View Full Version : 4th of July DUI checkpoint refusal video goes viral
ClearedHot
07-06-13, 00:53
24hrs after video gets uploaded, it makes the front page on Youtube with 437k hits.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-WMn_zHCVo
I'm guessing the LEO's in the video never got the memo that it's 2013 and damn near everyone has a HD camera/camera phone recording. ESPECIALLY at checkpoints like this.
Despite having no RS and no PC, they decided to go on a fishing expedition anyways.
NoveskeFan
07-06-13, 01:03
It's not reasonable to think someone that refuses a simple request to lower their window more than 3" might be trying to mask an odor of alcohol or drugs?
Grand58742
07-06-13, 02:50
Mixed emotions on this. It was not an unreasonable request at all to have the driver roll down his window all the way or at least further than he had it. Common courtesy when speaking to someone.
But on the same token, the cop went way overboard way too quickly in my opinion. Situation deteriorated in the first 30 seconds.
Alaskapopo
07-06-13, 02:59
Snot nosed kid looking for attention vs officers in video who let it get under their skin and lose their professionalism. No winners here. I delt with 2 drunks the other night holding video cameras and harrassing medics who where trying to treat a friend of theirs. These guys just like to provoke a confrontation hoping the officers will do something they can sue for. However its also on the officers for letting their buttons get pushed so easily.
Pat
Pat,
I am truly curious. What does the law say in regards to rolling down the window all the way? I would guess there is established case law or something....
I also find it very curious that you made no mention of the officers actually "faking a hit" in order to illegally search the vehicle.
Quite frankly this is happening more and more and people are getting tired of it. A few nights ago when I was stopped at a USBP checkpoint on I-8 the agent asked me my citizenship status- which I answered with no problem. Then he wanted to know my "business or occupation" and when I asked the relevance he became visibly annoyed that I dared to question him.
I told him that I was a "self employed entrepreneur" and that's all he needed to know. As far as I know my employment status isn't pertinent to the job of the USBP.
You're looking at everything from the eyes of the police. I look at this from the eyes of seeing a country that has allowed the rights of it's citizens to be eroded in the name of safety.
When one looks at the last decade (Patriot Act I/II, Fast and Furious, IRS scandal, NSA spying, NDAA and the TSA violations) it's easy to see why people are upset by actions of those that we pay to supposedly protect us and keep us safe.
Snot nosed kid looking for attention vs officers in video who let it get under their skin and lose their professionalism. No winners here. I delt with 2 drunks the other night holding video cameras and harrassing medics who where trying to treat a friend of theirs. These guys just like to provoke a confrontation hoping the officers will do something they can sue for. However its also on the officers for letting their buttons get pushed so easily.
Pat
Alaskapopo
07-06-13, 03:49
Pat,
I am truly curious. What does the law say in regards to rolling down the window all the way? I would guess there is established case law or something....
I also find it very curious that you made no mention of the officers actually "faking a hit" in order to illegally search the vehicle.
Quite frankly this is happening more and more and people are getting tired of it. A few nights ago when I was stopped at a USBP checkpoint on I-8 the agent asked me my citizenship status- which I answered with no problem. Then he wanted to know my "business or occupation" and when I asked the relevance he became visibly annoyed that I dared to question him.
I told him that I was a "self employed entrepreneur" and that's all he needed to know. As far as I know my employment status isn't pertinent to the job of the USBP.
You're looking at everything from the eyes of the police. I look at this from the eyes of seeing a country that has allowed the rights of it's citizens to be eroded in the name of safety.
When one looks at the last decade (Patriot Act I/II, Fast and Furious, IRS scandal, NSA spying, NDAA and the TSA violations) it's easy to see why people are upset by actions of those that we pay to supposedly protect us and keep us safe.
I missed the faking a hit part. And again I am not sticking up for the officers in this case. I did say they acted un professionally. No law on rolling the window down and no law against being a snot nosed kid either. I bet things would have gone a lot differently however had the kid just rolled the window down.
I have mixed feelings on DUI check points. We don't have them up here. I respect peoples rights not to want to be hassled or have their time wasted. As someone who lost my brother to DUI however I also understand how serious of a problem drinking and driving is and the real costs in human terms. Rights vs Safety will always be in competition. And despite what some of the hard core constitutionalist will say about giving up freedom for safety and wanting to die the reality is there is a happy medium between the two. The right of the state in protecting the rest of us who drive on the road from drunk drivers vs an individuals rights not to be detained and harrassed.
Pat
It's not reasonable to think someone that refuses a simple request to lower their window more than 3" might be trying to mask an odor of alcohol or drugs?
So if a Cop asks "may I search your vehicle" and you say "no", is it not reasonable that you're hiding something and thus they have reasonable suspicion to search your vehicle?
Mixed emotions on this. It was not an unreasonable request at all to have the driver roll down his window all the way or at least further than he had it. Common courtesy when speaking to someone.
That's just it. It's a REQUEST, not a lawful order. He refused the request and then had his rights illegally trampled. I don't get how you're having mixed emotions on this.
happening way to much !!!
I hope the depts start getting the crap sued out of them and the officers involved start to loose personal legal battles (wont happen) maybe they will realize they are not here to harass but uphold the law !!!
and its not a anti LEO thing at all !
again lots of my friends are LEO and my brother is a prosecutor !
its just stuff like this is happening way to much and the control is becoming abuse !
scoutfsu99
07-06-13, 04:01
Common respect would have gone a long way for both of them.
snot nosed in your opinion ? so violating his rights is OK cause you just dont like him ?
LEO should be above that !
its ALL on the officers !
Snot nosed kid looking for attention vs officers in video who let it get under their skin and lose their professionalism. No winners here. I delt with 2 drunks the other night holding video cameras and harrassing medics who where trying to treat a friend of theirs. These guys just like to provoke a confrontation hoping the officers will do something they can sue for. However its also on the officers for letting their buttons get pushed so easily.
Pat
snot nosed in your opinion ? so violating his rights is OK cause you just dont like him ?
That seems to be the prevailing sentiment in this thread.
Alaskapopo
07-06-13, 04:53
The bigger issue seems to be with the check points themselves. Here is the thing if people did not want these check points they would not be there. We don't have them in Alaska. If people don't like them they need to let their elected official know at the ballot box or through lobbying them and if there is enough people who agree they will go away. But the reality is most people value taking drunks off the road and accept these check points as a necessary evil in order to help make that happen.
Pat
Alaskapopo
07-06-13, 04:59
Common respect would have gone a long way for both of them.
100% agree.
Pat
Yeah sure if the people did not want it :)
Does not seem to matter in most areas sadly
Glad Alaska atill listens to its people
Check points are a waste ! Big time
my brother will tell you that ! And he knows for sure !
Want to get drunks sit outside bars and when folks come out and seem drunk and get in their cars stop them then there !
Not stopping tons of innocent folks to maybe get one or two people !
Problem is those in power are out of control and its a I dont care !
I have also seen good LEO that just say no you are not being detained have a nice night and know not to pick on folks !but its getting rare
Its like our gov spying on everyone to claim protection ! Yet the Boston bombings are proof !
We were told they were terrorists yet did not care or watch them !
The bigger issue seems to be with the check points themselves. Here is the thing if people did not want these check points they would not be there. We don't have them in Alaska. If people don't like them they need to let their elected official know at the ballot box or through lobbying them and if there is enough people who agree they will go away. But the reality is most people value taking drunks off the road and accept these check points as a necessary evil in order to help make that happen.
Pat
Grand58742
07-06-13, 05:12
That's just it. It's a REQUEST, not a lawful order. He refused the request and then had his rights illegally trampled. I don't get how you're having mixed emotions on this.
And again, mixed emotions from an LE standpoint. Officer makes a reasonable request, driver refused reasonable request and had a complete lack of common courtesy in my opinion, cop(s) go way overboard in my opinion. Nobody wins in the end.
You get out of a traffic stop (or checkpoint in this case) what you put into it. Someone's rights are not being trampled because a cop made a reasonable request to roll down the window. Common courtesy means you can at least be polite and speak to someone face to face at that point even if you don't believe in the legality of the checkpoints. No reason to be a douche about it. You can still make your point by being polite and rolling down the window and at least having respect until you are disrespected (which for the record, the guy's rights were seriously violated and be was seriously disrespected).
And again, cop(s) went way overboard with this one. In the end...nobody was right in this situation. Cops were way out of line in my opinion and brewing for a fight.
HHhmmm> they (police)video tape themselves and people (of interest) from dash-cam, for their/our safety, as well as documentation.--- People are recording interactions with police from cell-cam, for safety, as well as documentation....So lemme fix it. From now on any and all "interactions" (hell we'll even get OnStar onboard :rolleyes:) will be video taped for "safety & documentation". An officer will pull an individual over, send info to OnStar and start vid. Meanwhile OnStar alerts driver (onstar turns on its vid) with details. Passenger informed of situation (digital data/information, names of officer and passenger is exchanged) before officer approaches car. Solves all that! Sounds perfect(except for tv show cops)!! Everybody recording everybody anyway so just a matter of time before this is social norm.
Mean while back at yo house, back door kicked in, HD TV gone, that multiple felon burglar is glad you dont have cameras there..
Sure but fact is the LEO is a public paid employee and should be above some punk kid !
Pretty pathetic of the LEO the fact a kid can get him that off balance and the kid was polite !
That LEO and any like him needs to be fired ! And hire folks who can pass basic stress test ! Cause they are ruining it for the good ones who are out there ! Sadly people rarely post vids of all the great ones !
Common respect would have gone a long way for both of them.
The bigger issue seems to be with the check points themselves. Here is the thing if people did not want these check points they would not be there. We don't have them in Alaska. If people don't like them they need to let their elected official know at the ballot box or through lobbying them and if there is enough people who agree they will go away. But the reality is most people value taking drunks off the road and accept these check points as a necessary evil in order to help make that happen.
Pat
Sure, because the will of the people is obviously something that has been fully reflected in American politics at both the state an national levels in recent years (not so much). The assumption that because the people are silent on the existence of said check points means that they fully support them is also a bit of a stretch imo. And then there's more of that necessary evil rhetoric again... after all it's only for the peoples' safety.
So nobody had respect but who broke the law by violating someones rights !
And who is suposed to be upholding the law not breaking it !
Again forget respect only one guilty party here !
And again, mixed emotions from an LE standpoint. Officer makes a reasonable request, driver refused reasonable request and had a complete lack of common courtesy in my opinion, cop(s) go way overboard in my opinion. Nobody wins in the end.
You get out of a traffic stop (or checkpoint in this case) what you put into it. Someone's rights are not being trampled because a cop made a reasonable request to roll down the window. Common courtesy means you can at least be polite and speak to someone face to face at that point even if you don't believe in the legality of the checkpoints. No reason to be a douche about it. You can still make your point by being polite and rolling down the window and at least having respect until you are disrespected (which for the record, the guy's rights were seriously violated and be was seriously disrespected).
And again, cop(s) went way overboard with this one. In the end...nobody was right in this situation. Cops were way out of line in my opinion and brewing for a fight.
And again, mixed emotions from an LE standpoint. Officer makes a reasonable request, driver refused reasonable request and had a complete lack of common courtesy in my opinion, cop(s) go way overboard in my opinion. Nobody wins in the end.
You get out of a traffic stop (or checkpoint in this case) what you put into it. Someone's rights are not being trampled because a cop made a reasonable request to roll down the window. Common courtesy means you can at least be polite and speak to someone face to face at that point even if you don't believe in the legality of the checkpoints. No reason to be a douche about it. You can still make your point by being polite and rolling down the window and at least having respect until you are disrespected (which for the record, the guy's rights were seriously violated and be was seriously disrespected).
And again, cop(s) went way overboard with this one. In the end...nobody was right in this situation. Cops were way out of line in my opinion and brewing for a fight.
I'm not justifying the kids actions but thankfully we have not devolved to the point where being a douche and disrespectful is illegal.
One good thing for LEO this is more rare than not I think ?
I would hope the LEO here would just figure the guy is looking and not fall into the trap and say no you are not being detained
With how many check points over the 4th and how many folks taping you dont see tons of these or they would be all over !
But like Rosa Parks (spelling) people have to resist to make change check points are a joke and again target innocent people also which is wrong
Sadly orders come from the top down ! So maybe some LEO should stand together refuse to do checkpoints and send the message back the other way and let the public know !
Agree or not, haven't the courts up held the use of these check points?
"snot nosed kid looking for attention"....most of us long time M4Cers know that Pat never misses the opportunity to tow the line for the Blue Cocoon, so I'm not shocked at all by his reply on this matter.
One can't defend the LEOs in the video, or how they handled the situation, so that only leaves calling the citizen a ridiculous name, and blaming him for foolishly knowing his rights, and having the balls to "check" the police state environment he was caught up in.
Personally, I really appreciate what this citizen did, and that video captured one of our society's biggest threats in perfect detail. It's amazing that we still allow drug sniffing dogs, and their handlers to operate the way they do currently in society. The perfect loophole to probable cause.
Agree or not, haven't the courts up held the use of these check points?
Yip like judges who gave out ilegal wire taps on fox news folks recently :)
Or our top law man F&F and our gov spying on us ? Fact is courts are part of our gov and they believe in trampling on folks and have done things that are unconstitutional
Also the LEO are not to do what this guy did !
Even if the check point was legal what the LEO did was not and did violate the kids rights !
scoutfsu99
07-06-13, 05:56
Sure but fact is the LEO is a public paid employee and should be above some punk kid !
Pretty pathetic of the LEO the fact a kid can get him that off balance and the kid was polite !
That LEO and any like him needs to be fired ! And hire folks who can pass basic stress test ! Cause they are ruining it for the good ones who are out there ! Sadly people rarely post vids of all the great ones !
Is something wrong with your exclamation key or do you really talk like Captain Kirk?
Alaskapopo
07-06-13, 06:22
Sure, because the will of the people is obviously something that has been fully reflected in American politics at both the state an national levels in recent years (not so much). The assumption that because the people are silent on the existence of said check points means that they fully support them is also a bit of a stretch imo. And then there's more of that necessary evil rhetoric again... after all it's only for the peoples' safety.
If the people did not want them they would not be there. Rhetoric like keep repeating the tired quote "those who will give up freedom for safety deserve neither." Sure a great man said it but its just one great mans opinion its not the word of God. While I understand the concept we have to balance the fact that people also have a right to live. In the real world we balance freedom and safety everyday. Your freedom to drive a car should not make me sacrifice my right to live. That is what drinking and driving does people it kills.
Pat
Grand58742
07-06-13, 06:26
So nobody had respect but who broke the law by violating someones rights !
And who is suposed to be upholding the law not breaking it !
Again forget respect only one guilty party here !
Do you see me at any point defending the cops in that video or making excuses for their behavior and blatant disregard for that individual's rights? I do believe I said they were way out of line. Criminally out of line even. But I have this funny feeling a good lawyer has or will contact that young man in the near future and this will be set straight. Should it have happened in the first place? No. Again, cops were brewing for a fight. And chances are, that would have ended the same way no matter how much respect, or disrespect, was given.
I cannot and will not defend their actions. And if you feel I am attempting to, make no mistake about it, they were in the wrong.
Alaskapopo
07-06-13, 06:27
"snot nosed kid looking for attention"....most of us long time M4Cers know that Pat never misses the opportunity to tow the line for the Blue Cocoon, so I'm not shocked at all by his reply on this matter.
One can't defend the LEOs in the video, or how they handled the situation, so that only leaves calling the citizen a ridiculous name, and blaming him for foolishly knowing his rights, and having the balls to "check" the police state environment he was caught up in.
Personally, I really appreciate what this citizen did, and that video captured one of our society's biggest threats in perfect detail. It's amazing that we still allow drug sniffing dogs, and their handlers to operate the way they do currently in society. The perfect loophole to probable cause.
The tin foil crowd also never loses a chance to bash cops. In this particular thread I said the officers were out of line.
Pat
Littlelebowski
07-06-13, 06:29
If the people did not want them they would not be there. Rhetoric like keep repeating the tired quote "those who will give up freedom for safety deserve neither." Sure a great man said it but its just one great mans opinion its not the word of God. While I understand the concept we have to balance the fact that people also have a right to live. In the real world we balance freedom and safety everyday. Your freedom to drive a car should not make me sacrifice my right to live. That is what drinking and driving does people it kills.
Pat
Exactly the same argument as what the gun grabbers say.
Agree or not, haven't the courts up held the use of these check points?
Todd,
Here's the case that upheld DUI checkpoints:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Dept._of_State_Police_v._Sitz
If the people did not want them they would not be there. Rhetoric like keep repeating the tired quote "those who will give up freedom for safety deserve neither." Sure a great man said it but its just one great mans opinion its not the word of God. While I understand the concept we have to balance the fact that people also have a right to live. In the real world we balance freedom and safety everyday. Your freedom to drive a car should not make me sacrifice my right to live. That is what drinking and driving does people it kills.
Pat
Just quit digging will you?
You feel that this guy defending his Gid-given, inalienable rights is a "snot noses kid". At the same token any officer who violates the same is a gov't-paid thug.
At the end of the day we have two civilians. One sworn to UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION and the other working in the private sector. They are JOBS. They are Citizens. The pin head acknowledged that the guy knew he was right and had done nothing wrong and knew the Constitution.
That officer - and the do handler - should be shit canned.
This is how liberty I extinguished - one little incident uncontested at a time.
You ought to be ashamed of yourself, Pat. You really should.
-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."
Nope :)
But laugh at folks like you who have to feel better about themselves by trying to pick on others :) hahahahha sad life ya must live !
instead of childish attack crap how about contribute instead !
