A lesson in how to handle a DUI checkpoint

[RunninInGA]

RunningInGA,

Benjamin Franklin said a lot of things but tea partiers often quote him as if he was one of them. He also believed that paying taxes is necessary for a free society to exist and that anyone who doesn't like it should go live with the savages.

But you clearly (based on past threads) don't agree with or acknowledge his views on that one.


Read:



Property: Benjamin Franklin to Robert Morris

Not true, brian. Show me posts whereby I've said this. Ive said increases in tax rates are not the solution to our problems and I've never claimed membership in the tea party.

 

[RunninInGA]

You guys are also forgetting our right to remain silent, also known as Miranda. It is the burden of the state to prove our guilt, not the burden of the individual to tell on ourselves. How many of you rolled through that stop sign and called local law enforcement to tell them what you did or didn't use your headlights when it was raining?

The view from your glass houses must be picturesque, don't throw rocks my way however.

 

[BigFishAllDay]

Don't dish it out....

^it would appear as though I did hurt your feelings after all. I underestimated your frailty, BFAD.

.......

If you can't take it....

So, are you a man who talks a lot yet too scared to take action?

To what are you referring? And please watch the tone of your responses - I've shown you nothing but courtesy and respect.

Remember that prior to the somewhat insulting characterization you aimed at me, I had shown you nothing but courtesy and respect.

You're beginning to come off as a hypocrite, both in your speech/posts, and your behavior.

 

[RunninInGA]

Don't dish it out....



.......

If you can't take it....





Remember that prior to the somewhat insulting characterization you aimed at me, I had shown you nothing but courtesy and respect.

You're beginning to come off as a hypocrite, both in your speech/posts, and your behavior.

Perhaps I have. The tone may be further alienating my philosophy, producing the opposite affect i would prefer. A good nights sleep will likely remedy this. Thank you for pointing that out.

 

[westwind77]

And you can't rightfully tell me LEOs were not aware of the potential liabilities when they decided to be an LEO. I can't take the sight of puke and piss and sh1t - a vast majority of my family are in the medical field, but I knew I could not follow in those footsteps, therefore I chose a different career to avoid these things.

I guess some people are just 'stronger' than others and put their personal safety aside to make the world a better and safer place for others. If every man/woman was selfish and worried about themselves more than others who would we have to run into burning building to save us or who would face off with some idiot with a gun to save our child. Thank God their are people with strong enough personalities to help others and not just say, "oh, wait "I" could get hurt. For that I am thankful! I'm just sorry you can't see that to appreciate it.

 

[RunninInGA]

There is no wonder this topic has produced nearly 7 pages of passionate discussion. Even the Supreme Court seems somewhat mixed on the legality of such checkpoints as indicated in the quote below taken from Wikipedia, which also contains language as to the effectiveness. It is my belief that millions of Americans and other individuals, beginning as early as 800 years ago with the Magna Carta have died in an effort to secure and guarantee the rights of others. Their sacrifices and the value placed on such dictates that I not spit in their face and piss on their graves by allowing even the temporary suspension of my rights, especially because it may violate your opinion of the appropriateness of the exercising of such rights in an effort to not inconvenience any of you for what you believe that 2 minutes would set you back or the disrespect of officers simply doing their job. I am not dictating that any of you do what the gentleman in the video has done. We live in a somewhat free society and you are by all means free to do as you wish or see fit in your particular case as it relates to your safety and well-being.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that: “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.” This fundamental right has a tense relationship with sobriety checkpoints. At a sobriety checkpoint, drivers are necessarily stopped without reasonable suspicion, and may be tested summarily and without probable cause. Thus the Constitution would prohibit people from being stopped without a search warrant or at least without probable cause that they have committed a crime; however, the warrant requirement only attaches should the search be unreasonable and the Supreme Court, as shown below, decided that such stops are not unreasonable under certain circumstances.
Driving under the Influence of alcohol is a special type of crime, as driving with a blood alcohol content (BAC) over a set limit is defined as the crime; it is not necessary to drive recklessly or cause an accident in order to be convicted. To determine BAC accurately, it is generally necessary for the driver to subject themselves to tests that are self incriminating, and drivers sometimes exercise their right against self incrimination to refuse these tests. To discourage this, some jurisdictions set the legal penalties for refusing a BAC test to equal or worse than those for a failing a BAC test. In other jurisdictions, the legal system may consider refusing the roadside alcohol breath test to be probable cause, allowing police to arrest the driver and conduct an involuntary BAC test. The Michigan Supreme Court had found sobriety roadblocks to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, by a 6-3 decision in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990), the United States Supreme Court found properly conducted sobriety checkpoints to be constitutional. While acknowledging that such checkpoints infringed on a constitutional right, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued the state interest in reducing drunk driving outweighed this minor infringement.
Dissenting justices argued that the Constitution doesn’t provide exceptions. "That stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving...is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion", dissenting Justice Brennan insisted.
Chief Justice Rehnquist argued that an exception was justified because sobriety roadblocks were effective and necessary. On the other hand, dissenting Justice Stevens countered that "the findings of the trial court, based on an extensive record and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals, indicate that the net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative."
Jurisdictions that allow sobriety checkpoints often carve out specific exceptions to their normal civil protections, in order to allow sobriety checkpoints. Although the U.S. Supreme Court has found sobriety checkpoints to be constitutionally permissible, ten states (Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming) have found that sobriety roadblocks violate their own state constitutions or have outlawed them. Two other states (Alaska and Montana) do not use checkpoints even though they have not made them illegal. [12]


