A lesson in how to handle a DUI checkpoint

[Thai]

Its called a dui checkpoint. Is was light tint because I live in the bright hot ass desert.

The question is...is your tint illegal according to the state law? If it is, then suck it up because you broke the law. So, just because a cop stops you for speeding, he can't arrest you for having pounds and pounds of cocaine in your backseat? Now, if your tint was within the laws, then i agree with you....

 

[RonMAIDEN]

As far as I'm concerned, my time and mental energy are consumed by matters that are far more pressing and relevant to my life than the constitutionality of DWI checkpoints. When I encounter a checkpoint, I know that there are better ways of dealing with DWI, but I also know that the checkpoints help. So I play ball, and when they ask their questions I answer them and go on my way. If I had more time, I might actively engage in trying to have an influence on fixing the problem. But I don't, so I suck it up and deal with the checkpoints.

I agree with this paragraph;you want to challeng the constitunionality of a checkpoint do it elsewhere instead of inconveniencing others. What if the next 20 people in line do the same thing? Is this really getting anything accomplished except inciting road rage passively?

I guess it's where you drive but in my 27 years of driving I've only had to deal with such checkpoints maybe 5 times at most and since I don't drink and drive I answer a simple question or two and am on my merry way. End of story. I have better things to do than be a PITA at an inapropriate time and place.

 

[Thai]

Sure, I'm not going to say he was not within his rights not to answer, but why not, unless he had something to hide.

And i bet you that he knew about this checkpoint...got his camcorder...and went out to prove his point. Sad part is that the cops were fine...they are being paid to stand there all night long. They don't give a crap whether this guy takes up their time or not.

HOWEVER, this guy's action caused other people behind him time and money...and i am sure this guy has other things that he could have done instead of just sitting there playing the silent game...well, at least, i hope that he does!

And i still don't see how this is a violation of your constitutional rights. They are not searching your car without cause...they are interviewing you with ONE question. They are not beating the crap out of you to make you say that you are drunk. :wtf: And crap man, i am a gun loving Republican!

Just move along and let other people live their lives! And if you have nothing better to do than harassing cops at checkpoints, then you need to cough up some money for a hooker!

And BTW, if any of you ever slow me down from coming home to see my kids with this idiocy, then i will express express my constitutional right of free speech!!

 

[BigFishAllDay]

Because it's pertinent to the discussion:

Amendment IV

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.

IMO, the constitutionality of these checkpoints is subjective. Each person will form their own opinion based on their interpretation of the language used in the 4th amendment. What constitutes an "unreasonable search"?

Legally, this practice has been defined by federal courts as constitutional. That's a fact. Whether or not this definition is correct is up to each of us to decide for ourselves.

For me, I find it comparable to this scenario:

I am sitting at home on a Sunday afternoon, fully obeying the law, and minding my own business. A police officer on foot strolls up to my front door and rings the bell. He informs me that he and his partner are searching for a fugitive who they believe is hiding in my neighborhood. I inform him that I have not seen their suspect, nor is the suspect in my house. He proceeds to walk around my residence, shining his flashlight inside windows and peeking through blinds to ensure that what I have told him is truthful and correct. The officer never enters my residence, and satisfied that I am being truthful and finding no probable cause to enter my residence, continues on his way.

As the officer leaves, I imagine I would find myself somewhat irritated that he did not take my word for it and move on. I would wonder why he chose to look around, and would feel to a degree that my privacy was violated.

Although the officer never entered my residence, thus never requiring probable cause or a warrant, in essence a search was still conducted. The same applies to DWI checkpoints. They shine their flashlights in the back seat, look over your vehicle for other violations, and generally look for an excuse to charge you, even if you are a perfectly law abiding citizen.

I don't take a major issue with it though, because like I said, I think it is one of the few DWI prevention measures that actually have a measurable effect on the problem, and I've got more important and pressing things to worry about.

 

[RunninInGA]

Ok just to chime in... I'm a licensed attorney. This is settled law, and I mean settled by the US Supreme Ct. DUI administrative checkpoint are not a violation of your 5th amendment rights. Period.

Believe what you want but they are not. The 5th amed protects citizens from "unreasonable" search and seizure of their person and their home.

States that have said they are unconstitutional do it under their own state constitution not the federal US Constitution. States are free to interpret their own state constitutions however they choose. They can add additional or add more rights but they can not take them away. The federal US Constitution is a minimum (floor) and states can't go below but they can add to it & offer more protections.

If you agree with those states feel free to move there or lobby your local government, but to say they are a violation of your 5th amend rights is simply incorrect.

Interesting. My review of the Constitution proves that it is the 4th amendment that protects against searches and seizures while the 5th protects against double jeopardy and self incrimination. Am I incorrect?