Is something wrong with your exclamation key or do you really talk like Captain Kirk?
Alaskapopo
07-06-13, 07:02
Just quit digging will you?
You feel that this guy defending his Gid-given, inalienable rights is a "snot noses kid". At the same token any officer who violates the same is a gov't-paid thug.
At the end of the day we have two civilians. One sworn to UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION and the other working in the private sector. They are JOBS. They are Citizens. The pin head acknowledged that the guy knew he was right and had done nothing wrong and knew the Constitution.
That officer - and the do handler - should be shit canned.
This is how liberty I extinguished - one little incident uncontested at a time.
You ought to be ashamed of yourself, Pat. You really should.
-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."
I did not violate anyone's rights and I was not there. You should feel ashamed of yourself for supporting drinking and driving. (This comment is made in jest to show how stupid yours was) Yes this is just a snot nosed kid with a chip on his shoulder. The LEO's played into his plan unfortunately.
Pat
Alaskapopo
07-06-13, 07:09
Exactly the same argument as what the gun grabbers say.
Good arguments can be made for bad causes.
Pat
Littlelebowski
07-06-13, 07:10
Is something wrong with your exclamation key or do you really talk like Captain Kirk?
I'm pretty sure that Honu's first language is not English but he gets the Constitution and therefore, he's alright by me :D
scoutfsu99
07-06-13, 07:11
Nope :)
But laugh at folks like you who have to feel better about themselves by trying to pick on others :) hahahahha sad life ya must live !
instead of childish attack crap how about contribute instead !
Lol, that was far from an attack. I just don't need an exclamation point every couple words. Just like people typing in all caps, it's not needed.
If I was picking on you Honu, I would rag on your butchering of the English language.
eta: deleted
So if the kid is a snot nosed brat ?
Explain how ?
He did not swear or raise his voice and did comply but he first questioned things ?
His window was rolled down plenty to hear the LEO ?
Or is it the how dare you question being violated !
So if a calm kid who stood up for his rights what does that make the cop ? Who was yelling and violating a innocent persons rights besides the oh he just played into the snot nose kids plan ?
IMHO the cop is stupid and should be fired would you agree ? What would you do if you were cheif ?
I did not violate anyone's rights. You should feel ashamed of yourself for supporting drinking and driving. (This comment is made in jest to show how stupid yours was) Yes this is just a snot nosed kid with a chip on his shoulder. The LEO's played into his plan unfortunately.
Pat
scoutfsu99
07-06-13, 07:14
Nope :)
But laugh at folks like you who have to feel better about themselves by trying to pick on others :) hahahahha sad life ya must live !
instead of childish attack crap how about contribute instead !
I'm pretty sure that Honu's first language is not English but he gets the Constitution and therefore, he's alright by me :D
That's fine with me. Again, I wasn't picking on him. I've read his posts before. He's smart enough to pick up on the usage of punctutation and internet "manners."
ICANHITHIMMAN
07-06-13, 07:17
My wife is an LEO and I struggle with all of this myself. I have a personal belief that the integrity and judgement of all LEO officers should be beyond reproach, my wife's is, but what I have come to realize is that most are not.
Consequently coming from a military family and having served 9 years myself, I value Honor and integrity in an individual above all other traits. I have issues not passing judgment on the others in her platoon, when I attend party's or hear story's of how they act. My wife tells me they are "just people" like myself but for some reason I cannot shake the idea that they should be at least as honorable as myself or better. I think a lot of Americans feel this way and it sucks because the officers that due have honor are forced to deal with all the crap and attitude that should be directed at the ones without honor.
Todd,
Here's the case that upheld DUI checkpoints:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Dept._of_State_Police_v._Sitz
Thanks, didn't know it had gone to SCOTUS.
"During the operation, drivers would be stopped and briefly questioned while in their vehicles. If an officer suspected the driver was intoxicated, the driver would be sent off for a field sobriety test."
This is what the LEO in the vid was trying to do. Freedom of movement is a right, but driving is a privilege. Is it reasonable to briefly stop someone for public safety? That is the question.
NoveskeFan
07-06-13, 07:35
So if a Cop asks "may I search your vehicle" and you say "no", is it not reasonable that you're hiding something and thus they have reasonable suspicion to search your vehicle?
I need more than Reasonable Suspicion to search your vehicle without consent.
Refusing to roll down your window more than a few inches is an indicator of being an impaired driver. The officer should have engaged in more probing questions to try and determine impairment, instead of losing his professionalism. I have a feeling the driver would have kept asking if he was being detained. Repeating the same statement to different questions can be a sign of impairment. I don't agree with the officers actions. The officer could have played that a lot different and explained certain things to the driver, hopefully getting enough replies to detect impairment; slurred and/or incoherent speech, odor of an alcoholic beverage, flushed face, etc.
Voodoo_Man
07-06-13, 07:50
How many checkpoints did those officers do in their careers? How many of the drivers they came in contact with acted like this kid and were actually impaired or hiding something? I would be assuming, but I would say that his actions gave the officers more than enough RS to stop him and investigate.
I need more than Reasonable Suspicion to search your vehicle without consent.
Like a Dog telling you it's legal?
Refusing to roll down your window more than a few inches is an indicator of being an impaired driver.
This is the problem. Just because you do not want to roll down your window and talk to someone, does not mean you're drunk. It means you don't want to talk to someone.
Repeating the same statement to different questions can be a sign of impairment.
"I do not consent to any searches. I do not consent to any searches. I do not consent...
The officer could have played that a lot different and explained certain things to the driver, hopefully getting enough replies to detect impairment; slurred and/or incoherent speech, odor of an alcoholic beverage, flushed face, etc.
Translation; Be nicer, to successfully convince the individual his civil rights are fine to violate, because it's for the safety of everyone.
How many checkpoints did those officers do in their careers? How many of the drivers they came in contact with acted like this kid and were actually impaired or hiding something? I would be assuming, but I would say that his actions gave the officers more than enough RS to stop him and investigate.
Well then maybe the police themselves should get a better grasp of the laws they enforce instead of labeling someone abiding by them as suspicious. I agree he generated suspicion via his actions but the officer wasn't interested in dialog, only authoritarian action. After all how dare that young man ask questions and not immediately comply?
As far as the fake, inticed dog hit I'd hope it is grounds for firing and permanent disbarment from public service.
I watched the clip last night and the kid knew his rights and asserted them regardless of how asinine he did so the officers should have been above that kind of emotional response. This video and other various reports are why people don't trust the police anymore.
In my area I know most of the police and they are "good ol boys" and I don't think they would knowingly violate the rights of citizens. This is where the problem lies. There is a serious lack of training and/or accountability on the officers part. When an officer messes up it is an internal issue and the officers have a mark on their record but no real punishment that the public is made aware of. The other senario is when the citizen sues the department and the citizens still pay out.
On a side note I don't post much and I read a lot. Some of the arguments in gd are desclating to name calling and personal attacks. I liked this site because it was more intellegent discussion and debate but it is starting to look like TOS.
NoveskeFan
07-06-13, 08:18
Like a Dog telling you it's legal?
K-9's have proven their worth. But, totality of circumstances that lead to PC are whats generally accepted in court.
This is the problem. Just because you do not want to roll down your window and talk to someone, does not mean you're drunk. It means you don't want to talk to someone.
Or...that you're drunk. There is a reason its an accepted indicator.
"I do not consent to any searches. I do not consent to any searches. I do not consent...
Again, totality of observed circumstances. I have had more than one DUI arrest where the person said some variation of "I dont consent." Most states have a consent/refusal clause built into getting an OL.
Translation; Be nicer, to successfully convince the individual his civil rights are fine to violate, because it's for the safety of everyone.
Driving is a privilege, not a right. The Supreme Court has ruled checkpoints are not a violation of your 4th.
In bold.
The "crash the checkpoint" incident here was intentionally orchestrated by the Tennessee Libertarian party.
As to constitutional right being violated, that's debatable. The hits by the drug dog were probably a sham, but that's not provable. I predict Officer Ross won't be punished, although the whole department will likely get some additional training, especially on one's conduct in front of a possible video or audio recording.
http://www.wate.com/story/22770235/dui-checkpoint-video-youtube
Prominent Nashville criminal defense attorney Rob McKinney viewed the video. He told Nashville's News 2 the driver knew his rights well.
"I think it was a smart young man who wanted to prove a point that he knew his constitutional rights and he wanted to show how things are on the streets," McKinney said.
When asked if the Constitutional rights of the driver were violated, McKinney said, "Not from what I saw there."
McKinney said the driver's Constitutional rights in the video were not violated since officers have a right to ask drivers for their identification. Plus, being detained is also within the officer's legal rights if it's for an investigative purposes.
As for the K9 unit, the officer can only enter the vehicle if the K9 officer detects an alert like drugs. However, McKinney said it's tough to tell in the video if the dog actually detected something or if the handler manipulated to dog to do so. Regardless, McKinney feels the video gives a motorists an idea what their rights are.
polymorpheous
07-06-13, 08:31
What's your point?
The SCOTUS ruled the ACA Constitutional.
The SCOTUS never makes bad ruling.
:rolleyes:
What's your point?
The SCOTUS ruled the ACA Constitutional.
The SCOTUS never makes bad ruling.
:rolleyes:
"Bad ruling" is a matter of opinion. SCOTUS' opinion happens to be the law of the land.
polymorpheous
07-06-13, 08:38
"Bad ruling" is a matter of opinion. SCOTUS' opinion happens to be the law of the land.
Comment wasn't directed at you.
But as my rebuttal, the Constitution is the law of the land.
Comment wasn't directed at you.
But as my rebuttal, the Constitution is the law of the land.
The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the Constitution says.
scoutfsu99
07-06-13, 08:49
Sure but fact is the LEO is a public paid employee and should be above some punk kid !
Pretty pathetic of the LEO the fact a kid can get him that off balance and the kid was polite !
That LEO and any like him needs to be fired ! And hire folks who can pass basic stress test ! Cause they are ruining it for the good ones who are out there ! Sadly people rarely post vids of all the great ones !
The "crash the checkpoint" incident here was intentionally orchestrated by the Tennessee Libertarian party.
As to constitutional right being violated, that's debatable. The hits by the drug dog were probably a sham, but that's not provable. I predict Officer Ross won't be punished, although the whole department will likely get some additional training, especially on one's conduct in front of a possible video or audio recording.
http://www.wate.com/story/22770235/dui-checkpoint-video-youtube
To tie into this: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/52405696/ns/local_news-nashville_tn/#.Udge32391OY
The videotaped stop has thousands of people posting their opinions online, so Channel 4 News invited legal expert David Raybin to view the video and comment.
Raybin said it's a textbook case of what not to do if you're stopped.
"This guy is immediately becoming confrontational and non-compliant with the officer, for no reason. So the officer is allowed to escalate this a little further," Raybin said.
Raybin said the officer is within his rights to ask the driver to roll down the window, because that is how he can tell if the driver is intoxicated.
Raybin said you don't have the same rights when you're in a vehicle, and the courts do allow a brief detention. He added the officer is justified in asking the driver to get out of the vehicle because he's been non-compliant.
Channel 4 asked Raybin what he would do if he were defending that driver in court.
"You could make an argument that maybe this officer was overreacting to the way this person was responding to him, but it would be a really close call. I think the tie in this case would go to the officer." Raybin said.
NoveskeFan
07-06-13, 08:49
What's your point?
The SCOTUS ruled the ACA Constitutional.
The SCOTUS never makes bad ruling.
:rolleyes:
Bad ruling or not, people get paid to enforce it. The SCOTUS is made up of people, just like police departments. Everyone has the capability to make bad decisions.
The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the Constitution says.
The members of the court have ruled along individual, idealogical lines for decades while often side-stepping true constitutional meaning.
scoutfsu99
07-06-13, 08:54
edited
The members of the court have ruled along individual, idealogical lines for decades while often side-stepping true constitutional meaning.
You mean you're interpretation of "true constitutional meaning".
But yeah, they've been doing that, and for far longer than decades, I'm sure.
The "crash the checkpoint" incident here was intentionally orchestrated by the Tennessee Libertarian party.
As to constitutional right being violated, that's debatable. The hits by the drug dog were probably a sham, but that's not provable. I predict Officer Ross won't be punished, although the whole department will likely get some additional training, especially on one's conduct in front of a possible video or audio recording.
http://www.wate.com/story/22770235/dui-checkpoint-video-youtube
Quote:
Prominent Nashville criminal defense attorney Rob McKinney viewed the video. He told Nashville's News 2 the driver knew his rights well.
"I think it was a smart young man who wanted to prove a point that he knew his constitutional rights and he wanted to show how things are on the streets," McKinney said.
When asked if the Constitutional rights of the driver were violated, McKinney said, "Not from what I saw there."
McKinney said the driver's Constitutional rights in the video were not violated since officers have a right to ask drivers for their identification. Plus, being detained is also within the officer's legal rights if it's for an investigative purposes.
As for the K9 unit, the officer can only enter the vehicle if the K9 officer detects an alert like drugs. However, McKinney said it's tough to tell in the video if the dog actually detected something or if the handler manipulated to dog to do so. Regardless, McKinney feels the video gives a motorists an idea what their rights are. Quote]
NC General Statue 20-16.3A on Check points
Was the officer out of line yes. But it looked legal from what I saw.
Maybe yes, maybe no.....that doesn't change the fact of what Hmac is saying, right?
Maybe yes, or did you mean "Yes" only? Personally I don't at all understand why we even have judges clearly regarded as liberal or conservative. Think it's not possible then take a close look at the IG overseeing the IRS issues and ask yourself why 9 of him aren't sitting on the court.
scoutfsu99
07-06-13, 09:10
I actually edited my post out. Hmac answered clearly. I agree with you, its a shame that they aren't truly impartial and generally fall along party lines. But the decisions they do make, those are the law, correct?
HO-LEE COW MJOLNIR-
WHY do you "support drinking & driving"?!:D:D
You're a BAD MAN!!! BAD MAN!!:D:p
POO POO you've outdone even yourself this time.:lol:
Exactly, brother.
-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."
I actually edited my post out. Hmac answered clearly. I agree with you, its a shame that they aren't truly impartial and generally fall along party lines. But the decisions they do make, those are the law, correct?
By definition of their ruling yes, but not necessarily by definition of the constitution. Still technically you're right and I understand that.
scoutfsu99
07-06-13, 09:41
By definition of their ruling yes, but not necessarily by definition of the constitution. Still technically you're right and I understand that.
Understood. It doesn't sit easy with me either.
The only way that "common courtesy", or lack thereof, can have law enforcement consequences is if that law enforcement officer is willing to not be dispassionate about the job that he's doing and is willing to abuse the power he has.
It was very telling that when the camera was noticed all the commentary stopped and the camera was moved so that it couldn't record the images of what was going on afterwards. And "A.J." was on such a good roll, too...
NCPatrolAR
07-06-13, 10:39
The insults stop now. If you cant make your point without resorting to name-calling or being spiteful then dont post. If you just have to get the statement off your chest, send it to your intended target via PM. The juvenile behavior is tiresome and a major part of the problem we have with the GD section.
It's not reasonable to think someone that refuses a simple request to lower their window more than 3" might be trying to mask an odor of alcohol or drugs?
I've been through DUI checkpoints and I've never rolled my window down much more than that. Nobody's ever seemed to have a problem with it.
NeoNeanderthal
07-06-13, 10:55
I must have missed the part where the kid was disrespectful or an asshole. He referred the officer as sir multiple times. This is not a case where someone walks through town with an AR and then films cops showing up, baiting them and being a dick. This sober kid was just driving and tried to consent to only things that are absolutely legally required.
I've been through DUI checkpoints and I've never rolled my window down much more than that. Nobody's ever seemed to have a problem with it.
I did not watch the video. If I go through a check point, which I have done many times, I roll my window down only enough to communicate and so they can see my eyes. The assumption being that they want to keep traffic moving as much as possible and I simply don't need to lower it any further. Weather is a factor as well ( hot or cold ).
If it is not police and someone walks up to my car I damn sure don't roll it down any more than to allow voice.
======== Now here is my question ===
What if my vehicle has clear side windows, a high resolution mic/speaker system and a mechanism such that I can provide license/registration to police if requested without having to open door or roll down window.
If that existed and provided I looked normal and sounded normal would the police have a legal right to make me roll down my window?
Granted the compartment to pass documents would be a stretch but electronic conversation in a sealed vehicle is a no-brainer with today's technology. It could be easily incorporated into the side view mirror housings for instance. In fact... I'm a bit surprised it doesn't already exist... not for this situation but for occupant safety in dangerous areas ( women in parking decks or what have you ).
Legally... how would police handle that situation? You look ok, you sound ok, your papers are in order, but they can't smell you.
RogerinTPA
07-06-13, 11:10
Another log on the fire of distrust between innocent civilians and LE, and the fire of rage is building. In this case, prompting the dog up to the window, to imply a positive hit, to illegally search the car. Lying to the guy to gain info. It's legal but the guy didn't do anything but fail to roll his window down and question whether he was being detained. The trend appears to be when LE fails to get it's way, they escalate the encounter to provoke or generate an unlawful condition. We all know this type of 'fishing expedition' has been going on since the beginning of LE. The people who wear badges with questionable moral/unlawful behavior are the very ones I worry about shooting civilians or unlawfully breaking into their homes and confiscating guns if ordered to. People are getting tired of these criminals with badges. Already in the dog shoot, the officers, and the PD are getting threats against their lives from the community and across the country, most believing the officers provoked the encounter. Not every encounter needs a heavy hand. Not every citizen in a nail to be hammered.
scoutfsu99
07-06-13, 11:14
I must have missed the part where the kid was disrespectful or an asshole. He referred the officer as sir multiple times. This is not a case where someone walks through town with an AR and then films cops showing up, baiting them and being a dick. This sober kid was just driving and tried to consent to only things that are absolutely legally required.
