A lesson in how to handle a DUI checkpoint

[RunninInGA]

When that "one more" is your child, aunt, sister brother, mom, dad etc you will probably feel differently. In my case it was my aunt who was killed by a drunk driver. So yes if I need to trade a few freedoms to save a loved ones life then count me in. If being asked simple questions by a LEO is really hindering your freedoms and making life here that miserable I hear Canada is nice this time of year.....

My aunt was killed a couple years ago by a drunk driver who was on drugs and in a stolen car. I have felt your pain first hand. I also appreciate the fact you feel comfortable enough to voice your thoughts and opinions freely....this is a great country isn't it? If it were not for our founding fathers and others vitally important in the initial organization of our government having great disdain for the British rule upon the American colonists, you might not have gotten the right to speak so freely.

I am fearful it is with your logic that my freedoms and liberties will be limited more and more in the future....just a little bit at a time. Although you and I disagree and you believe I should take my differing opinions elsewhere (Canada, eh), I stand firm in my assertions that you are entitled to your opinion just as I am entitled to mine and I will defend that right until I am no longer able (especially when one of us is right and the other is wrong). If you cannot do the same, perhaps it is you who doesn't deserve the rights and freedoms this country was based on.

 

[zstampe]

My aunt was killed a couple years ago by a drunk driver who was on drugs and in a stolen car. I have felt your pain first hand. I also appreciate the fact you feel comfortable enough to voice your thoughts and opinions freely....this is a great country isn't it? If it were not for our founding fathers and others vitally important in the initial organization of our government having great disdain for the British rule upon the American colonists, you might not have gotten the right to speak so freely.

I am fearful it is with your logic that my freedoms and liberties will be limited more and more in the future....just a little bit at a time. Although you and I disagree and you believe I should take my differing opinions elsewhere (Canada, eh), I stand firm in my assertions that you are entitled to your opinion just as I am entitled to mine and I will defend that right until I am no longer able (especially when one of us is right and the other is wrong). If you cannot do the same, perhaps it is you who doesn't deserve the rights and freedoms this country was based on.

For starters.....DO NOT MOVE TO CANADA!!! Their milk comes in bags....seriously....look it up. :wink2:

As far as freedom of speech goes I don't get the same luxuries that you do honestly. I'm a LEO and there has been many times that I wanted to say what was on my mind to someone on a call or a wreck involving an impaired driver. I enjoy having these liberties when i'm not on duty but that's not important in this discussion.

My logic is that of a LEO. My job is hard enough without having do deal with a smartass kid and a camera that wants to make be famous on youtube. One of those freedoms that I'm ok with going without is the whole checkpoint system in general. In the state of Kansas the checkpoints have to be advertised as to where their location will be. Let that sink in......that means the dipshit drunk drivers have an opportunity to avoid these. If you find yourself in one and are uncooperative you should read my response a few posts back saying that I probably would have let this kid go. Was what the officer did unethical? Sure. But the basis of these checkpoints is for the greater good of society and if we aren't doing checkpoints we will find impaired drivers anyway and they will be arrested. I think this thread has gotten off topic enough now that we are talking about defending our freedoms and the 4th amendment etc etc.

 

[RunninInGA]

For starters.....DO NOT MOVE TO CANADA!!! Their milk comes in bags....seriously....look it up. :wink2:

As far as freedom of speech goes I don't get the same luxuries that you do honestly. I'm a LEO and there has been many times that I wanted to say what was on my mind to someone on a call or a wreck involving an impaired driver. I enjoy having these liberties when i'm not on duty but that's not important in this discussion.

My logic is that of a LEO. My job is hard enough without having do deal with a smartass kid and a camera that wants to make be famous on youtube. One of those freedoms that I'm ok with going without is the whole checkpoint system in general. In the state of Kansas the checkpoints have to be advertised as to where their location will be. Let that sink in......that means the dipshit drunk drivers have an opportunity to avoid these. If you find yourself in one and are uncooperative you should read my response a few posts back saying that I probably would have let this kid go. Was what the officer did unethical? Sure. But the basis of these checkpoints is for the greater good of society and if we aren't doing checkpoints we will find impaired drivers anyway and they will be arrested. I think this thread has gotten off topic enough now that we are talking about defending our freedoms and the 4th amendment etc etc.

Haha - you haven't read the first 15 pages have you!!!!!

I certainly understand where you're coming from as an LEO and I don't disagree that these guys are being asshats and that there are other ways of accomplishing what these guys think they're accomplishing. That said, I do not believe you become more secure by allowing someone to manipulate the mechanism that guarantees your security.

 

[ddnww]

Giving away a little bit of control/freedom in the public interest is being a good citizen imo.

but if you give up a little bit ever couple years or so.. in 20 or 30 years you don't have much left.

 

[alaskaman]

Define "little bit." That's a large part of the problem as I see it. A lot of what we do in this country for the most part is based on some precedent or another. If you give "just a little" here, you'll be expected to give "just a little" over there too. Before long, you've nickel and dime-d all your freedoms and rights away. All we need is "just a little" more and we can save one more child or one more driver or one more fill in the blank.