I will simply ignore the wishes of personal harm by westwind, which as stated earlier are immature at best and less than productive in this conversation amongst adults. It would seem that in his or her particular case, the terrorists have won and that all LEO and other government officials should never be questioned or tactics scrutinized. Afterall, they do know best and to suggest the current issues the United States is facing (economic meltdown, Social Security defaults, unemployment, impending inflation, etc.) might be because these officials have other interests is ridiculous. Westwind also seems to wish that our 1st amendment rights be stripped away as well if you are not in agreement with his or her beliefs.

I had not intended this discussion to focus solely on the legality or constitutionality of DUI checkpoints, but rather the erosion and or exercise of our rights as guaranteed to us as part of our American citizenship. BFAD, I appreciate your effort to steer the discussion in a particular direction that you think it should progress, however that direction, as it relates to my original intentions of this thread, is very narrow in aspect and forgoes the larger picture of my original intent. That said, I should have done a better job in my original post of explaining this.

There have been some very good points brought up and considered by people on both sides of the fence on this one. I am appreciative that you guys have given thought to your arguments and responses. On other forums with similar threads, I've noticed there are usually common beliefs demographically depending upon the geographical area and age groups, however since this forum does not list age over to the side such as location, that makes it somewhat difficult to draw conclusions or notice trends.

 

[02SE]

Ok just to chime in... I'm a licensed attorney. This is settled law, and I mean settled by the US Supreme Ct. DUI administrative checkpoint are not a violation of your 5th amendment rights. Period.

Believe what you want but they are not. The 5th amed protects citizens from "unreasonable" search and seizure of their person and their home.

States that have said they are unconstitutional do it under their own state constitution not the federal US Constitution. States are free to interpret their own state constitutions however they choose. They can add additional or add more rights but they can not take them away. The federal US Constitution is a minimum (floor) and states can't go below but they can add to it & offer more protections.

If you agree with those states feel free to move there or lobby your local government, but to say they are a violation of your 5th amend rights is simply incorrect.

Are you really an Attorney? I would think that an Attorney would, or at least should, know that the 5th Amendment does not speak to protecting citizens from "unreasonable" search and seizure of their person and home.

That would be the 4th Amendment.

Here is the text from the 4th Amendment:

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.

I would argue that cars are covered under the wording of the Amendment. As I believe the framers intent was for the people to be protected from such intrusion without just cause, wherever they happen to be. Fortunately the last I checked, ten States currently agree.

 

[RunninInGA]

Are you really an Attorney? I would think that an Attorney would, or at least should, know that the 5th Amendment does not speak to protecting citizens from "unreasonable" search and seizure of their person and home.

That would be the 4th Amendment.

Here is the text from the 4th Amendment:



I would argue that cars are covered under the wording of the Amendment. As I believe the framers intent was for the people to be protected from such intrusion without just cause, wherever they happen to be. Fortunately the last I checked, ten States currently agree.

Yes, but that leaves 40 states that do not agree. The SC recently backpeddled on the case involving the FBI's illegal placement of a GPS devise on a suspect's car without obtaining a warrant, however.

Supreme Court: Warrant Needed For GPS Tracking Device : NPR

The majority opinion was based on the idea that the device was placed on the vehicle "at a minimum" violating "the Constitution's ban on searches of property without a warrant." The dissenting opinion indicated there was an invasion of privacy according to the article I posted. Although not exactly the same as we've been discussing, it does indicate the SC changes their opinions and rulings from time to time.

 

[BigFishAllDay]

Well, RunninInGA, all I can say now is that this was a time consuming thread for me, and time is something I don't have to waste. As you said, if you expect certain kinds of responses, you should be very clear in your initial post about what kind of discussion you are trying to start. Since my thoughts/input didn't satisfy your expectations of what might come from the thread, I'll just go ahead and save my breath.

The main reason I stay out of the off topic section is because these threads almost always digress into some kind of political debate, and frankly I'm not in the business of changing minds. Carry on, and I'll see you in the 3rd gen section! :cheers: eace:

 

[RunninInGA]

Well, RunninInGA, all I can say now is that this was a time consuming thread for me, and time is something I don't have to waste. As you said, if you expect certain kinds of responses, you should be very clear in your initial post about what kind of discussion you are trying to start. Since my thoughts/input didn't satisfy your expectations of what might come from the thread, I'll just go ahead and save my breath.

The main reason I stay out of the off topic section is because these threads almost always digress into some kind of political debate, and frankly I'm not in the business of changing minds. Carry on, and I'll see you in the 3rd gen section! :cheers: eace:

My tinfoil hat tends to be on a little tight sometimes and my passion oftentimes gets away from me. I'm sorry this discussion has wasted your time however. See you on the other side. Cheers!