This wasn't a random happenstance. This sober kid wasn't just driving. This was planned by, with, and through the Libertarian Party of TN. How was this different than a guy walking around with an AR, baiting them, and being a dick?
By definition of their ruling yes, but not necessarily by definition of the constitution.
By simple logic no ruling using the balance test is settled, because the balance can change over time and the balance is subjective to each justice that happens to be on the court at the time.
Also by simple logic any ruling that requires the balance test admits Constitutionally protected Rights ARE BEING VIOLATED, but claim the State needs some power more than you need your Rights.
======== Now here is my question ===
What if my vehicle has clear side windows, a high resolution mic/speaker system and a mechanism such that I can provide license/registration to police if requested without having to open door or roll down window.
If that existed and provided I looked normal and sounded normal would the police have a legal right to make me roll down my window?
Granted the compartment to pass documents would be a stretch but electronic conversation in a sealed vehicle is a no-brainer with today's technology. It could be easily incorporated into the side view mirror housings for instance. In fact... I'm a bit surprised it doesn't already exist... not for this situation but for occupant safety in dangerous areas ( women in parking decks or what have you ).
Legally... how would police handle that situation? You look ok, you sound ok, your papers are in order, but they can't smell you.[/QUOTE]
I don't see under what pretense LEO could if you had all of those modifications . But I don't know if I would fall over laughing or just be very confused.
Voodoo_Man
07-06-13, 11:28
======== Now here is my question ===
What if my vehicle has clear side windows, a high resolution mic/speaker system and a mechanism such that I can provide license/registration to police if requested without having to open door or roll down window.
If that existed and provided I looked normal and sounded normal would the police have a legal right to make me roll down my window?
Granted the compartment to pass documents would be a stretch but electronic conversation in a sealed vehicle is a no-brainer with today's technology. It could be easily incorporated into the side view mirror housings for instance. In fact... I'm a bit surprised it doesn't already exist... not for this situation but for occupant safety in dangerous areas ( women in parking decks or what have you ).
Legally... how would police handle that situation? You look ok, you sound ok, your papers are in order, but they can't smell you.
I don't see under what pretense LEO could if you had all of those modifications . But I don't know if I would fall over laughing or just be very confused.
Legally, you would be asked to roll down your window and have actual interaction with the officer.
I do not know about others here, but if someone gives me anything digital as proof, I do not accept it. Insurance companies give you card copies of paperwork and state DMV's send you paper registrations for a reason. I would not accept a picture of someone's drivers license either.
If you do not roll down the window, that is not only out of the ordinary it raises my suspicion that you may be trying to hide something (like an odor in your vehicle).
Legally, you would be asked to roll down your window and have actual interaction with the officer.
I do not know about others here, but if someone gives me anything digital as proof, I do not accept it. Insurance companies give you card copies of paperwork and state DMV's send you paper registrations for a reason. I would not accept a picture of someone's drivers license either.
If you do not roll down the window, that is not only out of the ordinary it raises my suspicion that you may be trying to hide something (like an odor in your vehicle).
The more I think about tb_av's question the more I agree with your point since the check point is designed to detect law violations that would be otherwise not observed. But I am sure that could be argued a bit. I would still laugh my ass off.
I don't see under what pretense LEO could if you had all of those modifications . But I don't know if I would fall over laughing or just be very confused.
Granted it's a stretch today but it seems to me the law should apply equally, modifications or not.
Voodoo_Man
07-06-13, 11:40
Granted it's a stretch today but it seems to me the law should apply equally, modifications or not.
Equally? Mind explaining, I'm curious as what you mean.
NeoNeanderthal
07-06-13, 12:07
This wasn't a random happenstance. This sober kid wasn't just driving. This was planned by, with, and through the Libertarian Party of TN. How was this different than a guy walking around with an AR, baiting them, and being a dick?
Because the cops set up a check-point. This kid is not causing a scene and diverting police resources. The cops cause the scene IE checkpoint and choose to detain him and **** up his car, just because he didnt bend over and take illegal/disrespectful bullshit.
But mainly, it's different because this kid was not being a dick. He didn't do one rude thing. He did not swear, insult, or belittle. It's not like he went on a rant calling the cops "Inept fascist pigs infringing on my constitutional rights ext." He was all "no thanks, yes sir, am i required to?, am i being detained?, Id rather not."
The cop was nearly immediately rude. With the third sentence he utters, he starts to act disrespectful.
scoutfsu99
07-06-13, 12:20
Lol well I guess he got the scene he intended to create when he set out. He didn't let them violate his rights and they didn't violate his rights, according to the experts.
IMO, it definitely could've been handled better by everyone.
F-Trooper05
07-06-13, 12:21
When the driver asked if he was being detained, the officer should have given him a simple "yes" or "no" answer. That's not an unreasonable question.
Insurance companies give you card copies of paperwork
Not USAA. My car insurance was (and has been for years) sent via email in a .pdf for me to print out on a regular sheet of paper that, if I didn't have proper insurance, would take all of 10 seconds in mspaint to change a digit to make it look legal for another year.
And if there's a mil base near you, I can guarantee a huge amount of USAA customers :p
Voodoo_Man
07-06-13, 12:59
Not USAA. My car insurance was (and has been for years) sent via email in a .pdf for me to print out on a regular sheet of paper that, if I didn't have proper insurance, would take all of 10 seconds in mspaint to change a digit to make it look legal for another year.
And if there's a mil base near you, I can guarantee a huge amount of USAA customers :p
USAA is one of those companies that I have experience with so while I do not have to accept a digital copy, if I see them open an email attachment pdf file and review it, I may accept it.
There should still be a paper copy available to give the officer.
Equally? Mind explaining, I'm curious as what you mean.
IOW, laws are applied equitably. The fact that you might be presented with an unusual situation, you don't change the rules. ( and I'm not saying anyone did ).
I was simply trying to present a different scenario and basically would you waive one guy through and say "wow, what a nut job in a whacky car" and then detain the "problem child" that presents himself in a less interesting conventional vehicle. OR... is there equality across the board?
EDIT: I'm sorry I might not be clear here. My fancy car will provide you my real voice, not a robot voice. My real license through a secure compartment. In fact I'll add a little 2" fan that you can sniff the cabin with. So you can see me, you can here me, you have my real papers, the only difference is the nature of my vehicle... you can't physically touch me. Otherwise you have available to you the items usually needed to determine DUI. Sight, smell, actions, hearing. Total one on one interaction in a 22nd Century car so to speak.
24hrs after video gets uploaded, it makes the front page on Youtube with 437k hits.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-WMn_zHCVo
I'm guessing the LEO's in the video never got the memo that it's 2013 and damn near everyone has a HD camera/camera phone recording. ESPECIALLY at checkpoints like this.
Despite having no RS and no PC, they decided to go on a fishing expedition anyways.
A great piece of journalism, capturing the police state mentality that is firmly in control of amerika.....There is no justification, or rationalization for what ensued, and to think, 99% of those stopped, would have been totally clueless as to what was being perpetrated.
What a horrifying state of affairs...
....I agree with your point since the check point is designed to detect law violations that would be otherwise not observed.
That is an interesting choice of words. "detect law violations"
The DUI check point is presented to the public as a place where DUI law violations are identified and dealt with quickly.
In contrast... a road block might be utilized to "detect law violations" of any nature by a variety of means not typically associated with DUI.
NCPatrolAR
07-06-13, 14:21
Not USAA. My car insurance was (and has been for years) sent via email in a .pdf for me to print out on a regular sheet of paper that, if I didn't have proper insurance, would take all of 10 seconds in mspaint to change a digit to make it look legal for another year.
And if there's a mil base near you, I can guarantee a huge amount of USAA customers :p
USAA sends me hard copies each year
That is an interesting choice of words. "detect law violations"
The DUI check point is presented to the public as a place where DUI law violations are identified and dealt with quickly.
In contrast... a road block might be utilized to "detect law violations" of any nature by a variety of means not typically associated with DUI.
In NC there are under the same statue
§ 20‑16.3A. Checking stations and roadblocks.
(a) A law‑enforcement agency may conduct checking stations to determine compliance with the provisions of this Chapter. If the agency is conducting a checking station for the purposes of determining compliance with this Chapter, it must:
(1) Repealed by Session Laws 2006‑253, s. 4, effective December 1, 2006, and applicable to offenses committed on or after that date.
(2) Designate in advance the pattern both for stopping vehicles and for requesting drivers that are stopped to produce drivers license, registration, or insurance information.
(2a) Operate under a written policy that provides guidelines for the pattern, which need not be in writing. The policy may be either the agency's own policy, or if the agency does not have a written policy, it may be the policy of another law enforcement agency, and may include contingency provisions for altering either pattern if actual traffic conditions are different from those anticipated, but no individual officer may be given discretion as to which vehicle is stopped or, of the vehicles stopped, which driver is requested to produce drivers license, registration, or insurance information. If officers of a law enforcement agency are operating under another agency's policy, it must be stated in writing.
(3) Advise the public that an authorized checking station is being operated by having, at a minimum, one law enforcement vehicle with its blue light in operation during the conducting of the checking station.
(a1) A pattern designated by a law enforcement agency pursuant to subsection (a) of this section shall not be based on a particular vehicle type, except that the pattern may designate any type of commercial motor vehicle as defined in G.S. 20‑4.01(3d). The provisions of this subsection shall apply to this Chapter only and are not to be construed to restrict any other type of checkpoint or roadblock which is lawful and meets the requirements of subsection (c) of this section.
(b) An officer who determines there is a reasonable suspicion that an occupant has violated a provision of this Chapter, or any other provision of law, may detain the driver to further investigate in accordance with law. The operator of any vehicle stopped at a checking station established under this subsection may be requested to submit to an alcohol screening test under G.S. 20‑16.3 if during the course of the stop the officer determines the driver had previously consumed alcohol or has an open container of alcoholic beverage in the vehicle. The officer so requesting shall consider the results of any alcohol screening test or the driver's refusal in determining if there is reasonable suspicion to investigate further.
(c) Law enforcement agencies may conduct any type of checking station or roadblock as long as it is established and operated in accordance with the provisions of the United States Constitution and the Constitution of North Carolina.
(d) The placement of checkpoints should be random or statistically indicated, and agencies shall avoid placing checkpoints repeatedly in the same location or proximity. This subsection shall not be grounds for a motion to suppress or a defense to any offense arising out of the operation of a checking station. (1983, c. 435, s. 22; 2006‑253, s. 4; 2011‑216, s. 1.)
Eurodriver
07-06-13, 15:22
May I ask the LEOs here what their obsession with bending the constitution and disregarding civil liberties is all about?
I mean really, why can't you just go "It's his 4th amendment right. Let him go." ??? Especially if you know he isn't drunk.
whiterabbit05
07-06-13, 15:24
Hope he sues and wins.
Voodoo_Man
07-06-13, 15:51
IOW, laws are applied equitably. The fact that you might be presented with an unusual situation, you don't change the rules. ( and I'm not saying anyone did ).
I was simply trying to present a different scenario and basically would you waive one guy through and say "wow, what a nut job in a whacky car" and then detain the "problem child" that presents himself in a less interesting conventional vehicle. OR... is there equality across the board?
EDIT: I'm sorry I might not be clear here. My fancy car will provide you my real voice, not a robot voice. My real license through a secure compartment. In fact I'll add a little 2" fan that you can sniff the cabin with. So you can see me, you can here me, you have my real papers, the only difference is the nature of my vehicle... you can't physically touch me. Otherwise you have available to you the items usually needed to determine DUI. Sight, smell, actions, hearing. Total one on one interaction in a 22nd Century car so to speak.
The rules never change, just the way an officer applies them to a specific situation may change.
All that you listed still does not overcome one of the most basic aspects of a vehicle stop, which is human contact, it is absolutely required and regardless of what technological breakthroughs are in place today or may be in the future, unless a high court finds that human contact is not a part of police work then whatever you can think of, will not matter.
Also, officer safety being a part of a vehicle investigation, how exactly do I tell that person to turn off the vehicle and hand me the keys, expecting all the little gadgets and gizmo's to still work? How about getting them out of the vehicle to perform a field sobriety test? And in the event that I do have PS to arrest, and that person refuses to exit the vehicle what exactly would I be expected to do? Crowbar my way through his technology?
Voodoo_Man
07-06-13, 15:52
I mean really, why can't you just go "It's his 4th amendment right. Let him go." ??? Especially if you know he isn't drunk.
How can anyone know anything without the proper testing methods and their constitutionally allowed application?
I love threads like this. More "let's poke smoky and record the ensuing fun".. hahahaha. Would anybody actually expect a different outcome?? Honestly. The only thing I would add is "there's nothing new about this folks". Anyone that was a teenager in 69-70 knows this. Hell, they didn't even need a checkpoint.. I've been yanked out of the car for cruising McDonalds for GOD's sake. Why... because the officers wanted to do it. So, what.. Illegal, unconstitutional, unethical.. well sure.. big deal.. BTW.. The evil left wasn't in control of the country then guys.. hahahahahaha.. Just the evil establishment.. You guys ever heard the Billy Bragg song "Which side are you on"? Carry on.. 8)Ron
I am not a proponent of checkpoints. The Officer had the perfect opportunity to help change people's perception of the police and yet he chose to reinforce the negative stigma that so many believe. What a shame, he proves the stereotype and should be terminated post haste.
Snot nosed kid looking for attention vs officers in video who let it get under their skin and lose their professionalism. No winners here. I delt with 2 drunks the other night holding video cameras and harrassing medics who where trying to treat a friend of theirs. These guys just like to provoke a confrontation hoping the officers will do something they can sue for. However its also on the officers for letting their buttons get pushed so easily.
Pat
LEOs need to figure out how to do their jobs and function within the limits of the law just as everyone else needs to learn how to function within the limits of the law.
Being a snot nose, looking for attention or seeing if you can get a LEO to **** up on hidden camera are all within the limits of the law. When LEOs conduct themselves outside the limits of the law they hurt themselves by putting their employment at risk, they hurt their department by giving creating a poor reputation and to a lesser extent harm the image of LEOs in general.
DUI checkpoints are already bad enough, acting like the officer in the video only makes things much, much worse.
I can't recall who said it, but a member of this forum stated that he does his best to assume he is being recorded at all times. LEOs have dash camera video for their own protection, they need to accept that everyone else is probably doing the same and for the same reason.
And if somebody is actually DUI and they record everything, that probably only helps the officers. I think in court most judges aren't going to be impressed by any video from somebody who is truly impaired or otherwise engaged in illegal activity.
Finally, acting within your rights, even if it is contrary to an officers preferences or demanding that your rights be respected are NOT "provocative actions", it is how things SHOULD BE. Officers conducting themselves in a way that violates rights or the making of unlawful demands are the actual "provocative actions" in these circumstances.
There is a word for LEOs who can do their jobs with a full understanding of a persons rights and without violating them. It's called "Professionalism." If people can't do it, they should find something else to do. Law enforcement isn't a suitable occupation for everyone.
Too bad. The police are trying to find drunk/high drivers and keep them off the street - the same drunk driver that might T-bone this kid and end his life prematurely. Even the decent officers just trying to get thru the night without getting shot are getting caught up in stuff like this.
This could have all gone just fine without any issue if the kid had been polite, and the officer hadn't lost his cool because the kid decided to be smart about it. Nobody wins here.
At the same time, I don't like the police thinking they are above the law and making their own laws as they go along.
I've never had any trouble with the police because a) I'm not doing anything wrong and b) I will always be polite and respectful.
This wasn't a random happenstance. This sober kid wasn't just driving. This was planned by, with, and through the Libertarian Party of TN. How was this different than a guy walking around with an AR, baiting them, and being a dick?
What's the difference between him and the cops then? They plan to go out and find people violating or breaking laws, video record them and arrest them, etc. He went out, had his camera and caught them violating laws, policing the police as it were.
The guy at the stop wasn't "baiting" anyone, he was asserting his constitutional rights. You know, the one's cops are sworn to uphold and protect. Just because he didn't acquiesce and grovel doesn't mean he was being a dick.
The cop was unprofessional and should be terminated.
Agree or not, haven't the courts up held the use of these check points?
Yes they have. In our part of the country they call them Roadside Safety Checks. You are required to produce your driver's license and proof of motor vehicle insurance. You are also required to move your vehicle where directed.
I never minded one bit being recorded on camera. Camera or not, you have to maintain a cool head. If a motorist does not want to comply with the basic requests at the safety check, the stop goes to the next level. You have to maintain your composure no matter what a driver says or does.
If a K-9 hits on a vehicle, consent to search is not required. We could not see the K-9 in action, so any comment about the K-9 not alerting on the vehicle properly is speculation or fabrication by the person who posted the video.
There were some comments typed on the video by the poster that were not recorded on audio.
Was the driver arrested ? What were the charges?
The bigger issue seems to be with the check points themselves. Here is the thing if people did not want these check points they would not be there. We don't have them in Alaska. If people don't like them they need to let their elected official know at the ballot box or through lobbying them and if there is enough people who agree they will go away. But the reality is most people value taking drunks off the road and accept these check points as a necessary evil in order to help make that happen.
Pat
Strawman. The problem is not with the DUI checkpoint. The problem is with the misuse of authority DURING conduct of a DUI checkpoint.