When and where does it stop? Nowhere if we continue to give "just a little" more.

Rolling down one's window and answering a few questions honestly.

 

[alaskaman]

At least to me I think every man knows exactly where the line is. We feel it in our gut. Power unchecked and backed by the force of the gun is fascism. There is a point to be made at a DUI checkpoint for asserting your rights to be free from unreasonable search. That said, the value of participating in a societal goal of preventing crashes which kill is far more than reasonable. It's not the time or the place to assert one's rights IMHO or to challenge what is legitmate authority. There are plenty of times to do that in our world. We have choices and any person who has worked, raised a child, or been married knows when to pick your battles. It is a key element of being an adult.

Soapbox to down position.

 

[JB.]

One problem is systems that get put into place and then don't go away when the original reason no longer exists.

It won't be very long (or shouldn't be from a tech standpoint) that self-driving vehicles make DUI checkpoints irrelevant. But does anyone think those law enforcement resources that were used will just go away? Like it or not, law enforcement is an industry and like any industry, it seeks to grow.

And how many people get a little uncomfortable contemplating self-driving cars? Yeah, I'm not ready to give up the fun and control of driving either, but it makes absolutely no sense to feel that way IF one is as concerned about traffic safety as people purport to be. Sure, it's a conflict. One of the most descriptive phrases I've ever heard is homo hypoctritus.

So, who is eager and ready to hand vehicle control over to a computer and start really saving lives? Yeah, me neither and there's no getting around the hypocritical nature of that attitude.

 

[shadow247]

Out of curiosity, how many of you guys rooting for expressing your rights ever stop to think about if you are expressing it to the correct people and in a meaningful way? I understand that the officers on site are the one violating your rights, but most of these checkpoints are not there because those particular officers woke up that day and decided to go and setup said checkpoint. The checkpoints are more than likely organized by higher ups, and the officers there are just doing their jobs, or at least trying to. Making an example out of the offending officer and giving them hard time would not likely result in them not performing checkpoints in the future since they probably don't have much say in that to begin with. As an unbiased bystander, it would appear that one would be barking up the wrong tree.

Now guys, I truly mean this as an honest question, and I don't mean to come off as attacking those in favor; nor come off as supporting those not in favor. After reading the comments in this entire thread, I am at a 50/50 standstill on how I feel. On the one hand, I agree that protecting one's rights should be a given; but on the other hand, I personally don't really mind giving up a little bit for safety's sake, so to speak.

Just want to hear some honest opinions (and maybe also keep this thread on track )

I lose it at "They are just doing their jobs". It is MY job as a citizen to inform an agent of the state when my rights are being violated. I never intend to make a police officer's job "difficult" but I sure as heck won't just lay down and submit to unreasonable searches and all that. In my mind, and that of many State Supreme Court judges, checkpoints are a clear violation of your 4th amendment rights. I find the very idea of being forced to stop and produce my papers when I am not suspected of any specific crime repulsive at it's core.

 

[RunninInGA]

I came across these on another forum and thought they were worthy of posting here given the Independence Day video with the young guy whose car was searched after questionable alerts were given from a K9 and potentially coerced by the handler. The thread I took this from questions the use of K9s as a way to circumvent search protocol.

This article suggests nothing is found in 56% of searches where a K9 is involved. It further states that when a Latino is searched, the number escalates to around 70%. That's pretty startling.

Onswipe

The next link references some of the same information as the first, but goes into interesting detail with regards to the handler's affects on the K9s false positive ratio.

Handlers? beliefs influence drug-sniffing dogs? performance | Tails Of The City | an SFGate.com blog

 

[Drcoffee]

Rolling down one's window and answering a few questions honestly.

YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS. The LEO is on a fishing expedition. You may think you are being helpful by answering the innocent questions but if you don't answer correctly in the LEOs mind you have committed a crime by lying to a police officer. That is a crime even if it was unintentional. Now you give the LEO probable cause and end up getting a cavity search on the roadside. Have you seen the video of the two women in TX getting a cavity search on the roadside by a "professional" female cop who went into both cavities in both women without changing gloves???
Say nothing to the police. You can only hurt yourself, not help. The answer to do you know why (fill in the blank) is always No. Otherwise its an admission of guilt. Case closed.

See below for a link to a video on this topic. Its a game they play and you cant win. You do not have to answer their questions. But don't be a smart ass either.

Don't talk to the police

two women get cavity search roadside in TX

 

[zstampe]

At least to me I think every man knows exactly where the line is. We feel it in our gut. Power unchecked and backed by the force of the gun is fascism. There is a point to be made at a DUI checkpoint for asserting your rights to be free from unreasonable search. That said, the value of participating in a societal goal of preventing crashes which kill is far more than reasonable. It's not the time or the place to assert one's rights IMHO or to challenge what is legitmate authority. There are plenty of times to do that in our world. We have choices and any person who has worked, raised a child, or been married knows when to pick your battles. It is a key element of being an adult.

Soapbox to down position.

I don't think anyone could have said that better.

One thing we were taught at police academy is whenever you get "hot feet" it means you are doing something unethical and that's the point you stop. Like you said, every person feels that point in their gut.