View Single Post
Old July 8, 2013, 10:00 AM   #58
Glenn Dee
Senior Member
Join Date: September 9, 2009
Location: South Florida
Posts: 1,560
In my opinion the driver was correct, and the police were wrong. After all it was a DUI check point. Never did the Officer's suggest the driver may have been intoxicated. A clear case of the police using a DUI checkpoint to allow for a fishing expidition. Wrong as two left feet. Never did the Officer request a drivers license, registration, or proof of insurance. Any or all would have been reasonable, and the driver would have had to produce these documents. Never did the officer ask if the driver had used alcohol, or other intoxicants. Refusal to answer this question would have given the Officers (in most states) the option of field intox test. Refusal of that may have resulted in an arrest. In the vidio it seems the police were focused from the beginning on searching the car...

My department used very similar enforcement tools. We call them "SAFETY CHECK POINTS" We'd pull every fifth car into a staging area and do a safety check of the vehical. Most of the violations were "Uninsured vehical" Next was "Unlicensed Operator" , then unregistered, uninspected, and forged inspection sticker. We'd get a few intox also. We did clear a lot of outstanding warrants. Using the number of every 5th car we were able to maintain some degree of random. All vehical documentation, and all license documentation was demanded, but any other information was by request. If a passenger refused to give his or her name... That was the end of it.
Glenn Dee is offline  
Page generated in 0.03079 seconds with 8 queries