I hate these ship lawyers with their cell phone cameras looking to catch someone in a bad moment, but that was not a bad moment - that was an ongoing, multi-Officer display of contempt for a citizen's rights.
And again, mixed emotions from an LE standpoint. Officer makes a reasonable request, driver refused reasonable request and had a complete lack of common courtesy in my opinion, cop(s) go way overboard in my opinion. Nobody wins in the end.
You get out of a traffic stop (or checkpoint in this case) what you put into it. Someone's rights are not being trampled because a cop made a reasonable request to roll down the window. Common courtesy means you can at least be polite and speak to someone face to face at that point even if you don't believe in the legality of the checkpoints. No reason to be a douche about it. You can still make your point by being polite and rolling down the window and at least having respect until you are disrespected (which for the record, the guy's rights were seriously violated and be was seriously disrespected).
And again, cop(s) went way overboard with this one. In the end...nobody was right in this situation. Cops were way out of line in my opinion and brewing for a fight.
Let's say the guy was intoxicated and didn't want to incriminate himself? Since it's a criminal charge, doesn't he have the right to avoid self-incrimination? It's supposed to be a pillar of our justice system, yet many these days consider it an unfortunate one.
I need more than Reasonable Suspicion to search your vehicle without consent.
Refusing to roll down your window more than a few inches is an indicator of being an impaired driver. The officer should have engaged in more probing questions to try and determine impairment, instead of losing his professionalism. I have a feeling the driver would have kept asking if he was being detained. Repeating the same statement to different questions can be a sign of impairment. I don't agree with the officers actions. The officer could have played that a lot different and explained certain things to the driver, hopefully getting enough replies to detect impairment; slurred and/or incoherent speech, odor of an alcoholic beverage, flushed face, etc.
Again, what about the right against self-incrimination? Now if you made DUI a civil penalty rather than a criminal one, it's on like Donkey-Kong. Until then, I think the right to refuse a search of one's person and property should remain intact.
I hate these ship lawyers/police officers with their cell phone cameras/dash mounted cameras looking to catch someone in a bad moment... SNIP
What's the difference?
Voodoo_Man
07-06-13, 16:59
Let's say the guy was intoxicated and didn't want to incriminate himself? Since it's a criminal charge, doesn't he have the right to avoid self-incrimination? It's supposed to be a pillar of our justice system, yet many these days consider it an unfortunate one.
Again, what about the right against self-incrimination? Now if you made DUI a civil penalty rather than a criminal one, it's on like Donkey-Kong. Until then, I think the right to refuse a search of one's person and property should remain intact.
I am not tracking.
Mind explaining? Seriously, not trolling, I am curious as to what you mean.
Not OK to violate his rights.
But skeletor could've avoided a whole lot of hassle by being amiable and rolling down the window.
Don't think he'd be giving up much in the way of personal liberties by doing so.
What's the difference?
There is no difference. No one has a reasonable expectation of privacy these days. Just about everything is recorded when you venture outside your home.
The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the Constitution says.
Who told you that?
They are incorrect.
-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."
Alaskapopo
07-06-13, 17:32
Who told you that?
They are incorrect.
-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."
No he is correct. The legislative and the executive branch can not over turn a court ruling. They have the final say.
Pat
Moose-Knuckle
07-06-13, 17:37
No one has a reasonable expectation of privacy these days. Just about everything is recorded when you venture outside your home.
And when your in your home the NSA takes care of the rest . . .
CIA Chief: We’ll Spy on You Through Your Dishwasher
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/03/petraeus-tv-remote/
RogerinTPA
07-06-13, 17:39
LEOs need to figure out how to do their jobs and function within the limits of the law just as everyone else needs to learn how to function within the limits of the law.
Being a snot nose, looking for attention or seeing if you can get a LEO to **** up on hidden camera are all within the limits of the law. When LEOs conduct themselves outside the limits of the law they hurt themselves by putting their employment at risk, they hurt their department by giving creating a poor reputation and to a lesser extent harm the image of LEOs in general.
DUI checkpoints are already bad enough, acting like the officer in the video only makes things much, much worse.
I can't recall who said it, but a member of this forum stated that he does his best to assume he is being recorded at all times. LEOs have dash camera video for their own protection, they need to accept that everyone else is probably doing the same and for the same reason.
And if somebody is actually DUI and they record everything, that probably only helps the officers. I think in court most judges aren't going to be impressed by any video from somebody who is truly impaired or otherwise engaged in illegal activity.
Finally, acting within your rights, even if it is contrary to an officers preferences or demanding that your rights be respected are NOT "provocative actions", it is how things SHOULD BE. Officers conducting themselves in a way that violates rights or the making of unlawful demands are the actual "provocative actions" in these circumstances.
There is a word for LEOs who can do their jobs with a full understanding of a persons rights and without violating them. It's called "Professionalism." If people can't do it, they should find something else to do. Law enforcement isn't a suitable occupation for everyone.
Well said. As a human being, it is hard to admit that your conduct is wrong, especially when that misconduct (finding ways to violate a person's rights and skirting the constitution) has become a 'habit' in conducting one's duties in dealing with the general public. Being a professional means to be self aware of one's conduct, respect for your chosen profession and having the moral courage to stand up for what's right, despite what everyone else thinks. The honor or dishonor to a chosen profession, is carried by the individual, and through association, the unit or department he or she represents. Every time an incident like this occurs, not only does the 'bad apple' bring dishonor to the profession, it dishonors others who wear the uniform. It draws to the profession as a whole, not only the ire of the locals, but across the nation, and the world via youtube and other media outlets. Each misconduct endangers others who wear the uniform by making all a target of not only intense scrutiny, but of revenge. Whether or not the action was justified, perception is reality.
I'm sorry but I do not need anyone to "protect me" from much of anything. Especially if they choose to be asinine about it. Despite the claims of an individual to the contrary, I despise the idea of driving while impaired. I also value my personal liberties. If I have no liberties here at home then why am I supporting fighting a series of wars for the liberties of others? Makes no damned sense.
I also find it abhorrent that Americans(!) can speak derisively about another American who is doing what we ALL should be doing - then have the nerve to speak about "inalienable, God-given rights" related to the Second Amendment... The irony is not lost and as we say back home "that dog don't hunt".
But Americans are a fickle, double-minded lot nowadays: selective recall/selective omission. Either one supports PERSONAL LIBERTY or he does not.
I get the Ego. We ALL wish to be "special" - especially in the eyes of the public-at-large. But these egomaniacal persons are causing major fissures in the US; namely distrust between the police and Mainstream America.
As a very good White buddy of mine who fought in Vietnam always tells me, "We've all been negroized..."
Welcome to the neighborhood, brothers and sisters. I've been waiting to meet y'all.
Truly a very dark period in US history - that some patently refuse to see, much less acknowledge.
-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."
No he is correct. The legislative and the executive branch can not over turn a court ruling. They have the final say.
Pat
You are incorrect. The Supreme Court is NOT a law-making body. Go study.
SCOTUS can rule as they please; THEY cannot overturn legislation by powers vested in them.
We're speaking about two different things here.
Besides, we don't live in a de jure Oligarchy.
-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."
SWATcop556
07-06-13, 17:57
The officer handled the situation poorly. Plain and simple. No way around it. More guys need to bone up on their search and seizure laws because these guys are out there filming. I understand the stress of being filmed but if you don't do anything you don't want preserved on YouTube you won't have any issues. It's flat out irritating when another officer walks up onto my scene and says "Are you hot?" referring to my mic. Mine is always on. No matter what. If you need to say something that you don't want on tape either don't say it or talk later off the scene.
Its also clear that many members here have little to zero experience with the use of a working dog. I'd also bet that the driver has little to no knowledge as was evident by the text added to the video during the exterior sniff by the K9. And we just have to take his work that nothing has ever been in his car. K9's are not absolute but working with one every day I happen to know a thing it two.
That being said it should never have gotten to that point. I'm viewing the criticism of the K9 handler as a separate incident. Handlers are often called to a scene and have no background on what the situation is. They simply do their job and advise the results.
RogerinTPA
07-06-13, 18:03
Not OK to violate his rights.
But skeletor could've avoided a whole lot of hassle by being amiable and rolling down the window.
Don't think he'd be giving up much in the way of personal liberties by doing so.
Amiable...I'm willing to bet that the circumstances still would have occurred, even if he'd lowered the window, been respectful, friendly and continued to asserted his rights. He still would have been made to pull over, get out of the vehicle, he would have locked it, refused consent to search, the dog would have been prompted to make a false hit, and his rights would have been violated just the same. The moment the officer was questioned and the driver started to assert his constitutional rights, the officer clearly got hostile and intended to escalate the situation. I could clearly see the indignation all over the officer's face, right from the start.
GeorgiaBoy
07-06-13, 18:10
I want to know if the PD is responsible for the stratches caused by allowing the K9 to jump on the hood and doors...
I know I would be mega pissed if a cop had his dog jumping all over my vehicle.
Who told you that?
They are incorrect.
LOL.:lol:
Amiable...I'm willing to bet that the circumstances still would have occurred, even if he'd lowered the window, been respectful, friendly and continued to asserted his rights. He still would have been made to pull over, get out of the vehicle, he would have locked it, refused consent to search, the dog would have been prompted to make a false hit, and his rights would have been violated just the same. The moment the officer was questioned and the driver started to assert his constitutional rights, the officer clearly got hostile and intended to escalate the situation. I could clearly see the indignation all over the officer's face, right from the start.
I can see that, but I'd bet the opposite. He bristled at the driver's refusal to lower the window and it seems to me that plotted the course for the remainder of that track wreck.
Again, I'm not one to throw away my rights. But a request to lower a widow, turn on a dome light, shut the motor off, etc isn't really an egregious violation of my liberties. A couple past cars of mine had tint all around and I would always lower all windows while pulling over as a courtesy to the officers.
Not right or wrong, I just choose the path of least resistance when working with the police. Their job isn't easy and I don't want to be the one that makes it harder.
I can see that, but I'd bet the opposite. He bristled at the driver's refusal to lower the window and it seems to me that plotted the course for the remainder of that track wreck.
Again, I'm not one to throw away my rights. But a request to lower a widow, turn on a dome light, shut the motor off, etc isn't really an egregious violation of my liberties. A couple past cars of mine had tint all around and I would always lower all windows while pulling over as a courtesy to the officers.
Not right or wrong, I just choose the path of least resistance when working with the police. Their job isn't easy and I don't want to be the one that makes it harder.
I agree with you. However, if it is only a request than he has a right to refuse it, period, full stop. Was it a lawful order? I'm not sure on that one... Officer? If it's a lawful order then get'er done.
I have tint on all sides and I drop all windows on the 2 times I've been pulled over.
I am not tracking.
Mind explaining? Seriously, not trolling, I am curious as to what you mean.
You have a right to not incriminate yourself to a police officer. If the standard by which PC is developed is to have the subject speak to you in order to detect a crime, do you not have a right to invoke the 5th Amendment? By rolling the window down only enough to invoke your rights (and avoid transmitting evidence against you in the process), does that establish RS to the point you can further detain the individual? Does it establish PC?
We've always been told that driving is a privilege, not a right. Please show me in law or caselaw, where it's written that you void your 5th Amendment rights by driving on a public motorway?
I understand that they can revoke your driving privileges, but in administratively doing so, can they force you to implicate yourself for the commission of a crime? It would be entirely different if DUI was a civil law violation, but it is criminal. So either we have the right to remain silent and avoid self-incrimination, or we do not. Which is it?
Please understand that I'm not trolling here, just playing devil's advocate. I'm interested to see the case made by both sides.
Legally, you would be asked to roll down your window and have actual interaction with the officer.
I do not know about others here, but if someone gives me anything digital as proof, I do not accept it. Insurance companies give you card copies of paperwork and state DMV's send you paper registrations for a reason. I would not accept a picture of someone's drivers license either.
If you do not roll down the window, that is not only out of the ordinary it raises my suspicion that you may be trying to hide something (like an odor in your vehicle).
Do you not have MobileCOP or some other electronic verification system in your units? I most likely know whether a vehicle has valid insurance and owner DL before I ever exit the unit.
As for your suspicion, it's good cop instinct, but not good enough to go to court on. :)
Give it a rest dude. I've answered your PM which is how is should have been handled. Air your distain in a private forum. Knock off the bullshit.
SWATcop556
I agree with you. However, if it is only a request than he has a right to refuse it, period, full stop. Was it a lawful order? I'm not sure on that one... Officer? If it's a lawful order then get'er done.
I have tint on all sides and I drop all windows on the 2 times I've been pulled over.
Definitely has the right to refuse it. I just don't see the point in doing so.
Definitely has the right to refuse it. I just don't see the point in doing so.
I don't disagree with you. But, I'm talking about exercising constitutional rights, not what's considered "right" by most people. The guy was civil, polite and asked pointed questions that the Officer refused to answer.
Voodoo_Man
07-06-13, 18:46
You have a right to not incriminate yourself to a police officer. If the standard by which PC is developed is to have the subject speak to you in order to detect a crime, do you not have a right to invoke the 5th Amendment? By rolling the window down only enough to invoke your rights (and avoid transmitting evidence against you in the process), does that establish RS to the point you can further detain the individual? Does it establish PC?
We've always been told that driving is a right, not a privilege. Please show me in law or caselaw, where it's written that you void your 5th Amendment rights by driving on a public motorway?
I understand that they can revoke your driving privileges, but in administratively doing so, can they force you to implicate yourself for the commission of a crime? It would be entirely different if DUI was a civil law violation, but it is criminal. So either we have the right to remain silent and avoid self-incrimination, or we do not. Which is it?
Please understand that I'm not trolling here, just playing devil's advocate. I'm interested to see the case made by both sides.
Everyone has the right to invoke the 5th, in a court room, no one says you have to testify to prove yourself guilty / incriminate yourself.
If a driver refuses to comply with anything an officer says, refuses to open their mouths, speak a word, nothing, it may be construed as attempting to hinder an investigation (depends on the locale). Furthermore, if a person does not say anything at all, and allows the officer to make his/her own judgement based on that persons demeanor/appearance/etc it will most definitely work against the person in question because they are not giving the officer any other information, and being difficult, which is definitely out of the ordinary and from my experience has been looked negatively upon in a court setting.
You have to make contact with the officer, there is simply no way around it. You cannot keep your window rolled up, the door locked and the vehicle in drive if the officer tells otherwise. Step outside a checkpoint for a moment, as everything that is applicable at a checkpoint is applicable in a regular vehicle investigation. If you are stopped for speeding, running a red light/stop sign, or whatever else, there is already PS, or at the very least RS to stop you. Once you are stopped, you must provide the information required by your state. You must make contact with the officer, failing to do any of that ups the ante instantly and is, in a way, self incriminating.
Why would DUI be a civil law violation since it is a direct crime against the state/other citizens of your state? You have the right to remain silent, before, during and after the investigation and/or arrest, but do not think for a moment it will save you from anything.
Specifically in DUI investigations, being silent can and will hurt you since the officer is the one making the observations, using his training and experience to determine if he/she believes you are under the influence. You can refuse the tests, you can refuses to speak, you can refuse to comply in anyway, but do not be upset when you get hit with a greater charge (if you are under the influence) or if you are arrested (even if you are not DUI) because the officer believes you are and are being silent in order to hinder his investigation.
HackerF15E
07-06-13, 18:46
We've always been told that driving is a right, not a privilege.
Told by whom?
Freedom of movement is a right, but doing so by operating a motor vehicle on public taxpayer-funded roads is a privilege.
Voodoo_Man
07-06-13, 18:47
Do you not have MobileCOP or some other electronic verification system in your units? I most likely know whether a vehicle has valid insurance and owner DL before I ever exit the unit.
As for your suspicion, it's good cop instinct, but not good enough to go to court on. :)
Not MobileCOP, but we know if a person has good insurance, that is it, everything else requires contact to get info.
As for the suspicion, I never said I would arrest on it, I just said it would bumps up my suspicion.
Belmont31R
07-06-13, 18:55
1. The vast majority of cites and prosecutions stemming from DUI checkpoints are for offenses other than DUI. Things like seatbelts, licenses, tags, window tint, ect.
2. The police catch very few people who are DUI at checkpoints.
3. SCOTUS ruled the checkpoints a 4A violation but ok due to a public safety exception.
4. Part of police work is dealing with all manner of society. That means libertarian types who troll you for civil rights violations. At the same time police like to look for any little chink in their behavior to charge them with something.
5. Dogs can be used to get PC for a search through false hits or hits on command.
6. Having a dog scratch up a persons car is bs. Ever gone outside and see where a 10lb cat slid down your hood? Imagine a 80-120lb dog doing that.
7. Nothing wrong with only lowering your window a few inches. Of course they didn't like that. Contempt of cop means you are going to get rung through the wringer for them to find something on you.
8. DUI checkpoints are one of the least effective ways to catch drunks. They tie up a large amount of officers in a fixed location. Riving trolling and citizen calls catch more.
9. If the common good is an exemption to the 4A to violate a right why can't the common good be used as an exemption to the 2A?
10. As seen on the video they seem perturbed by someone applying their rights due to the commentary when they first enter the vehicle to search it. I put the burden of acting like a professional adult on LEO's first before some random person driving down the road.
Belmont31R
07-06-13, 18:56
Told by whom?
Freedom of movement is a right, but doing so by operating a motor vehicle on public taxpayer-funded roads is a privilege.
So unless you are on your own two feet you don't have a right to travel?
Told by whom?
Freedom of movement is a right, but doing so by operating a motor vehicle on public taxpayer-funded roads is a privilege.
