A lesson in how to handle a DUI checkpoint
- Thread starter RunninInGA
- Start date
hearno
Senior Member
I never said you did. I said RS or PC was needed for a WARRANTLESS stop of a person. Read more closely I guess.
RunninInGA
New member
I lol'd.
RandyDaytona
New member
10-4. Well, if the guy really did have the dog "fake" an alert on the vehicle (and I'm not a k9 guy, so I don't know), then he essentially fabricated his own probable cause. That's a big-time no-no. That's no different than me swearing out an affidavit for a search warrant and telling the judge - under oath - that my probable cause is X and Y when neither ever occurred.
RandyDaytona
New member
There are some different rules for border checkpoints. Not exactly sure what they are today, but back in the day, you didn't need probable cause if you were within so many miles of the border or at an international airport - kinda like when entering a military base, where everyone is subject to a search.
Edited to add this - here you go. Border Search Exceptions. No warrant necessary.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/b/border-search-exception/
Last edited:
RandyDaytona
New member
One reason you might be asked to step out of their vehicle is that it can be a safety issue. That's usually when the officer either can't see into the vehicle clearly enough or when he or she just wants to see your hands and body language. Not to mention the fact that people tend to be more at ease if you converse with them on more of a one-on-one basis (instead of the typical officer "looming" over someone seated in their car).
Um...yeah; the inevitable link to an officer doing something wrong. Do you really want to go there? Because I can find MANY more instances where citizens did stupid/heinous things to one another or committed crimes than you can find of "bad" cops. Guaranteed.
It'd also be nice if you were fair enough to take into account that for every "bad" officer, there are thousands who do everything the right way, every shift, every day. Not to mention many who are putting themselves at risk to do it. But since opinions about law enforcement are so polarized (usually because, as a society, we're generally ignorant about what cops do and why), the entire profession is on the skyline, 24/7. So we find a "bad" cop example - usually with some media-painted drama attached to it - and point fingers.
Last edited:
Thai
Elite Member
That kind of argument can be said about the likelihood of CHL (conceal handgun license) folks committing crimes. You were so quick to point out the "bad" CHL owners...yet, don't like it when the argument turns back on you? Hmmmm...if you don't like it, then don't dish it out.
zstampe
New member
I get the 4th amendment argument. What I'm saying is that the laws governing traffic stops and checkpoints are a little different hence why the checkpoint issues has been brought before the supreme court.
I'm not here to start a pissing match with you as I've enjoyed your posts (the drowned 4runner story comes to mind) and contributions to this forum. I'm just saying its easy to armchair quarterback things when you aren't a LEO and know some of the things we deal with daily.
Yes there are bad cops out there, but there are also bad doctors, fireman, teachers, clergy etc etc.
zstampe
New member
Lol no worries aha. Your sarcasm meter must've been broken when you read my response. Good to be here too, now I nees to find myself a 5th gen and start posting 4r related stuff again ha ha. :beer:
blue dog
New member
anyone been to New york since 9/11 It is illegal to have pocket knife that the blade locks in any way, they also consider any knife that can be opened with one hand a gravity knife, Gravity Knives are illegal in Manhatten and subject to seizure along with being arrested. This includes those folding drywall type knives that use a razor blade like found at home deport.
Also, you are subject to random search at any time when entering the subway system. Not saying i feel this is right, but it is the way it is, and by entering the subway.i know this is the case. I would like to see a video of these guys trying to push there agenda in these situations.
Also, you are subject to random search at any time when entering the subway system. Not saying i feel this is right, but it is the way it is, and by entering the subway.i know this is the case. I would like to see a video of these guys trying to push there agenda in these situations.
BrianSD_42
New member
Yes.
The 4th amendment argument protecting your home does not exactly equate to driving a licensed vehicle on a public HWY. Yes you have 4th amendment protections over the contents of your vehicle but the burden is on you to have tinted windows, locked trunk, contraband out of sight from visual inspection etc.