Checkpoints (German Police)
[edit]Legal guidelines for checkpoint procedures
In approving "properly conducted" checkpoints, Chief Justice Rehnquist implicitly acknowledged that there must be guidelines in order to avoid becoming overly intrusive. In other words, checkpoints cannot simply be set up when, where and how police officers choose. As often happens in Supreme Court decisions, however, the Chief Justice left it to the states to determine what those minimal safeguards must be, presumably to be reviewed by the courts on a case-by-case basis.
In an effort to provide standards for use by the states, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration subsequently issued a report that reviewed recommended checkpoint procedures in keeping with federal and state legal decisions. ("The Use of Sobriety Checkpoints for Impaired Driving Enforcement", DOT HS-807-656, Nov. 1990) An additional source of guidelines can be found in an earlier decision by the California Supreme Court (Ingersoll v. Palmer (43 Cal.3d 1321 (1987)) wherein the Court set forth what it felt to be necessary standards in planning and administering a sobriety checkpoint:


A checkpoint in the United States
Decision making must be at a supervisory level, rather than by officers in the field.
A neutral formula must be used to select vehicles to be stopped, such as every vehicle or every third vehicle, rather than leaving it up the officer in the field.
Primary consideration must be given to public and officer safety.
The site should be selected by policy-making officials, based upon areas having a high incidence of drunk driving.
Limitations on when the checkpoint is to be conducted and for how long, bearing in mind both effectiveness and intrusiveness.
Warning lights and signs should be clearly visible.
Length of detention of motorists should be minimized.
Advance publicity is necessary to reduce the intrusiveness of the checkpoint and increase its deterrent effect.
[edit]Effectiveness
The Centers for Disease Control, in a 2002 Traffic Injury Prevention report, found that in general, the number of alcohol related crashes was reduced by 20% in states that implement sobriety checkpoints compared to those that do not.[13]
Public Health Law Research, an independent organization, reported in a 2009 evidence brief summarizing the research assessing the effect of a specific law or policy on public health, that there is strong evidence supporting the effectiveness of selective breath testing sobriety checkpoints as a public health intervention aimed at reducing the harms associated with alcohol impaired driving.[14]
The debate regarding saturation patrols versus checkpoints favors saturation patrols being more effective, both in terms of number of arrests and cost. The FBI compared saturation patrols vs. checkpoints in Ohio, Missouri, and Tennessee. The study showed that, “Overall, measured in arrests per hour, a dedicated saturation patrol is the most effective method of apprehending offenders.”[15] Another survey found that "States with infrequent checkpoints claimed a lack of funding and police resources for not conducting more checkpoints, preferred saturation patrols over checkpoints because they were more 'productive,' and used large number of police officers at checkpoints."[16]
There is a dearth of research regarding the deterrent effect of checkpoints. The only formally documented research regarding deterrence is a survey of Maryland's "Checkpoint Strikeforce" program. The survey found no deterrent effect: "To date, there is no evidence to indicate that this campaign, which involves a number of sobriety checkpoints and media activities to promote these efforts, has had any impact on public perceptions, driver behaviors, or alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes and injuries. This conclusion is drawn after examining statistics for alcohol-related crashes, police citations for impaired driving, and public perceptions of alcohol-impaired driving risk."[17]

 

[BrianSD_42]

How about a govt policy that mandates all cars have anti drunk driving technology.

If the driver is drunk, the car won't start. This could be done cheaply with sensors in the steering wheel. As technology goes this would pretty simple to implement, less complex than an iphone.

 

[Thai]

There is no wonder this topic has produced nearly 7 pages of passionate discussion.

I think that you miss my point(s)...as you apparently have missed other members' who have contributed. Sure, i agree that we should protect our rights. BUT, there is a place and time for it. At night at a checkpoint is NOT one of those time/place to pull this crap. Nor is it when a cop stops you on the highway. That is my point.