 

[Clemsonfan15]

I'm kind of mixed about checkpoints. On one hand they are definitely useful, but I also agree that they infringe on my rights as a citizen.

This guy reminds me of other videos on YouTube where people record themselves open carrying.

 

[broncosi]

This guy reminds me of other videos on YouTube where people record themselves open carrying.

Now those are some funny videos! I love how people and cops flip out over someone open carrying.

I like this one the most:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/v7UMdniHWkI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[RunninInGA]

^Some of the responses here and the demeanor and statements of the officers in that video reinforce that the establishment wants its citizens to fear and succumb to the demands of LEO without question and that we are programmed to think as such.

 

[BrianSD_42]

Great video.

I have been through a DUI checkpoint in San Diego and I don't think this would work.

The video was shot in Boulder (CO I assume) but each state has their own separate DUI rules and regulations.

:fishing:


BTW this comment from that page is pretty good:

Lol. This guy thinks he is all bad and that he refused to answer their questions. Guess what, you may not have answered yes or no, but you still answered the question. By asking for their badge numbers, the very thing he thought would intimidate them, the officers were able to tell that he was sober and so they could send him on his way. Think about it. If all you had to say is "no" to get out of a DUI checkpoint, they would never arrest anyone. The officers are looking for symptoms that you are under the influence and are not going to take your answer at face value. This guy drove away thinking he didn't answer the question, but in reality, he told them everything they needed to know. Served.

 

[RunninInGA]

He absolutely answered the questions without answering the questions - I agree. But he also let them know by not directly answering the questions, that he wasn't going to answer the next question, which in every DUI checkpoint I've ever been through always involves either "Where have you been tonight?" or "Where are you heading?" in either case the answer is irrelevant and is none of the LEO's business.

It's amusing that most here think "Sir, have you been drinking tonight?" is the only question this guy would have been asked and that by him not answering is wasting the cop's and everyone in line behind him time. There are always follow-up questions. The video was less than 2 minutes long. I suspect had he answered the questions as those that think he should have - AND the follow up questions, that he would have been there at least a similar amount of time a well.

 

[RunninInGA]

Honor or out of line?

[Orignal full version] 1 Marine vs. 30 Cops (By. J. handy) - YouTube

 

[JB.]

BTW this comment from that page is pretty good:

Lol. This guy thinks he is all bad and that he refused to answer their questions. Guess what, you may not have answered yes or no, but you still answered the question. By asking for their badge numbers, the very thing he thought would intimidate them, the officers were able to tell that he was sober and so they could send him on his way. Think about it. If all you had to say is "no" to get out of a DUI checkpoint, they would never arrest anyone. The officers are looking for symptoms that you are under the influence and are not going to take your answer at face value. This guy drove away thinking he didn't answer the question, but in reality, he told them everything they needed to know. Served.

He absolutely answered the questions without answering the questions - I agree. But he also let them know by not directly answering the questions, that he wasn't going to answer the next question, which in every DUI checkpoint I've ever been through always involves either "Where have you been tonight?" or "Where are you heading?" in either case the answer is irrelevant and is none of the LEO's business.

Sounds like a win-win to me.

Law enforcement got enough narrow information to satisfy the presumed, specific mandate of a checkpoint while the motorist maintained his rights and helped keep any fishing in check.

 

[BrianSD_42]

He is free to do and say what he wishes. We earned the right .

Personally, I don't think it is in good taste for veterans to wear their old uniforms out casually (usually incorrectly) but it has happened for nearly every war of last 100 years.

Also, many of the cops were acting like total D-bags beating up young women and pepper spraying 85 y/o grandmothers ect.

Once the GOP succeeds in cutting unemployment benefits you will see occupy resurge 100 fold. What we have now are depression era conditions with a population pacified by mass welfare of unemployment benefits and food programs, all paid for with debt not taxes. These very programs have pacified 99.95% of the unemployed population.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[broncosi]

Honor or out of line?

[Orignal full version] 1 Marine vs. 30 Cops (By. J. handy) - YouTube

insane. He clearly needs help.

 

[Clemsonfan15]

Honor or out of line?

[Orignal full version] 1 Marine vs. 30 Cops (By. J. handy) - YouTube

He's barking up the wrong tree. The officers are just doing their job.

 

[BigFishAllDay]

Honor or out of line?

[Orignal full version] 1 Marine vs. 30 Cops (By. J. handy) - YouTube

RunninInGA,

This is a little bit off topic. You had intended this discussion to focus on the erosion and or exercise of our rights as guaranteed to us as part of our American citizenship. :