Oops! Dyslexic typing, should be the other way around! :D
Everyone has the right to invoke the 5th, in a court room, no one says you have to testify to prove yourself guilty / incriminate yourself.
If a driver refuses to comply with anything an officer says, refuses to open their mouths, speak a word, nothing, it may be construed as attempting to hinder an investigation (depends on the locale). Furthermore, if a person does not say anything at all, and allows the officer to make his/her own judgement based on that persons demeanor/appearance/etc it will most definitely work against the person in question because they are not giving the officer any other information, and being difficult, which is definitely out of the ordinary and from my experience has been looked negatively upon in a court setting.
You have to make contact with the officer, there is simply no way around it. You cannot keep your window rolled up, the door locked and the vehicle in drive if the officer tells otherwise. Step outside a checkpoint for a moment, as everything that is applicable at a checkpoint is applicable in a regular vehicle investigation. If you are stopped for speeding, running a red light/stop sign, or whatever else, there is already PS, or at the very least RS to stop you. Once you are stopped, you must provide the information required by your state. You must make contact with the officer, failing to do any of that ups the ante instantly and is, in a way, self incriminating.
Why would DUI be a civil law violation since it is a direct crime against the state/other citizens of your state? You have the right to remain silent, before, during and after the investigation and/or arrest, but do not think for a moment it will save you from anything.
Specifically in DUI investigations, being silent can and will hurt you since the officer is the one making the observations, using his training and experience to determine if he/she believes you are under the influence. You can refuse the tests, you can refuses to speak, you can refuse to comply in anyway, but do not be upset when you get hit with a greater charge (if you are under the influence) or if you are arrested (even if you are not DUI) because the officer believes you are and are being silent in order to hinder his investigation.
In a way, you just made my point for me. A DUI checkpoint or as we call it, Roadside Safety Check is by default a suspicionless stop. That's completely different from a traffic stop where the initial violation occurred prior to contact. At a checkpoint, no PC exists to do anything other than initiate a contact with the motorist as governed by state law. The driver has certain legal requirements and so does the agency and individual officer/deputy. If the motorist offers DL & Ins verification, then does nothing more than stare straight ahead and invoke their rights, do you by state law have PC to detain? Excluding of course any registration or safety violation observed?
As for the last bolded part, you're saying that invoking the right to remain silent is cause for a greater or additional charge? Please explain?
FWIW, I've worked RSC's before. I've worked contact on RSC's several times as well. I usually don't have to wonder whether I'm being recorded, because the local news channel is right behind me and I wind up on the 10PM news. :)
I do try to make a positive impression to the local community and I've had way more "thank you" comments than negative ones. When the day comes that I get one of these bait guys in front of me, I hope it winds up being an example of how it's done correctly. ;)
1. The vast majority of cites and prosecutions stemming from DUI checkpoints are for offenses other than DUI. Things like seatbelts, licenses, tags, window tint, ect.
2. The police catch very few people who are DUI at checkpoints.
3. SCOTUS ruled the checkpoints a 4A violation but ok due to a public safety exception.
4. Part of police work is dealing with all manner of society. That means libertarian types who troll you for civil rights violations. At the same time police like to look for any little chink in their behavior to charge them with something.
5. Dogs can be used to get PC for a search through false hits or hits on command.
6. Having a dog scratch up a persons car is bs. Ever gone outside and see where a 10lb cat slid down your hood? Imagine a 80-120lb dog doing that.
7. Nothing wrong with only lowering your window a few inches. Of course they didn't like that. Contempt of cop means you are going to get rung through the wringer for them to find something on you.
8. DUI checkpoints are one of the least effective ways to catch drunks. They tie up a large amount of officers in a fixed location. Riving trolling and citizen calls catch more.
9. If the common good is an exemption to the 4A to violate a right why can't the common good be used as an exemption to the 2A?
10. As seen on the video they seem perturbed by someone applying their rights due to the commentary when they first enter the vehicle to search it. I put the burden of acting like a professional adult on LEO's first before some random person driving down the road.
FWIW, we usually issue warnings at our RSC's if all they have is a minor safety violation or registration/DL issue. Citations are issued if they're a rolling hazard or lack insurance. Arrests are for outstanding warrants (unless they're civil and the jail is on 1 for 1) or DUI. DOgs are only used at secondary if RS for drugs is established. IOW, not every car in secondary is sniffed for drugs.
Voodoo_Man
07-06-13, 19:16
In a way, you just made my point for me. A DUI checkpoint or as we call it, Roadside Safety Check is by default a suspicionless stop. That's completely different from a traffic stop where the initial violation occurred prior to contact. At a checkpoint, no PC exists to do anything other than initiate a contact with the motorist as governed by state law. The driver has certain legal requirements and so does the agency and individual officer/deputy. If the motorist offers DL & Ins verification, then does nothing more than stare straight ahead and invoke their rights, do you by state law have PC to detain? Excluding of course any registration or safety violation observed?
As for the last bolded part, you're saying that invoking the right to remain silent is cause for a greater or additional charge? Please explain?
FWIW, I've worked RSC's before. I've worked contact on RSC's several times as well. I usually don't have to wonder whether I'm being recorded, because the local news channel is right behind me and I wind up on the 10PM news. :)
I do try to make a positive impression to the local community and I've had way more "thank you" comments than negative ones. When the day comes that I get one of these bait guys in front of me, I hope it winds up being an example of how it's done correctly. ;)
Outside of any other information or otherwise, in a checkpoint, that person would be free to go. If a person drove up and the odor of freshly burnt marijuana or alcohol or either products can be seen in the vehicle (plain view) then, its not longer just a contact, its an investigation. I was trying to connect the dots, if a person in either a checkpoint or a regular vehicle stop refuse to comply in any way then what happens next? Is it dependent on the reason for stop? Not really.
As for the greater charge, the grading for DUI here, locally, is higher if you refuse to take any tests, that is all I meant.
Personally, I have been recorded several times and have had contact with some "big name" open carry activists. They were trying to get at me, bait me, like the kid in the video. It is always funny because they may think they know how things work, but we know how things work in reality. It always ends up with me smiling through the entire encounter and them making a complete and utter jackass of themselves. If I know I am being recorded I will always identify myself right away, name and badge number just to get the understanding out of the way that they are not holding anything over me with their sheepish attempt at baiting or trolling and that they will not be getting a case against the dept because of me.
I do try to make a positive impression to the local community and I've had way more "thank you" comments than negative ones. When the day comes that I get one of these bait guys in front of me, I hope it winds up being an example of how it's done correctly. ;)
I hope to buy you a beer or 12 someday.
Littlelebowski
07-06-13, 19:27
Outside of any other information or otherwise, in a checkpoint, that person would be free to go. If a person drove up and the odor of freshly burnt marijuana or alcohol or a KAC MAMs can be seen in the vehicle (plain view) then, it's not longer just a contact, it's an confiscation.
Edited for accuracy :D
Belmont31R
07-06-13, 19:39
FWIW, we usually issue warnings at our RSC's if all they have is a minor safety violation or registration/DL issue. Citations are issued if they're a rolling hazard or lack insurance. Arrests are for outstanding warrants (unless they're civil and the jail is on 1 for 1) or DUI. DOgs are only used at secondary if RS for drugs is established. IOW, not every car in secondary is sniffed for drugs.
Cato has a lot of information on national statistics for DUI checkpoints, and they aren't good. IMO police can do them respectfully, but not all do, and use them for fishing expeditions to write tickets for other non DUI related offenses.
MADD has been the primary driving force behind this, and just like Brady they make stuff up and push for a loss of rights to further their agenda. Their latest push would have people getting a DUI for having 1-2 normal drinks depending on body size.
And I do hope DUI people get caught. I just don't agree with checkpoints which are a SCOTUS admitted rights violation they allowed under a public safety exemption, and they really aren't all that effective in the first place.
Here is the first result I got on a press release for this past 4th holiday.
So they got 2 people for DUI of out 761.
http://www.krcrtv.com/news/local/761-vehicles-pass-through-fridays-dui-checkpoint/-/14322302/20860424/-/10tfno7z/-/index.html
Maybe my math is wrong but that equals 0.002628120893561 percent of people who passed through were the target of the checkpoint. If that percentage is ok to violate an entire amendment then we are in for a real rough ride.
Definitely has the right to refuse it. I just don't see the point in doing so.
Maybe because he doesn't support random checkpoints?
When LEOs are doing something "reasonable", even if it's my fault such as I was over the speed limit, I'm not just "reasonable" but "courteous."
But if a LEO is doing something "unreasonable" such as taking the time to verify my AR-15 isn't an illegal (unregistered) machine gun (this is a made up example, it has never actually happened to me) then I'm not going to be "courteous" about it. Without doing anything illegal I will make my displeasure known.
I consider DUI checkpoints an unwarranted intrusion and a misappropriation of my time. So far I've never been subject to one, but I can't imagine I'd be a "happy camper" if ever I was. I'd do everything in my power to "move it along" and have as little of my time wasted as possible, but I'm not gonna thank anyone for wasting my time.
Voodoo_Man
07-06-13, 19:46
Edited for accuracy :D
LOL :lol:
Cato has a lot of information on national statistics for DUI checkpoints, and they aren't good. IMO police can do them respectfully, but not all do, and use them for fishing expeditions to write tickets for other non DUI related offenses.
MADD has been the primary driving force behind this, and just like Brady they make stuff up and push for a loss of rights to further their agenda. Their latest push would have people getting a DUI for having 1-2 normal drinks depending on body size.
And I do hope DUI people get caught. I just don't agree with checkpoints which are a SCOTUS admitted rights violation they allowed under a public safety exemption, and they really aren't all that effective in the first place.
Here is the first result I got on a press release for this past 4th holiday.
So they got 2 people for DUI of out 761.
http://www.krcrtv.com/news/local/761-vehicles-pass-through-fridays-dui-checkpoint/-/14322302/20860424/-/10tfno7z/-/index.html
Maybe my math is wrong but that equals 0.002628120893561 percent of people who passed through were the target of the checkpoint. If that percentage is ok to violate an entire amendment then we are in for a real rough ride.
Actual DUI catches at our RSC's are relatively low percentage wise. Far more often it's safety violations and registration/DL issues, followed by no insurance. With the warnings we give out, these folks are far less likely to get caught with their pants down on a regular traffic stop. Perhaps it's because we're SO and the sheriff is elected, but our RSC's aren't a punitive expedition. You can always arrest or cite as many people as you can pull over, but it shouldn't be about hanging paper on people for the sake of hanging paper. JMO
Maybe because he doesn't support random checkpoints?
When LEOs are doing something "reasonable", even if it's my fault such as I was over the speed limit, I'm not just "reasonable" but "courteous."
But if a LEO is doing something "unreasonable" such as taking the time to verify my AR-15 isn't an illegal (unregistered) machine gun (this is a made up example, it has never actually happened to me) then I'm not going to be "courteous" about it. Without doing anything illegal I will make my displeasure known.
I consider DUI checkpoints an unwarranted intrusion and a misappropriation of my time. So far I've never been subject to one, but I can't imagine I'd be a "happy camper" if ever I was. I'd do everything in my power to "move it along" and have as little of my time wasted as possible, but I'm not gonna thank anyone for wasting my time.
Fair enough. And look where it got him. I guess he finds that a worthwhile exercising of his rights.
Also, officer safety being a part of a vehicle investigation, how exactly do I tell that person to turn off the vehicle and hand me the keys, expecting all the little gadgets and gizmo's to still work? How about getting them out of the vehicle to perform a field sobriety test? And in the event that I do have PS to arrest, and that person refuses to exit the vehicle what exactly would I be expected to do? Crowbar my way through his technology?
Well after the NC law posted and based on your comments about having a person step out of the car etc.. Then basically there is indeed equality as you say. Also there really is no such thing as a DUI check point. That is a misnomer. The fact is these are road blocks and because the person is operating a motor vehicle they loose some protections brought about by the mechanics of your legal abilities. IOW, if you have 4 guys in a car and demand the driver get out and subject him to testing perhaps one of the others will get upset or nervous and step out of the car and simply speak. this could be classified as obstructing and on and and on. BUT... if it's on the books... then it's your choice and job tool. It's the citizen's choice to get it off the books.
I can tell you that around here they advertise on the news there will be DUI checkpoints so don't drive through there if you have been drinking. It's very much described as a very simple process... drink and get caught or be sober and drive right on through. The reality is, the road block could in fact be a bomb sniffing exercise. It could be an electronic scan to detect counterfeit money.... and if we are understanding each other in my fancy car scenario the only difference between the situations is a piece of glass that you need to not be there to have access to me and you have the legal right to tell me to open it.
Again if it's on the books, it's my fault and your tool. I did not realize police could advertise a check point and then have considerable access to you such as extensive sobriety tests even if you don't appear to be under the influence. Have dogs sniff for bombs. Also if you get anything on the driver, I assume that would give you some further control over the occupants.... especially if one of them now decides to become the driver ( provided you allow the car to be driven away )
I'm not suggesting you would do this but I simply see the potential for basically being about to make the unsuspecting do pretty much anything you wanted them to do... Like the news last night showed, I think in TX an officer stops two women. He calls a woman cop and she does a cavity search on both women without changing her glove no less.
I honestly don't think most American know this power exists and the media certainly doesn't present it that way. I didn't even realize you could give an outside the car sobriety test to someone that looks and acts normal simply because you want to.
Curious what you mean ?
Do you mean the kid or the LEO
Kid did not get a ticket sounds like ? He is maybe in line for a lawsuit now and the leo might be inline to be in trouble ?
And is a chip in the start of change
Again guess Rosa Parks should have just obeyed the way things were and sat in the black seats go along with what she was told and not what was right
Fair enough. And look where it got him. I guess he finds that a worthwhile exercising of his rights.
RogerinTPA
07-06-13, 20:27
I can see that, but I'd bet the opposite. He bristled at the driver's refusal to lower the window and it seems to me that plotted the course for the remainder of that track wreck.
Again, I'm not one to throw away my rights. But a request to lower a widow, turn on a dome light, shut the motor off, etc isn't really an egregious violation of my liberties. A couple past cars of mine had tint all around and I would always lower all windows while pulling over as a courtesy to the officers.
Not right or wrong, I just choose the path of least resistance when working with the police. Their job isn't easy and I don't want to be the one that makes it harder.
Agreed, as I am not implying to be uncooperative, disrespectful, or noncompliant, short of giving away my rights or being 'set up' for defending those rights in a stern manner. I understand the nature of the job, but a little professionalism and courtesy from LE could have defused the situation had the driver been a normal civilian.
Alaskapopo
07-06-13, 20:27
You are incorrect. The Supreme Court is NOT a law-making body. Go study.
SCOTUS can rule as they please; THEY cannot overturn legislation by powers vested in them.
We're speaking about two different things here.
Besides, we don't live in a de jure Oligarchy.
-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."
Actually you need to look up case law and what it means. Yes the court does create law through how they decide on the cases in front of them. Its called case law. I did study for 4 years and have a degree to prove it. My major was criminal justice and my minor was in political science.
Pat
Alaskapopo
07-06-13, 20:31
Cato has a lot of information on national statistics for DUI checkpoints, and they aren't good. IMO police can do them respectfully, but not all do, and use them for fishing expeditions to write tickets for other non DUI related offenses.
MADD has been the primary driving force behind this, and just like Brady they make stuff up and push for a loss of rights to further their agenda. Their latest push would have people getting a DUI for having 1-2 normal drinks depending on body size.
And I do hope DUI people get caught. I just don't agree with checkpoints which are a SCOTUS admitted rights violation they allowed under a public safety exemption, and they really aren't all that effective in the first place.
Here is the first result I got on a press release for this past 4th holiday.
So they got 2 people for DUI of out 761.
http://www.krcrtv.com/news/local/761-vehicles-pass-through-fridays-dui-checkpoint/-/14322302/20860424/-/10tfno7z/-/index.html
Maybe my math is wrong but that equals 0.002628120893561 percent of people who passed through were the target of the checkpoint. If that percentage is ok to violate an entire amendment then we are in for a real rough ride.
MADD's agenda is to take drunks off the road to save lives. You don't have a right to drink and drive. Its nothing at all like the Brady group whose agenda is to take your guns.
Pat
Belmont31R
07-06-13, 20:38
MADD's agenda is to take drunks off the road to save lives. You don't have a right to drink and drive. Its nothing at all like the Brady group whose agenda is to take your guns.
Pat
I don't feel like entertaining you very much but the stats are not on the side of MADD. Cato has a lot of research and they funded the Heller and McDonsld cases. They put in briefs which were on the winning side 13 of the last 15 SCOTUS cases.
If you research it you'll find that is exactly the case. Not only are most DUI fatality accidents already way over the present limit but lowering the current standard to include people who have 1-2 drinks for a DUI would do nothing to lower fatal DUI accidents.
Punishing people for feel good laws which have no effect of deaths = Brady = MADD.
Well after the NC law posted and based on your comments about having a person step out of the car etc.. Then basically there is indeed equality as you say. Also there really is no such thing as a DUI check point. That is a misnomer. The fact is these are road blocks and because the person is operating a motor vehicle they loose some protections brought about by the mechanics of your legal abilities. IOW, if you have 4 guys in a car and demand the driver get out and subject him to testing perhaps one of the others will get upset or nervous and step out of the car and simply speak. this could be classified as obstructing and on and and on. BUT... if it's on the books... then it's your choice and job tool. It's the citizen's choice to get it off the books.