Now for my earlier statement, you like to pull these statements from our founding fathers. Fine. And you talk big. Well, why don't you use that energy of yours and talk to your state representative or talk to the police department who you think is doing so much wrong?? For example, you hate DC police...Ok, then why the hell are you on this forum wasting time? Go out and talk to the press or write a letter or vote or talk to the police comissioner etc.. By doing it this way, you are safer (less risk to you by pissed off cops who won't put up with your act!), won't bother other folks, and a lot more effective.

Again, there are other ways to get your point(s) across that won't bother other members of society who have better things to do than wait for you to put together a Youtube video!!

I am done with this thread.

 

[RunninInGA]

I think that you miss my point(s)...as you apparently have missed other members' who have contributed. Sure, i agree that we should protect our rights. BUT, there is a place and time for it. At night at a checkpoint is NOT one of those time/place to pull this crap. Nor is it when a cop stops you on the highway. That is my point.

Now for my earlier statement, you like to pull these statements from our founding fathers. Fine. And you talk big. Well, why don't you use that energy of yours and talk to your state representative or talk to the police department who you think is doing so much wrong?? For example, you hate DC police...Ok, then why the hell are you on this forum wasting time? Go out and talk to the press or write a letter or vote or talk to the police comissioner etc.. By doing it this way, you are safer (less risk to you by pissed off cops who won't put up with your act!), won't bother other folks, and a lot more effective.

Again, there are other ways to get your point(s) across that won't bother other members of society who have better things to do than wait for you to put together a Youtube video!!

I am done with this thread.

Thai - you're assuming I have not voiced my opinion. I regularly speak to my congressmen and senator's offices as well as the mayor in the small town in which I reside - she was in fact the principal of the school I attended when in elementary school. I email and call their offices no less than once a month on average - sometimes more, sometimes less. I've heard and read your opinions that the roadside is not the place to conduct this type of protest - I get what you're saying, however I disagree with your opinion. That doesn't make me any less of a citizen or person for that matter. It doesn't make my intelligence any less than yours nor does it mean a hill of beans singularly. I've stated in other threads that I have worked with presidential campaigns during this election cycle. I vote. I speak about politics and thoughts and theories with other individuals - both like-minded and those that oppose me.

And I never stated I hate DC police - those were your words, not mine.

You say I've ignored the point that the roadside is not the place to conduct this type of protest. Fine - you may be right, however let's say you do comply with the officer's conversation. Doesn't he have the responsibility to the law to require reasonable suspicion? And doesn't he have the responsibility of the law to prove probable cause? And don't I have the right to remain silent? These rights and theories are there to protect me from LEO as well, however you suggest that I should forgo my rights in this incident and take it up with somebody who isn't gonna give a sh1t afterwards. That seems akin to installing a burglar alarm AFTER your house has been robbed - AFTER it could have saved you from the incident. No thank you - I will protect myself from the incident BEFORE it occurs.

 

[westwind77]

No thank you - I will protect myself from the incident BEFORE it occurs.

What incident? If you were not drinking and said no you would be on your way. If you were drinking, well, you SHOULD be arrested. So, If you are following the law you have nothing to worry about. You talk a good 'game' but have still failed to make even one point I could remotely agree with. Maybe you should go 'occupy' the police station to get your point across.

 

[ndcent]

This thread is driving me to drink.

olice:

 

[Carl_G]

OP: in the video, the driver is just making a fool of himself, while he is trying to make a point about detention. All he is really doing is unnecessarily delaying himself and everyone else. I feel sorry for his passengers if there are any in his vehicle.

Also, by refusing to answer, any discretion regarding other offenses such as failing to produce driver's licence may no longer be there.

 

[RunninInGA]

OP: in the video, the driver is just making a fool of himself, while he is trying to make a point about detention. All he is really doing is unnecessarily delaying himself and everyone else. I feel sorry for his passengers if there are any in his vehicle.

Also, by refusing to answer, any discretion regarding other offenses such as failing to produce driver's licence may no longer be there.

I do agree that had any other infraction been identified, any leeway would have been null and void, but also stand by my belief that these checkpoints do not serve many other purposes other than organized fishing holes.

 

[BigFishAllDay]

How this would actually play out...

RunninInGA: "Watch this honey, I'm going to show these LEO's that my rights will NOT be trampled. Get my notepad and the video camera out, fast!"

RunninInGA: "Name and Personnel Number, please?"

The Mrs.: "I told you this was a bad idea. If you hadn't been a pain in the butt he wouldn't even have noticed your license plate light was out."

Passing Motorists: Thanks for holding up traffic buddy, that's what you get! Next time write your congressman!

Later in court....

Judge: NO I WILL NOT DISMISS YOUR TICKET, THE OFFICER DID NOTHING WRONG!

RunninInGA: B-b-b-but your Honor, my rights were....

Judge: HUSH! Mr. RunninInGA, what did you think was going to happen? Your license plate light was out, and you were acting suspiciously. When you reached for your video camera, the officer thought you might be reaching for a weapon.

