something else.
Old Stony is offline  
Old July 6, 2013, 08:56 AM   #15
BumbleBug
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 11, 2013
Location: Near Heart of Texas
Posts: 425
I pretty much suspect that the driver did this as a set-up. That is he set-up his camera, got prepared then drove to the check stop. He was lucky & got the result he was looking for without going to jail.

I feel like the police department itself should be doing these types of "set-up's". Watch what their officers are doing & correct bad police behavior & weed-out the officers that use the job to feed their egos.

I also have no doubt that a good handler can trigger a dog to give a false positive if he wants. It doesn't even have to be a verbal que. If this is a valid video, the officers have no excuse for there behavior, no matter what.
BumbleBug is offline  
Old July 6, 2013, 09:28 AM   #16
OuTcAsT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 1,167
kxkid wrote:
Quote:
What most of you do not realize is that when a peace officer gives you a lawful order like roll your window down more you have to.
The key word is "lawful". Care to cite any law that makes this particular order lawful ? Simply because a LEO gave the order ?

Quote:
Also there is no command for giving a "false alert" for a dog.
Really ? That depends on what constitutes an "alert" The dog in the video clearly is following a command.

Officers do not explain to you what the dog's reaction will be if he "alerts" on something so, anything could be considered a "hit".

This particular "checkpoint" has existed in that area for years and, pops up at random. I drive through this area regularly, had my entire truck searched for no reason other than the "alert" of a dog. They found nothing because, there was nothing to find. I filed a complaint but, nothing has changed.

Hopefully this video will cast some needed light on this "checkpoint".
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood

Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska -

Last edited by OuTcAsT; July 6, 2013 at 09:44 AM.
OuTcAsT is offline  
Old July 6, 2013, 09:34 AM   #17
David13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 2, 2012
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 243
I sure don't see that as 'activism'. Nor preserving and protecting any "rights".
I just see a stupid kid who wanted to play stupid games with the cops.
And so I guess he won a stupid prize.
dc
David13 is offline  
Old July 6, 2013, 09:54 AM   #18
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,397
As far as I can tell, "lawful order" means that the "order" is not requiring you to do something unlawful.

In other words, a LEO walks up and says "You! Go drag race down Main Street with that guy over there." Unlawful order because what you're ordered to do is unlawful.

"Roll down your window!" Rolling down windows is not unlawful. Therefore it is a "Lawful Order".

Agree or not that it should be that way, it appears to be, as far as I can tell.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old July 6, 2013, 10:38 AM   #19
OuTcAsT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 1,167
Quote:
As far as I can tell, "lawful order" means that the "order" is not requiring you to do something unlawful.
I don't find it to be quite so simplistic.

A "lawful order" has to be based on a legal precedent. In other words: It has to have a law that enumerates the power of the police to issue such an order to make it "lawful.
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood

Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska -
OuTcAsT is offline  
Old July 6, 2013, 10:50 AM   #20
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,397
Well, if you can point me to something that spells that out I'd happily agree but everything I've looked at indicates what I said above. I can't even find a single definition of "lawful order" in any penal code or other official place, despite the fact that the penal codes are filled with the phrase. Everything I read basically says that you must do what a LEO says to do unless the action ordered is itself unlawful. There are, of course, exceptions and specifics that have been clarified by courts but, generally speaking, it seems that a "Do this..." is a "lawful order".
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old July 6, 2013, 10:55 AM   #21
arch308
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 6, 2011
Location: DFW, Texas
Posts: 876
I wonder how it would have played out if the dude had just rolled down his window when told to. I got the feeling the kid was trying to **** the cop off and it worked. They generally don't like legal lessons from civilians in my expierence.
I don't think DUI checkpoints are right to begin with. The police are pulling people over and harrassing them without probable cause. I get that this is all Pollitically Correct but find it hard to believe it is legal, even thought it is done all the time all over the country.
When faced with one of these types of incidents I tend to just follow orders and get it over with. I have found that as long as you are doing nothing illegal and are courteous to the officers you are out of there pretty quick. I'd be willing to bet that cops don't care for this part of their job either.
arch308 is offline  
Old July 6, 2013, 11:21 AM   #22
teeroux
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 2006
Posts: 1,491
Quote:
The key word is "lawful". Care to cite any law that makes this particular order lawful ? Simply because a LEO gave the order ?
Well when you refuse to roll down your window at a D.W.I. check point so an officer can not plainly smell your person your well into reasonable suspision territory. At that point you have made yourself subject to terry stop rules.

Lesson is if you don't want to be treated like a d!(k don't act like one.
teeroux is offline  
Old July 6, 2013, 11:22 AM   #23
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,985
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1897

Michigan Dept. of State Police vs. Sitz is controlling in this case. SCOTUS held 6-3 that DUI or sobriety checkpoints are not unconstitutional if conducted within certain very specific guidelines. Whether you agree with this decision or not (I don't), it is the law of the land until SCOTUS determines otherwise.

That said, the fact that a sobriety or DUI checkpoint is presumably constitutional doesn't mean that 4A violations can't and don't occur - and here, in my opinion, that's exactly what does transpire.

There's also, in my opinion, a case to be made for tampering with evidence/obstruction of justice when the officer searching the vehicle tampers with the video camera.
csmsss is offline  
Old July 6, 2013, 01:07 PM   #24
glh17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2013
Location: Middle TN
Posts: 160
Here's an article from the local newspaper.

http://www.dnj.com/article/20130706/...video-go-viral

And, here's a related article from the same paper.

http://www.dnj.com/article/20130706/...ints-misguided
glh17 is offline  
Old July 6, 2013, 01:39 PM   #25
Koda94
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2012
Location: Oregon
Posts: 367
Quote:
Here's an article from the local newspaper.

http://www.dnj.com/article/20130706/...video-go-viral
based on that article, the fact that he was not charged means to me he was not required to roll the window down further. I don't see why the officer could not determine alcohol use with the window partially down... Kalbaugh's actions were clearly totally sober, in the video the officer admitted to knowing he was not breaking the law....

I have to side with those that feel this was a total violation of constitutional rights. I also agree that this kind of activism makes people more aware of their rights.
__________________
lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2
Koda94 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14004 seconds with 9 queries