I can tell you that around here they advertise on the news there will be DUI checkpoints so don't drive through there if you have been drinking. It's very much described as a very simple process... drink and get caught or be sober and drive right on through. The reality is, the road block could in fact be a bomb sniffing exercise. It could be an electronic scan to detect counterfeit money.... and if we are understanding each other in my fancy car scenario the only difference between the situations is a piece of glass that you need to not be there to have access to me and you have the legal right to tell me to open it.
Again if it's on the books, it's my fault and your tool. I did not realize police could advertise a check point and then have considerable access to you such as extensive sobriety tests even if you don't appear to be under the influence. Have dogs sniff for bombs. Also if you get anything on the driver, I assume that would give you some further control over the occupants.... especially if one of them now decides to become the driver ( provided you allow the car to be driven away )
I'm not suggesting you would do this but I simply see the potential for basically being about to make the unsuspecting do pretty much anything you wanted them to do... Like the news last night showed, I think in TX an officer stops two women. He calls a woman cop and she does a cavity search on both women without changing her glove no less.
I honestly don't think most American know this power exists and the media certainly doesn't present it that way. I didn't even realize you could give an outside the car sobriety test to someone that looks and acts normal simply because you want to.
Passenger exiting the car would be told to stay in the car unless I asked him/her to step out. If that person continued to get out of the car after several warning they would be in cuffs. I don't think the kid was asked to pull over because of the window. I think it was when the officer asked him how old he was. The kid replied with something along the lines of i don't have to tell you that. Well at a checking station you kinda do. You also are required to show id along with other documentation. His behavior was also unusal for most encounters which is why the search was conducted. K-9 officer pointing and the dog jumping or placing his paws in the same area IS NOT A HIT. Given the small view of the k-9 search you really can't tell if the dog did or did not hit. Also just because nothing is found does not always mean it is not there or was there. Good dogs can smell residual odor. Which means if he had narcotics in his poket in the last few hours and sat down in the seat the dog may still alert on the smell.
And yes the officer could have done everything above just in a different manor.
Sorry for typos and grammer sent from Nook.
Alaskapopo
07-06-13, 20:47
I don't feel like entertaining you very much but the stats are not on the side of MADD. Cato has a lot of research and they funded the Heller and McDonsld cases. They put in briefs which were on the winning side 13 of the last 15 SCOTUS cases.
If you research it you'll find that is exactly the case. Not only are most DUI fatality accidents already way over the present limit but lowering the current standard to include people who have 1-2 drinks for a DUI would do nothing to lower fatal DUI accidents.
Punishing people for feel good laws which have no effect of deaths = Brady = MADD.
The number of fatal DUI crashes has been cut in half since MADD was founded in the 1980. That is more than just feel good that is results. I personally would like to see a zero tolerance policy on drinking and driving. Most people do not know when they are over the limit and are dangerous. The adult thing to do is if your going to be drinking take a cab to the bar and home don't drive.
Pat
Alaskapopo
07-06-13, 20:51
May I ask the LEOs here what their obsession with bending the constitution and disregarding civil liberties is all about?
I mean really, why can't you just go "It's his 4th amendment right. Let him go." ??? Especially if you know he isn't drunk.
No one is trying to bend the constitution even those who make mistakes. They are trying to take bad guys off the street and put them in jail where they belong. Cops make mistakes on the law just as any person in any profession makes mistakes from time to time. Its not that they are just trying to bend you over for fun because their bored. They are trying to find drugs, people with warrants, dead bodies in the trunk etc. We are paid to try and catch the bad guys. This should be obvious but I guess it had to be said.
Pat
Belmont31R
07-06-13, 20:55
Fwiw I think dring a car you have to provide a DL. Passengers do not although you can be detained until you are identified. Fake DL or giving a cop a fake name/dob is a crime.
My only thing with checkpoints is being pulled over without RS and being detained for contempt of cop. As I said I am all for getting drunks off the road just don't see the public safety/common good exemption when historically the number of people caught for DUI at checkpoints is so low. It's in the double digits behind the decimal of 1% of people who go through these checkpoints, 100% of whom have their rights violated.
I also don't like the fake dog alerts and allowing large dogs to walk/slide/run over people's cars. Dog searches should leave no trace of the dog being there. Not let's let a 120lb gsd walk and slide over a car when at that point there is no RS.
Belmont31R
07-06-13, 20:58
The number of fatal DUI crashes has been cut in half since MADD was founded in the 1980. That is more than just feel good that is results. I personally would like to see a zero tolerance policy on drinking and driving. Most people do not know when they are over the limit and are dangerous. The adult thing to do is if your going to be drinking take a cab to the bar and home don't drive.
Pat
Classic example cause and correlation. Same way I don't credit Brady with the drop in crime despite the AWB sunset and a mass of states opening up ccw and other more relaxed gun laws.
How many dry counties have gone wet in the same time period?
Belmont31R
07-06-13, 21:01
No one is trying to bend the constitution even those who make mistakes. They are trying to take bad guys off the street and put them in jail where they belong. Cops make mistakes on the law just as any person in any profession makes mistakes from time to time. Its not that they are just trying to bend you over for fun because their bored. They are trying to find drugs, people with warrants, dead bodies in the trunk etc. We are paid to try and catch the bad guys. This should be obvious but I guess it had to be said.
Pat
Same way TSA searches were deemed legal because they were not for ordinary law enforcement purposes yet TSA referrals are pushed by management and a frequent occurrence.
Maybe police should just start going door to door to everyones homes to check for drug houses ?
Same things as a check point !
Check points dont work for getting drunks ! They do work for making sure folks get used to being under control and put in there spot and desensitized(spelling?) and having there rights taken away slowly and a show of who is in power
Sadly LEO are just the tool that is being used for this
Not sure if most leo like doing this ?
They should be hanging out in the bar parking lots !that would stop a lot more folks
Maybe police should just start going door to door to everyones homes to check for drug houses ?
Same things as a check point !
Check points dont work for getting drunks ! They do work for making sure folks get used to being under control and put in there spot and desensitized(spelling?) and having there rights taken away slowly and a show of who is in power
Sadly LEO are just the tool that is being used for this
Not sure if most leo like doing this ?
They should be hanging out in the bar parking lots !that would stop a lot more folks
I have thought of the house search and that would be way out of line if ever done. But you have a deceasded amount of privacy in a vehicle as compared to your home ( upheld in court.) Which is why a random sniff can't be preformed on house or the curtilage of real property.
Belmont31R
07-06-13, 21:23
I have thought of the house search and that would be way out of line if ever done. But you have a deceasded amount of privacy in a vehicle as compared to your home ( upheld in court.) Which is why a random sniff can't be preformed on house or the curtilage of real property.
That is dependent on state law. In some places the vehicle is an extension of the home. For instance, in Tx, you can legally carry concealed in your vehicle while traveling without a cc permit.
People need to research their state laws and such because we get into debates here which are state law dependent.
I see zero evidence of "snot-nosed" in that kid's responses. He was polite, he asked appropriate questions, and he complied with their illegal commands.
The only thing that wasn't overly-abundant in may-Is was his "it's fine where it is" when the officer asked what he said. He was simply repeating what he had said earlier so the officer could hear it, not being impolite, and he was clearly a bit nervous.
If you think that he was being "snot-nosed" you're probably part of the problem that leads to these sort of encounters and rights violations.
Passenger exiting the car would be told to stay in the car unless I asked him/her to step out. ....... I don't think the kid was asked to pull over because of the window. I think it was when the officer asked him how old he was. The kid replied with something along the lines of i don't have to tell you that. ........
Exiting car.. yes I agree but voodooo says you can ask anyone to step out for field test. My criteria was no indication of anything wrong, voice, smell, actions.... but apparently you could still ask that test to be performed.
Window.... when asked his age he asked is that a required question. A:Yes... reply... I'm 21.
The kid got stage fright / timing stumbles, beginning his performance. The LEO, who knows... maybe his wife pissed him off before he left for work. He definitely wanted to play boss man. If somebody had a gun at my head I would not want him negotiating my release.
Apparently they did everything they have a legal right to do. Not saying I knew that, agree with or want it to stay that way, but that must be the way it is. Fair play by the rules for both teams. Cops 1 / Kid 0.
Belmont31R
07-06-13, 21:38
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/forum-lower-dui-threshold-more-dangerous
Belmont31R
07-06-13, 21:43
We should be looking to more effective ways to get drunks off the road. I was almost not born because my mom was hit head on by a drunk in the late 70's and spent 6 months in casts plus all the rehab.
Cash rewards for people reporting drunks would be a lot more effective as long as the responding LEO has to meet the current standards such as pertaining to people crossing over lines.
That is dependent on state law. In some places the vehicle is an extension of the home. For instance, in Tx, you can legally carry concealed in your vehicle while traveling without a cc permit.
People need to research their state laws and such because we get into debates here which are state law dependent.
That is going to be true about state laws and checking stations but a decreased expecation of privacy in your vehicle is a nation wide thing if I am not mistaken. If not then before a sniff of vehicle could be conducted on a traffic stop a search warrant would need to be obtained in Texas.
Belmont31R
07-06-13, 21:49
That is going to be true about state laws and checking stations but a decreased expecation of privacy in your vehicle is a nation wide thing if I am not mistaken. If not then before a sniff of vehicle could be conducted on a traffic stop a search warrant would need to be obtained in Texas.
Austin PD does no refusal weekends. Have no idea how that is legal. They are doing road side blood draws.
Exiting car.. yes I agree but voodooo says you can ask anyone to step out for field test. My criteria was no indication of anything wrong, voice, smell, actions.... but apparently you could still ask that test to be performed.
Window.... when asked his age he asked is that a required question. A:Yes... reply... I'm 21.
The kid got stage fright / timing stumbles, beginning his performance. The LEO, who knows... maybe his wife pissed him off before he left for work. He definitely wanted to play boss man. If somebody had a gun at my head I would want him negotiating my release.
Apparently they did everything they have a legal right to do. Not saying I knew that, agree with or want it to stay that way, but that must be the way it is. Fair play by the rules for both teams. Cops 1 / Kid 0.
I missed that the first time due to low audio. However his banner text may have helped my thought process on that since he claimed to have been lied to. I stand corrected.
Austin PD does no refusal weekends. Have no idea how that is legal. They are doing road side blood draws.
Blood draws used to be done by ems in the field here. But only if a search warrant is obtained first. Doing a blood draw with no search warrant sounds hinky to me. However I don't personaly do them as i only get involved in the detection parts of dwi.
SWATcop556
07-06-13, 21:56
Austin PD does no refusal weekends. Have no idea how that is legal. They are doing road side blood draws.
They still have to apply for a search warrant. The final decision remains with the signing judge. A PC affidavit is still required and you must have PC for a judge to sign the warrant. It's not a "hey we think you're drunk" so they pull your blood. There must be PC.
There must be PC.
Says who?
Obviously PC can be anything. Including telling your dog to bark a couple times.
PC doesn't protect anyone from anyone; until it goes to court. Which will mostly be too late. Stomp on your rights, steal your car, confiscate your firearm and maybe even shoot your dog. No big deal, let them do their job and show up on time to court. Better be polite!
Belmont31R
07-06-13, 22:21
They still have to apply for a search warrant. The final decision remains with the signing judge. A PC affidavit is still required and you must have PC for a judge to sign the warrant. It's not a "hey we think you're drunk" so they pull your blood. There must be PC.
A judge signed off on general warrants in the FISA courts.
So what a judge signed off on it? That is supposed to mean something now?
From my perspective, a good discussion thus far. Let's try to keep it on the civil side and not let emotion rule the subject matter. I think "both sides" can learn a lot from these types of discussions.
[QUOTE=SWATcop556;1690050]They still have to apply for a search warrant. The final decision remains with the signing judge. A PC affidavit is still required and you must have PC for a judge to sign the warrant. It's not a "hey we think you're drunk" so they pull your blood. There must be PC.
They are doing no refusal weekends in our area. They get search warrants for blood draws. Apparently this has passed the scrutiny of the Supreme Court.
I don't agree with conducting these details, but they are getting away with doing them in my area.
Alaskapopo
07-06-13, 22:34
Classic example cause and correlation. Same way I don't credit Brady with the drop in crime despite the AWB sunset and a mass of states opening up ccw and other more relaxed gun laws.
How many dry counties have gone wet in the same time period?
The difference is MADD pushed to have laws changed helped with grant money and more enforcement efforts and education. It has pushed down the death tolls. WIth Brady they did not get laws passed and they did not get death tolls pushed down. Totally different animal.
Pat
Alaskapopo
07-06-13, 22:36
Says who?
Obviously PC can be anything. Including telling your dog to bark a couple times.
PC doesn't protect anyone from anyone; until it goes to court. Which will mostly be too late. Stomp on your rights, steal your car, confiscate your firearm and maybe even shoot your dog. No big deal, let them do their job and show up on time to court. Better be polite!
Actually no PC is not nearly as arbitrary as you are implying and if you don't have it you will lose the case and be liable in a civil suit. A dogs record is highly documented for success and failures and those go onto the search warrant application.
Pat
Belmont31R
07-06-13, 22:40
The difference is MADD pushed to have laws changed helped with grant money and more enforcement efforts and education. It has pushed down the death tolls. WIth Brady they did not get laws passed and they did not get death tolls pushed down. Totally different animal.
Pat
So the Brady Act isn't real?
SWATcop556
07-06-13, 22:56
Says who?
Obviously PC can be anything. Including telling your dog to bark a couple times.
PC doesn't protect anyone from anyone; until it goes to court. Which will mostly be too late. Stomp on your rights, steal your car, confiscate your firearm and maybe even shoot your dog. No big deal, let them do their job and show up on time to court. Better be polite!
Says the Courts, the judge, the DA, etc.
It's checks and balances. Is it perfect? No. Does it get abused? Yes.
But we get it. All LE is out to get you.
SWATcop556
07-06-13, 23:00
A judge signed off on general warrants in the FISA courts.
So what a judge signed off on it? That is supposed to mean something now?
It's the best we've got to have others for checks and balances. It's the system we have and the one we follow.
On a felony DWI we have mandatory blood draws. I've taken more drunks off the road using good police work in a patrol car than at checkpoints. For the topic at hand I think checkpoints are close to worthless.
Belmont31R
07-06-13, 23:07
It's the best we've got to have others for checks and balances. It's the system we have and the one we follow.
On a felony DWI we have mandatory blood draws. I've taken more drunks off the road using good police work in a patrol car than at checkpoints. For the topic at hand I think checkpoints are close to worthless.
Which is all I've said. I have ZERO problem with you guys driving around or responding to someone calling someone in.
No refusal is different than already having someone pulled over with PC.
Says the Courts, the judge, the DA, etc.
It's checks and balances. Is it perfect? No. Does it get abused? Yes.
But we get it. All LE is out to get you.
Ha, I knew it! :lol:
Alaskapopo
07-06-13, 23:42
So the Brady Act isn't real?
Not anymore the Brady waiting period is gone replaced with instant checks and it did not lower crime while MADDS efforts did lower DUI deaths. There has actually be a general downward trend in crime since the AWB expired. With the MADD example its a pretty simple cause and effect to study.
Pat
Belmont31R
07-06-13, 23:49
Not anymore the Brady waiting period is gone replaced with instant checks and it did not lower crime while MADDS efforts did lower DUI deaths. There has actually be a general downward trend in crime since the AWB expired. With the MADD example its a pretty simple cause and effect to study.
Pat
So no provisions of the Brady act are still around?
We should be looking to more effective ways to get drunks off the road. I was almost not born because my mom was hit head on by a drunk in the late 70's and spent 6 months in casts plus all the rehab.
Cash rewards for people reporting drunks would be a lot more effective as long as the responding LEO has to meet the current standards such as pertaining to people crossing over lines.
I'm actually amazed that in this world of cell phones and GPS that there are still drunk drivers at all. I know several people who have called in reckless drivers and gotten a State Trooper to actually respond and catch them. You'd think drunk drivers would be even easier.
I'm personally all for getting as many of them as possible and making their life exceptionally difficult. There is no excuse for driving impaired. There have been times I have decided not to drive because I was sick and didn't feel 100%.
But as much as I want all of them caught, arrested, heavily fined and their licenses revoked, I also don't want to wait in line at a DUI checkpoint. If I haven't done anything I shouldn't have to get "checked out."
But we get it. All LE is out to get you.
Didn't say that. Implying it, however, is a great way to discredit anyone willing to ask questions.
I did not see the courts, judge or DA here protecting this mans civil liberties. Did you? Where were they when the dog falsely accused the man of illegal drugs?
Nowhere. They were upholding the simple truth; PC can be, and is, anything you want it to be. This video shows it just fine.
justin_247
07-07-13, 01:17
DELETED: Not worth it.
SWATcop556
07-07-13, 01:27
Didn't say that. Implying it, however, is a great way to discredit anyone willing to ask questions.
I was just matching the tone you brought to the discussion
I did not see the courts, judge or DA here protecting this mans civil liberties. Did you?
Which is what court is for, had there been anything found. Even the experts who have weighed in on this said (in links provided by others) that even though he was an asshole about it the officer was within the letter of the law
Where were they when the dog falsely accused the man of illegal drugs?
Statements like this show your obvious lack of knowledge when it comes to a K9 and narcotics detection. Based solely off that video you learn exactly diddly shit about the dogs pattern, type of alert (passive or aggressive), breathing changes, etc.
Nowhere. They were upholding the simple truth; PC can be, and is, anything you want it to be. This video shows it just fine.