RunninInGA:

 

[RunninInGA]

How this would actually play out...

RunninInGA: "Watch this honey, I'm going to show these LEO's that my rights will NOT be trampled. Get my notepad and the video camera out, fast!"

RunninInGA: "Name and Personnel Number, please?"

The Mrs.: "I told you this was a bad idea. If you hadn't been a pain in the butt he wouldn't even have noticed your license plate light was out."

Passing Motorists: Thanks for holding up traffic buddy, that's what you get! Next time write your congressman!

Later in court....

Judge: NO I WILL NOT DISMISS YOUR TICKET, THE OFFICER DID NOTHING WRONG!

RunninInGA: B-b-b-but your Honor, my rights were....

Judge: HUSH! Mr. RunninInGA, what did you think was going to happen? Your license plate light was out, and you were acting suspiciously. When you reached for your video camera, the officer thought you might be reaching for a weapon.

RunninInGA:

You've clearly run out of intelligent responses so you resort to this. Curious, how much of your valuable time did this take?

 

[BigFishAllDay]

No, I just remembered that old saying:

"Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference." I think that one was Mark Twain.

Anyway, that was just fun to make, and it only took me about 5 minutes. There are lots of DWI related pics to be found in a quick google search, and I've got a great imagination.

 

[RunninInGA]

It's easy to resort to immaturity when your intelligence has reached its limits. Ridicule me all you want - i'll sleep just fine regardless of what you guys believe about me, however I challenge you to ponder this if the limits or your though can undertake such an exercise:

"To exercise power costs effort and demands courage. That is why so many fail to assert rights to which they are perfectly entitled -- because a right is a kind of power but they are too lazy or too cowardly to exercise it. The virtues which cloak these faults are called patience and forbearance."

Frederich Nietzsche

 

[derekabraham]

That guy is a douchebag. Answer the question and move on. I don't care if it's "Unconsitutional". If you're drinking and driving, don't get in the ****ing car and you won't have anything to worry about. If you are drinking and driving, I hope you come across a checkpoint and get your ass thrown in jail. If you have nothing to hide then what's the big deal?

 

[BigFishAllDay]

Don't be upset because I had some fun at your expense, just take it in stride.

I think it was not only an accurate portrayal of what would likely happen to you in such a situation, but a great argument against your proposed actions.

And by the way, will you ever come back with some original thought, or will you keep running to Google for your next quote?

I challenge you to come up with something original for us to ponder (that's not a waste of everybody's time).

 

[RunninInGA]

Don't be upset because I had some fun at your expense, just take it in stride.

I think it was not only an accurate portrayal of what would likely happen to you in such a situation, but a great argument against your proposed actions.

And by the way, will you ever come back with some original thought, or will you keep running to Google for your next quote?

I challenge you to come up with something original for us to ponder (that's not a waste of everybody's time).

Oh, BFAD, it takes far more substance than your last few posts have offered to upset me. Yes you did have fun at my expense, however when I made a slightly off-color remark towards you, you stomped out of the thread and slammed its virtual door in similar fashion as my 8-year old, vowing never to return again. You whined that i did not give your comments much thought even though you stayed up later than you otherwise would have to post them i apologized and addressed your comments and hypothetical scenario Then you waited like a hawk to lay out your don't dish it if you can't take it comment. I've shown you much more respect than you've shown me, however that has little to do with you and moreso to do with my upbringing and overall character.

That said, this is somewhat a double-edged sword, isn't it? On one hand there are those that argue for rights or civil liberties, and on the other there are those that want to be protected from those that would do us harm. Not surprisingly, it seems to have turned into two opposing camps, each feeling they are more correct than the other.

Personally, I want to make sure both my rights and safety are protected. As someone that has experienced a misuse of power by a LEO, and not being in a financial position to defend myself, thereby suffering the consequences, and has known someone killed by an impaired driver, I can see both arguments to a degree. You've already stated your solution might include a similar practice involving the company you pay a membership to to bring you and your car home, but you also acknowledged that in short order, the resources of that company will likely be maxed at best. What then? Aren't there already taxi cabs in existence that are available? I suggested stiffer penalties for offenders, however that was glossed over like I was speaking to a box of rocks.

It seems to me that we all want protection from others, but some feel we should be forced to give up rights or civil liberties, regardless how small for the greater good and to reduce the inconvenience of others. (I'm wondering if that camp also whines when the person at the grocery store pays with a check that they wait to write until they reach the checkout line) Isnt that what the war on drugs was promised to do - benefit the greater good even though it continues to cost this country billions of dollars each year without much progress? Or the Patriot Act after what many Americans believe to be a false flag event (9/11)?

Surprise me BFAD, reverse the trend you've started with your last half dozen posts. Convince me your intellect remains in there somewhere behind the pouting facade.