A cop stopping you and asking you to roll down your window so he can speak to you is like a cop knocking on the door of your house. He has a right to knock on your door, even wait until you are about to leave and confront you with questions. Or imagine a cop looking in the window of your house if it was on the street with no fence. Perfectly legal. It is up to the resident to buy curtains.
Also note that even if a stop fails a probable cause requirement, that only matters in a court case. Cops of course want to meet that requirement but sometimes that is less of a priority than getting someone off the road and validating they are not a danger to the community.
During the Boston bombing aftermath (here we go .... I know) the police did not mirandize the suspect (who is of course a huge a-hole mass murderer) and there is a risk that those interviews will not be admissible in court. But from a legal perspective who cares ... the state already has a conviction guaranteed because there is so much other evidence that even if the interviews are thrown out they can still convict. They can basically ignore Miranda to try and gain information that may save other lives and still convict based on all the other (non-interview) evidence.
Last edited:
BrianSD_42
New member
This video is from UC Davis in 2010. YES the school and the police department were sued and YES they settled with the students for a lot of money.
alaskaman
Senior Member
Actually..."To be secure in their persons.. " came to mind but I do agree with you that people as members of a society of laws should play fair. That is a basic tenant of being an American to me.
Also it's part of a secular (non religious) society to kind of "show up" and be responsible to the people who have a job to do. What would I have done? If I felt he was a danger or menace or carrying something in his car I would have waited him out. There are only so many twinkles one can eat.
There is a basic premise of free societies that people should not be allowed to subvert the goals of society by using the freedoms granted to them. In a DUI checkpoint the rationale is clear. The officer would naturally suspect if you did not roll down your window you might be afraid of him smelling or discovering alcohol. It is a reasonable request. So to this guy, however the tactics used violate his rights. In France (they gave us the Statue) the passed a law which prohibits women from obscuring their faces with the garment worn in Muslim countries. Bravo. If you are going to live in a free society you must show your face.
DUI checkpoints are reasonable valid and catch criminals who murder people when they drink and drive. Throw the key away as far as I am concerned. It's murder. The back and forth over vids like the one with the Border Patrol are helpful and I'm personally glad that people "test" the limits. It's how we learn about ourselves as people and as a nation.
Power backed by the force of law is dangerous when in the hands of fools...it's dangerous and silly to believe that fascism in all it's forms can't happen here. Always question the officers intent as you would any person who knocks on any door with you inside of it. If valid, step aside and let him do his job. If not don't.
Be safe, don't drink and then get behind the wheel and have a blast in the Runner. That's the fun part of life.
Also it's part of a secular (non religious) society to kind of "show up" and be responsible to the people who have a job to do. What would I have done? If I felt he was a danger or menace or carrying something in his car I would have waited him out. There are only so many twinkles one can eat.
There is a basic premise of free societies that people should not be allowed to subvert the goals of society by using the freedoms granted to them. In a DUI checkpoint the rationale is clear. The officer would naturally suspect if you did not roll down your window you might be afraid of him smelling or discovering alcohol. It is a reasonable request. So to this guy, however the tactics used violate his rights. In France (they gave us the Statue) the passed a law which prohibits women from obscuring their faces with the garment worn in Muslim countries. Bravo. If you are going to live in a free society you must show your face.
DUI checkpoints are reasonable valid and catch criminals who murder people when they drink and drive. Throw the key away as far as I am concerned. It's murder. The back and forth over vids like the one with the Border Patrol are helpful and I'm personally glad that people "test" the limits. It's how we learn about ourselves as people and as a nation.
Power backed by the force of law is dangerous when in the hands of fools...it's dangerous and silly to believe that fascism in all it's forms can't happen here. Always question the officers intent as you would any person who knocks on any door with you inside of it. If valid, step aside and let him do his job. If not don't.
Be safe, don't drink and then get behind the wheel and have a blast in the Runner. That's the fun part of life.
alaskaman
Senior Member
Because one cop thought his dick was bigger than anyone else. That demo was a good example of power unchecked. What a douche.
eddiebx
New member
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)
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
)
RunninInGA
New member
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.
zstampe
New member
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.....
Similar threads