I'm not arguing the PC for this specific stop. You chose to jump into a discussion re: PC for blood draws on the side of the road. The officer here was conducting a traffic investigation, albeit a poor one. The kid new he what he was trying to set in motion and the officer bit. Most if not all have acknowledged this lack of judgement. That being said a K9 alert is PC and I have seen nothing here evident in this video that shows a false alert and what was claimed by the video text as "making the dog alert" is in fact not and this type of search and search pattern is standard for K9 detection.
Answers in bold.
justin_247
07-07-13, 01:35
WITHDRAWN... the AWB is non-pertinent to the thread.
SeriousStudent
07-07-13, 01:43
Why don't we drop the whole AWB/Brady sidetrack? Honestly, it's neither germane or pertinent to the specific case at hand.
And speaking of the specific case at hand: Let's have a calm, thoughtful discussion; without reference to jackboots, dope-smoking hippies, etc.
Honestly, a lot of of the people in this thread (on both sides) have polite and thoughtful concerns, and express them well. But a couple of folks are giving the mods an itchy mouse finger. We had to ban LEO posts for a bit, because people let their keyboards overload their brains.
Don't be "that guy" - either at the range or here. Don't be personal, and keep it factual. We've been deleting posts, rather than people. Let's not proceed any further in that direction.
Didn't say that. Implying it, however, is a great way to discredit anyone willing to ask questions.
I did not see the courts, judge or DA here protecting this mans civil liberties. Did you? Where were they when the dog falsely accused the man of illegal drugs?
Nowhere. They were upholding the simple truth; PC can be, and is, anything you want it to be. This video shows it just fine.
Not for nothing but I think SWATcop556 posted a perfectly acceptable position on the matter when he first weighed in on Page 6 (Post #109).
Perhaps if you re read that post you will realize he's one of the "good guys" and you won't have to have this back and forth over what are probably minor differences of opinion.
You are also presenting "opinions" as facts regarding what the dog may or may not have done. While the video absolutely demonstrates several clear "problems" we simply can't accept as fact the entire narrative provided.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, if we are gonna ever get past this "us vs. them" nonsense, everyone is gonna have to be fair about it and not cover for or condemn anyone without using exactly the same standard.
It is not up to us to build a bridge to them, it is not up to them to build a bridge to us. Everyone has to build their half of the bridge. You want fair treatment and reasonable assessments from the LE community? Then you are going to have to offer the same and that means just because I add my own text to a youtube encounter with Officer Surly, that doesn't make it factual evidence.
Even if the guy in the youtube video posted what he believed was true, that doesn't mean he is knowledgeable enough to know for a fact that the K9 was doing "false hits on command."
SeriousStudent
07-07-13, 02:08
SteyrAUG - very well said.
You are also presenting "opinions" as facts regarding what the dog may or may not have done. While the video absolutely demonstrates several clear "problems" we simply can't accept as fact the entire narrative provided.
It is not up to us to build a bridge to them, it is not up to them to build a bridge to us. Everyone has to build their half of the bridge. You want fair treatment and reasonable assessments from the LE community? Then you are going to have to offer the same and that means just because I add my own text to a youtube encounter with Officer Surly, that doesn't make it factual evidence.
Even if the guy in the youtube video posted what he believed was true, that doesn't mean he is knowledgeable enough to know for a fact that the K9 was doing "false hits on command."
That is what I should have said before, because as I wrote before I saw nothing of the K-9 search that made think false hit. The only thing indicating that is the kids text. Previous post #141.
A judge signed off on general warrants in the FISA courts.
So what a judge signed off on it? That is supposed to mean something now?
Well if a judge's signature didn't mean anything I wouldn't go to work. Because that would mean I could not swear to an arrest warrant, or search warrant. So i would be able to do nothing. It is not just Hi your Honor can you sign this for me, Judge says sure. That is not the process nor is that how it is done. You have to swear to your evidnece at the time and present sufficent PC for which ever document you are applying for. If the Judge or Magistrate do not find sufficent PC the arrestee would be released or the search warrant not obtained.
ForTehNguyen
07-07-13, 08:38
The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the Constitution says.
no it isnt, the States are. Thats what nullification is
Eurodriver
07-07-13, 08:50
How does someone become internal affairs for a department?
I think that would be a fun job.
theblackknight
07-07-13, 09:23
How does someone become internal affairs for a department?
I think that would be a fun job.
No way brah.everyone knows vice and swat get all the action, I watch a lot of tv, I know.
sent from mah gun,using my sights
How does someone become internal affairs for a department?
I think that would be a fun job.
I would imagine have to become a cop for a period of time either local, state or federal.
This would be so you could determine what is reasonable since most complaints will be based on "reasonableness" as outline in Graham VS Connor.
100% agree.
Pat
A little respect? Starting off by calling him a "snot nosed kid" isn't an indication... How was he snot nosed? He said "sir", didn't swear... If asking officers to respect the law and not over react and be unprofessional makes him a snot nosed kid, that is indicative of the mindset to which some of us are objecting.
The number of fatal DUI crashes has been cut in half since MADD was founded in the 1980. That is more than just feel good that is results.
While I'm sure that MADD would like to take all the credit, advances in automobile safety and medical technology have led to a decrease in traffic fatalities across the board. MADD has unfortunately mutated into yet another organization that would gladly sacrifice every other civil right we have in order to further their prohibitionist agenda. It started out as an entirely good thing (raising awareness) and has been taken over by radicals.
How do you fall on DUI check points in general? They were upheld by SCOTUS. But, to be honest, regardless of the needed legal manipulations to justify them as "reasonable", they seem the very antithesis of what the Founders of this country intended.
They are as "you have nothing to fear if you're not doing anything wrong" as you can get short of random stops on the street for a pat down, and we know where that (potentially) leads.
I think those who know me here know I am not given to anti gubment sentiment as a knee jerk reaction to anything and everything the gubment does, but this one has always bothered me.
I know the intent is a noble on its surface (but you know what they say about the road to hell...) to be sure and for public safety, but for me, the balance of safety vs. Intrusion on Liberty not met and the potential slippery slope too obvious. Does your state have them?
From the 6:3 SCOTUS decision in favor:
"In sum, the balance of the state's interest in preventing drunken driving, the extent to which this system can reasonably be said to advance that interest, and the degree of intrusion upon individual motorists who are briefly stopped, weighs in favor of the state program. We therefore hold that it is consistent with the Fourth Amendment. . . ."
In contrast from the minority vote:
"The most disturbing aspect of the Court's decision today is that it appears to give no weight to the citizen's interest in freedom from suspicionless, unannounced investigatory seizures. . . . On the other hand, the Court places a heavy thumb on the law-enforcement interest by looking only at gross receipts instead of net benefits. Perhaps this tampering with the scales of justice can be explained by the Court's obvious concern about the slaughter on our highways, and a resultant tolerance for policies designed to alleviate the problem by ''setting an example'' of a few motorists. . . ."
** I brought your post back into this thread. Thread drift here already is making this a logical genesis, and may help keep the topic on point. The players and discussion points will also be the same, and easier to moderate. -ST911
How does someone become internal affairs for a department?
I think that would be a fun job.
It would be no fun at all. :suicide2:
ForTehNguyen
07-07-13, 11:01
regardless it was upheld, I think they are unconstitutional. There was no PC or law being broken for police to stop you. If they want to stop drunks why camp out at some random road and not the bars themselves? Like that CATO article indicated most of the results of DUI checkpoints arent even DUI related.
Not sure if this was posted but:
In an incident in Murfreesboro, a video that was said to be connected with the Libertarian Party that also involved a Deputy County Sheriff A.J. Ross went viral in YouTube with over 1.5 million views since its posting two day ago.
Axl David, the communications director for the Libertarian Party of Tennessee spoke about the world wide response they received out of the video.
The video showed a verbal confrontation between 21-year-old Chris Kalbaugh, who is currently in his junior year at the Middle Tennessee State University, and Deputy County Sheriff A.J. Ross, during a checkpoint for a DUI last Thursday night.
The 21-year-old student will not face any charges from the DUI checkpoint, and incident was planned all along, as reported in the Gannett website.
http://www.hngn.com/articles/7111/20130707/dui-checkpoint-video-goes-viral-youtube-incident-planned.htm
ForTehNguyen
07-07-13, 11:22
irrelevant to me thats it was planned, doesnt excuse the officers conduct. Planned or didnt plan to reveal govt corruption, whats the diference
Thanks Will. This is no surprise.
irrelevant to me thats it was planned, doesnt excuse the officers conduct. Planned or didnt plan to reveal govt corruption, whats the diference
Because that's not fair and someone was teasing them, taunting them or "baiting" them and God forbid they should be held responsible for their actions in response to the stimulus.
I stand by statement earlier. Nothing wrong with policing the police and exposing unprofessionalism when it occurs. What other recourse is there for the average citizen? Not much.
irrelevant to me thats it was planned, doesnt excuse the officers conduct. Planned or didnt plan to reveal govt corruption, whats the diference
That it was planned simply adds interesting factoid to the conversation, and i saw zero "govt corruption" in that vid. A cop who may have gone a tad overboard in response to his authority being questioned maybe, "govt corruption"? Not so much.
I just thought that might be of interest to some.
Not sure if this was posted but:
In an incident in Murfreesboro, a video that was said to be connected with the Libertarian Party that also involved a Deputy County Sheriff A.J. Ross went viral in YouTube with over 1.5 million views since its posting two day ago.
Axl David, the communications director for the Libertarian Party of Tennessee spoke about the world wide response they received out of the video.
The video showed a verbal confrontation between 21-year-old Chris Kalbaugh, who is currently in his junior year at the Middle Tennessee State University, and Deputy County Sheriff A.J. Ross, during a checkpoint for a DUI last Thursday night.
The 21-year-old student will not face any charges from the DUI checkpoint, and incident was planned all along, as reported in the Gannett website.
http://www.hngn.com/articles/7111/20130707/dui-checkpoint-video-goes-viral-youtube-incident-planned.htm
So what?
Sent from my Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk 2
Planned or didnt plan to reveal govt corruption, whats the diference
It's obvious from watching it that it was planned but certainly we have incompetence before corruption right?
For all we know that cop could be saying today... yeah now that I watch it, I screwed up, I know I'm better than that, I'll fix it or consider it fixed it won't happen again.
OR... he could be one of the people that drift from job to job and simply don't interact with the public in a manner that police need to be able to do.
OR.... he could simply be corrupt
All that video tells us it that people aren't perfect. That's a poor example of corruption. It's a good example of curable incompetence though. The kid needs to go to acting school and work on his location audio recording skills. The Cop needs to learn to use the proper tool for the job. Abrupt demands were not the proper tool for the occasion.
** I brought your post back into this thread. Thread drift here already is making this a logical genesis, and may help keep the topic on point. The players and discussion points will also be the same, and easier to moderate. -ST911
All good. Just figured best to start new thread than go too OT in the thread. Thanx
ClearedHot
07-07-13, 11:44
Because that's not fair and someone was teasing them, taunting them or "baiting" them and God forbid they should be held responsible for their actions in response to the stimulus.
I stand by statement earlier. Nothing wrong with policing the police and exposing unprofessionalism when it occurs. What other recourse is there for the average citizen? Not much.
Right. That's no fair at all. We all know the police would never utilize decoys for their various sting operations. ;)
No matter which side of the issue you take, I think that a lot of us believe that LEO should be prepared to deal with this type of contact with someone at a Roadside Safety Check.
Cooler heads prevail.
No matter which side of the issue you take, I think that a lot of us believe that LEO should be prepared to deal with this type of contact with someone at a Roadside Safety Check.
Cooler heads prevail.
On the money!
No matter which side of the issue you take, I think that a lot of us believe that LEO should be prepared to deal with this type of contact with someone at a Roadside Safety Check.
Cooler heads prevail.
They should be ready for this at any place during a shift. However LE is also compromised of humans who are known to make mistakes and have emotions. Should they be professional at all times yes will that ever happen, probably not. The officers while having a bit of attitude still didn't go full on retard in my opinion.( I could only really hear the verbal interaction while the kid was still in the vehicle, once he exited I could not clear hear what was being said. So unless he assed himself out later I didn't hear it and I am not refering to that.)
Below is an Officer being a dip shit. If this guy had acted in this manor in reference to attitude I would feel much differently.
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=cop+freaks+out+on+guy+for+not+allowing+him+to+search&mid=562011453994FD718395562011453994FD718395&view=detail&FORM=VIRE1
WTF! Do you think he did that to get put on leave or fired or something so he could get unemployment and maybe disability payments.
That's the strangest thing I have ever seen.
"Could I have my license back?" LOL, hahahaha
ClearedHot
07-07-13, 13:34
Below is an Officer being a dip shit. If this guy had acted in this manor in reference to attitude I would feel much differently.
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=cop+freaks+out+on+guy+for+not+allowing+him+to+search&mid=562011453994FD718395562011453994FD718395&view=detail&FORM=VIRE1
http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/37512536.jpg
Littlelebowski
07-07-13, 13:55
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=cop+freaks+out+on+guy+for+not+allowing+him+to+search&mid=562011453994FD718395562011453994FD718395&view=detail&FORM=VIRE1
WAIT.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7Kw9-vTJYs
***** This video is not fake it was a "prank" done by police officers from St. Marys West Virginia. Yes it's a funny prank but we need to know why these officers were in uniform and were they on the clock getting paid? Why were they using police cars paid for by the taxpayers? Why were they turning on their overhead emergency lights when there's no real emergency? Were they punished by their department?
I received an email from a viewer and I was told the police officers in the video are officer Nathan Boron and officer Sal Travaglio of St. Marys city police department in West Virginia.
Update: 09 September 2011
The cats out of the bag! The St. Marys City Council held a special meeting yesterday September 08, 2011 to discuss possible disciplinary action against Officers Sal Travaglio and Nathan Boron.
After 15 minutes behind closed doors the council said that no action was taken and that the matter was still under investigation.
Also a second video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QA9Hbt...
WAIT.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7Kw9-vTJYs
i don't know which gets under my skin more them casting LEO in a negitive light as a joke.
Or the thought of an officer wiggin out like that.
i don't know which gets under my skin more them casting LEO in a negitive light as a joke.
Or the thought of an officer wiggin out like that.
If it makes you feel any better, I would trust those guys more for having done that. Aside from the use of public property and all that, but just the joke. It shows me they have an understanding of both sides of life.
People that can't laugh at themselves on occasion are often the ones that do wig out.
The thought of an officer wiggin out like that guy did -should- worry you much more. He's the guy sitting at home on Sunday with a gun in his mouth and riding beside you in the car seat on Monday because he decided to wait just a little longer.
Not sure if this was posted but:
In an incident in Murfreesboro, a video that was said to be connected with the Libertarian Party that also involved a Deputy County Sheriff A.J. Ross went viral in YouTube with over 1.5 million views since its posting two day ago.
Axl David, the communications director for the Libertarian Party of Tennessee spoke about the world wide response they received out of the video.
The video showed a verbal confrontation between 21-year-old Chris Kalbaugh, who is currently in his junior year at the Middle Tennessee State University, and Deputy County Sheriff A.J. Ross, during a checkpoint for a DUI last Thursday night.
The 21-year-old student will not face any charges from the DUI checkpoint, and incident was planned all along, as reported in the Gannett website.
http://www.hngn.com/articles/7111/20130707/dui-checkpoint-video-goes-viral-youtube-incident-planned.htm
So would that make it a planned "Civil Liberties Checkpoint"?
If it makes you feel any better, I would trust those guys more for having done that. Aside from the use of public property and all that, but just the joke. It shows me they have an understanding of both sides of life.
People that can't laugh at themselves on occasion are often the ones that do wig out.
The thought of an officer wiggin out like that guy did -should- worry you much more. He's the guy sitting at home on Sunday with a gun in his mouth and riding beside you in the car seat on Monday because he decided to wait just a little longer.
Oh trust me I am all for having a laugh, but something that outrageous that can be view by the public just makes LEO look bad. Because alot of people like to dump us all in the same boat. They are both lucky if that had been a SO they would have been fired not question about it.
The second video was so over the top it's hard to believe. It seems like joke.
Granted someone would take the first one wrong. I had a hard time figuring why he would do it but it was so odd... for me anyway... it would have zero impact on me.
the real cop, or rather the cop in the real stop, in that kids video bothers me more, IF, he reviews and thinks what he did was ok.
I know what you are saying but the stuff that bothers me is usually not the extreme,,, it's the stuff that floats just below the surface that goes unnoticed more easily.
Like this one.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gI6VHn5_7os
You really have to wonder about not one but two people's reasoning abilities if they will do that.
Actually you need to look up case law and what it means. Yes the court does create law through how they decide on the cases in front of them. Its called case law. I did study for 4 years and have a degree to prove it. My major was criminal justice and my minor was in political science.
Pat
I know damned well what "case law" does and its not in consonance with the form of government we have. This is pretty darned basic stuff; don't know how you could be so wide of the mark.
Yet you had how many classes on the Constitution, Bill of Rights, studying the Notes of the Constitutional Convention as well as letters from the signers.
Just stop. Just stop...
-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."
Alaskapopo
07-07-13, 17:17
I know damned well what "case law" does and its not in consonance with the form of government we have. This is pretty darned basic stuff; don't know how you could be so wide of the mark.
Yet you had how many classes on the Constitution, Bill of Rights, studying the Notes of the Constitutional Convention as well as letters from the signers.
Just stop. Just stop...
-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."
So first you say the court does not make law but it clearly does with case law. You were wrong in your statement simple as that. You may not like the facts but they are the facts.
Pat
Grand58742
07-07-13, 17:36
You know, we keep showing situations where cops are in the wrong. Here's a few videos where the cops were highly professional and the individuals they were dealing with, maybe not so much.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMMPV4D6cs0
I've never seen two former Marines meet on the street where they didn't at least have some small talk of "no kidding, where did you serve? What did you do? Nice to see a Devil Dog keeping the peace..." In short, that situation could have gone far worse for the individual they stopped since he was being evasive in his answers and passively non-compliant. I applaud that officer for keeping his cool like he did even though the individual was clearly being evasive.
Then there's this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N30TagPCNE4
Where those idiots were walking around immediately after the Aurora shooting sporting their ARs trying to "educate" people about gun rights. While they had a legal right to do so, I have a legal right to go out in my front yard and mow the grass in a lime green banana hammock. Doesn't mean it's the smartest thing for me to do and I will draw attention to myself when doing so. A little common sense goes a long way.
And not only that, if you are going to "educate" people, you best damn well know the laws yourself. If you are ignorant of NFA laws, you probably shouldn't go on camera and prove to the world you have no clue. And they kept attempting to divert the officer's attention away from the fact he was just trying to make sure the public was safe especially in light of (at that time) recent events. Again, could have gone badly.
Then there's this douche canoe:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rasQ0ktGiyM
Who is really trying to provoke a response from the deputies he encountered. You cannot tell me he is not attempting to provoke the officers with the wording he is using. And furthermore, before someone starts going off about the "illegal" search by taking the weapon out of the holster and "searching" it to ensure it was unloaded, it's not a search since the object was in plain sight and probably is covered under the Terry frisk rules. And even that is a stretch. And that individual has the gall to speak to how much of a "douche" the San Jose PD is going to be? Look in the mirror pal, there's only one douche in that video.
So while we have plenty of videos showing how some police violate rights as easily as taking a breath, we also have the other side of that coin where I believe people are intentionally attempting to provoke a response just so they can be the first to post it to YouTube about how "all police are BAD!" Yeah, there's rights to be maintained and upheld, but there is also the complete lack of common courtesy in the first video and ignorance of the laws in the second video and blatant provocative speech in the third. And I believe the officers in all three did a good job keeping their cool and professionalism.
Some people are blatantly anti-cop and lump everyone wearing a badge in with the bad ones when the majority of LEO's are good people, know the rights and legal boundaries and generally are just trying to do a difficult job under stressful conditions. And those same people attempt to hamper them, are evasive to basic identifying questions and sometimes even provoke an emotional response like the third video just to try to prove a point.
And I can flat guarantee you something, if the situation was turned around on them and someone was out walking immediately next to their property with a firearm and they started being evasive with their answers, they might see what kind of position they put the police into. Nobody is ever happy when the tables are turned and they see what it's like from the other side of the equation.
You know, we keep showing situations where cops are in the wrong. Here's a few videos where the cops were highly professional and the individuals they were dealing with, maybe not so much...
This was my personal favorite:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wtcvmu3p6WM
The part where he tears up the ticket at 2:15 seconds is priceless. Be sure to watch the last part where he says the best part of his day is the Inauguration of Bill Clinton. :suicide2:
I had seen the first one but the other two were good. Those two morons in the second really did nothing more than look stupid and ignorant.
i don't know which gets under my skin more them casting LEO in a negitive light as a joke.
Or the thought of an officer wiggin out like that.
Or the thought of using public resources to make the video.
How can anyone know anything without the proper testing methods and their constitutionally allowed application?
Not exactly true. Both times I have been stopped at checkpoint (once as a driver, once as a passenger) the search exceeded the description in MI vs Sitz, both in duration and intrusiveness. Both continued beyond what I saw as an interest in the drivers sobriety.
I believe it's disingenuous to claim the SC gave an OK for everything done now at these stops, when I saw no mention of demanding passenger ID's or drug dogs. In fact even worse the infringement was allowed based on the "balance" tipping to the States need to combat the "grave evil" of DUI, so why are they are wasting time running passenger ID's?
Arguments about the dog hitting or not ignore the real problem seen here. Dogs are sometimes used to "punish" people who don't consent to a search. We saw no reason to use a dog here, except to inconvenience or punish the driver.
Wait till they start after guns like they do DUI !
Random checkpoints ! After all they want to keep these ilegal guns off the street !
Again not the LEO on the ground only a few are abusive its the upper gov types that make these happen
Or the thought of using public resources to make the video.
While that is true the resources were probably minimal. However locate municipalities waste or use buku money on unessesary or useless things all the time. So while it is wrong it does not bother me as much.
Littlelebowski
07-07-13, 19:56
Wait till they start after guns like they do DUI !
Random checkpoints ! After all they want to keep these ilegal guns off the street !
Radar for crowds. It's coming.
Voodoo_Man
07-07-13, 20:40
Not exactly true. Both times I have been stopped at checkpoint (once as a driver, once as a passenger) the search exceeded the description in MI vs Sitz, both in duration and intrusiveness. Both continued beyond what I saw as an interest in the drivers sobriety.
I believe it's disingenuous to claim the SC gave an OK for everything done now at these stops, when I saw no mention of demanding passenger ID's or drug dogs. In fact even worse the infringement was allowed based on the "balance" tipping to the States need to combat the "grave evil" of DUI, so why are they are wasting time running passenger ID's?
Arguments about the dog hitting or not ignore the real problem seen here. Dogs are sometimes used to "punish" people who don't consent to a search. We saw no reason to use a dog here, except to inconvenience or punish the driver.
My point was specifically that there is no way for an officer, on the street, to know that a driver is impaired without 1. making initial observations, 2. making a personal opinion as to the status (referring to intoxication/influence) of the driver and 3. if there are other factors, outside the normal scope of that stop which would lead to a different investigation and eventually taking the driver down to wherever they take them to get chemical tested.
You are legally allowed to be stopped at a checkpoint, allowed to be spoken to by an officer and if that officer sees the signs of intoxication, through his training and experience, then he has the legal right, allowed by SCOTUS, to detain you further and investigate. This does not only mean for DUI, it is a huge doorway, which opens instantly any small aspect of any part which is relevant to the officer is present.
Eurodriver
07-07-13, 20:50
You are legally allowed to be stopped at a checkpoint, allowed to be spoken to by an officer and if that officer sees the signs of intoxication, through his training and experience, then he has the legal right, allowed by SCOTUS, to detain you further and investigate. This does not only mean for DUI, it is a huge doorway, which opens instantly any small aspect of any part which is relevant to the officer is present.
No one is debating any of that?? Sure it sucks, but we all know its legal.
Again, why demand passenger identification? What does that have to do with driving while impaired?
Voodoo_Man
07-07-13, 20:56
No one is debating any of that?? Sure it sucks, but we all know its legal.
Again, why demand passenger identification? What does that have to do with driving while impaired?
Passenger...as in not the driver?
Depends completely on the interaction. One specific reason is that a passenger looks under 21 years old and is extremely intoxicated.
Eurodriver
07-07-13, 21:05
Passenger...as in not the driver?
Depends completely on the interaction. One specific reason is that a passenger looks under 21 years old and is extremely intoxicated.
Okay, that's not how it works. At least not here.
More like "License, registration, proof of insurance, and ID for everyone in the vehicle"
Then there is the "Is there anything we should know about?" "What do you have in the trunk?" "Why don't you let me look? I'll have to call a dog over if you don't let me look."
Promptly met with "No. The Constitution. Because its none of your business. I'm just on my way home, go ahead and waste your time."
Then they let me drive away. Of course I could just answer the questions, but there is something that irritates me about communicating with a person that's allowed to lie to me and can kill me anytime he wants for any reason only resulting in an "investigation" by the same type of people he is.
It makes me miss having a sport bike if only because PD isn't allowed to chase and they couldn't catch me if they could. ;)
Passenger...as in not the driver?
Depends completely on the interaction. One specific reason is that a passenger looks under 21 years old and is extremely intoxicated.
Or aid and abet DWI.
Voodoo_Man
07-07-13, 21:10
Okay, that's not how it works. At least not here.
More like "License, registration, proof of insurance, and ID for everyone in the vehicle"
Then there is the "Is there anything we should know about?" "What do you have in the trunk?" "Why don't you let me look? I'll have to call a dog over if you don't let me look."
Promptly met with "No. The Constitution. Because its none of your business. I'm just on my way home, go ahead and waste your time."
Then they let me drive away. Of course I could just answer the questions, but there is something that irritates me about communicating with a person that's allowed to lie to me and can kill me anytime he wants for any reason only resulting in an "investigation" by the same type of people he is.
ID for everyone? On what grounds?
There is a standard for contact with the passenger inside a vehicle and it is greater than that of the operator. I absolutely require clear facts to contact with the passenger. I mean, I can ask for his ID, but I have no legal ground to request is unless there is something like what I have stated. Just a guy sitting in the passenger seat, being drunk at a checkpoint or otherwise a vehicle investigation does not constitute a contact.
Lets stay away from the hyperbole and pointless slander, if we are having a conversation about a topic, that is fine, when you start posting things like your last paragraph quoted above, it makes me wonder why I respond at all.
Voodoo_Man
07-07-13, 21:11
Or aid and abet DWI.
Like "conspiracy to commit DUI" ?
:lol:
Maybe in your state, but I have only seen it charged here once, and both the guys were driving and they were both intoxicated. Do not ask me to explain as I am not going to since its an ongoing case.
Eurodriver
07-07-13, 21:17
ID for everyone? On what grounds?
There is a standard for contact with the passenger inside a vehicle and it is greater than that of the operator. I absolutely require clear facts to contact with the passenger. I mean, I can ask for his ID, but I have no legal ground to request is unless there is something like what I have stated. Just a guy sitting in the passenger seat, being drunk at a checkpoint or otherwise a vehicle investigation does not constitute a contact.
Lets stay away from the hyperbole and pointless slander, if we are having a conversation about a topic, that is fine, when you start posting things like your last paragraph quoted above, it makes me wonder why I respond at all.
My last paragraph is the entire point of this thread.
You have to view it from the viewpoint of most civilians. There is absolutely no recourse when an LEO does wrong. That I-was-beat-up-in-high-school-and-now-I'm-a-cop stereotype didn't just come out of thin air. Sure, I know on the other side it's the complete opposite. LEO's think all the time "How can I do my damn job when I'm always being forced to jump through hoops to placate the politicians?" I get that too. But if people didn't view cops as posessing that "better-than-you" mentality then there wouldn't be 1,500,000 views on that video. People would say wow, that cop needs to get laid. Instead people say yep...happens all the time. Because it does.
As to your other point - of course. 99% of people when asked for an ID are going to give it to the LEO. Why? Because then they get ****ed with like the person in the video. Try being out at night walking home from a bar and having an LEO ask for ID. You refuse, so he detains you for loitering. Then he demands your ID or says you're obstructing justice. So you give it to him. There's no way to maintain your rights and people know this which is why that video, again, has 1,500,000 views.
ETA: Before Pat shows up and calls me an LEO basher - virtually all of my friends are LEOs. Deputy sheriffs, city PD, all of them. I was just at a house party sunday watching the UFC fight with my buddies and there were no less than 5 deputies there. I know cops are good guys and I have no ill will toward any of you. But that doesn't mean civil liberties aren't eroded every day by
officers.
ETA #2: Video has 2,550,000 views now.
Voodoo_Man
07-07-13, 21:26
My last paragraph is the entire point of this thread.
You have to view it from the viewpoint of most civilians. There is absolutely no recourse when an LEO does wrong. That I-was-beat-up-in-high-school-and-now-I'm-a-cop stereotype didn't just come out of thin air. Sure, I know on the other side it's the complete opposite. LEO's think all the time "How can I do my damn job when I'm always being forced to jump through hoops to placate the politicians?" I get that too. But if people didn't view cops as posessing that "better-than-you" mentality then there wouldn't be 1,500,000 views on that video. People would say wow, that cop needs to get laid. Instead people say yep...happens all the time. Because it does.
As to your other point - of course. 99% of people when asked for an ID are going to give it to the LEO. Why? Because then they get ****ed with like the person in the video. Try being out at night walking home from a bar and having an LEO ask for ID. You refuse, so he detains you for loitering. Then he demands your ID or says you're obstructing justice. So you give it to him. There's no way to maintain your rights and people know this which is why that video, again, has 1,500,000 views.
You know people are not born LEO's right? Everyone that is a LEO was a "civilian" at one point. The stereotypes, are exactly that, A widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person, which is usually wrong when compared to a greater sampling.
But it is a free country, and you think whatever way you want, even if its statistically incorrect. If you believe that is what this thread is about then you and I have nothing more to discuss.
Eurodriver
07-07-13, 21:37
You know people are not born LEO's right? Everyone that is a LEO was a "civilian" at one point. The stereotypes, are exactly that, A widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person, which is usually wrong when compared to a greater sampling.
But it is a free country, and you think whatever way you want, even if its statistically incorrect. If you believe that is what this thread is about then you and I have nothing more to discuss.
Just remember that you are outnumbered by bad guys and employed by the citizens of a community. As I said in the dog thread it is better to have a community that values your services than trample rights and have nobody on your side.
Be safe and have a good night.
[QUOTE=
Then they let me drive away. Of course I could just answer the questions, but there is something that irritates me about communicating with a person that's allowed to lie to me and can kill me anytime he wants for any reason only resulting in an "investigation" by the same type of people he is.
It makes me miss having a sport bike if only because PD isn't allowed to chase and they couldn't catch me if they could. ;)[/QUOTE]
Ok good to know I can commit murder for any reason I see fit and not have anything happen but an investigation. Especially since I am accountable to law as well.
Alaskapopo
07-07-13, 22:06
Wait till they start after guns like they do DUI !
Random checkpoints ! After all they want to keep these ilegal guns off the street !
Again not the LEO on the ground only a few are abusive its the upper gov types that make these happen
DUI is not a right and it does cause a lot of death. Gun ownership is a right and it saves more lives than it takes. Two different animals.
Pat
Alaskapopo
07-07-13, 22:11
My last paragraph is the entire point of this thread.
You have to view it from the viewpoint of most civilians. There is absolutely no recourse when an LEO does wrong. That I-was-beat-up-in-high-school-and-now-I'm-a-cop stereotype didn't just come out of thin air. Sure, I know on the other side it's the complete opposite. LEO's think all the time "How can I do my damn job when I'm always being forced to jump through hoops to placate the politicians?" I get that too. But if people didn't view cops as posessing that "better-than-you" mentality then there wouldn't be 1,500,000 views on that video. People would say wow, that cop needs to get laid. Instead people say yep...happens all the time. Because it does.
As to your other point - of course. 99% of people when asked for an ID are going to give it to the LEO. Why? Because then they get ****ed with like the person in the video. Try being out at night walking home from a bar and having an LEO ask for ID. You refuse, so he detains you for loitering. Then he demands your ID or says you're obstructing justice. So you give it to him. There's no way to maintain your rights and people know this which is why that video, again, has 1,500,000 views.
ETA: Before Pat shows up and calls me an LEO basher - virtually all of my friends are LEOs. Deputy sheriffs, city PD, all of them. I was just at a house party sunday watching the UFC fight with my buddies and there were no less than 5 deputies there. I know cops are good guys and I have no ill will toward any of you. But that doesn't mean civil liberties aren't eroded every day by
officers.
ETA #2: Video has 2,550,000 views now.
There is a lot of recourse when an LEO does wrong.
1. file a complaint with the department. We investigate all complaints and we require officers to record all their contacts. So if there is anything to the complaint it will be delt with. This is fairly common anymore.
2. Say that does not work. Complain to the FBI or a watch dog agency like the ACLU and the media. It comes out and we get delt with.
3. Sue or hire a attorney and if we violated your rights under color of law we can go to jail lose our jobs etc.
You do have recourse.
Pat
DUI is not a right and it does cause a lot of death. Gun ownership is a right and it saves more lives than it takes. Two different animals.
Pat
You're not making a valid comparison. DUI is the result of drinking alcoholic beverages, which is a subset of the right to drink and consume liquids and foods, a right of a free man. DUI is the result of consuming too much of one very specific substance and THEN driving shortly thereafter.
Firearm ownership is a right of a free man.
What was your point again?
How do you fall on DUI check points in general? They were upheld by SCOTUS. But, to be honest, regardless of the needed legal manipulations to justify them as "reasonable", they seem the very antithesis of what the Founders of this country intended.
They are as "you have nothing to fear if you're not doing anything wrong" as you can get short of random stops on the street for a pat down, and we know where that (potentially) leads.
I think those who know me here know I am not given to anti gubment sentiment as a knee jerk reaction to anything and everything the gubment does, but this one has always bothered me.
I know the intent is a noble on its surface (but you know what they say about the road to hell...) to be sure and for public safety, but for me, the balance of safety vs. Intrusion on Liberty not met and the potential slippery slope too obvious. Does your state have them?
From the 6:3 SCOTUS decision in favor:
"In sum, the balance of the state's interest in preventing drunken driving, the extent to which this system can reasonably be said to advance that interest, and the degree of intrusion upon individual motorists who are briefly stopped, weighs in favor of the state program. We therefore hold that it is consistent with the Fourth Amendment. . . ."
In contrast from the minority vote:
"The most disturbing aspect of the Court's decision today is that it appears to give no weight to the citizen's interest in freedom from suspicionless, unannounced investigatory seizures. . . . On the other hand, the Court places a heavy thumb on the law-enforcement interest by looking only at gross receipts instead of net benefits. Perhaps this tampering with the scales of justice can be explained by the Court's obvious concern about the slaughter on our highways, and a resultant tolerance for policies designed to alleviate the problem by ''setting an example'' of a few motorists. . . ."
** I brought your post back into this thread. Thread drift here already is making this a logical genesis, and may help keep the topic on point. The players and discussion points will also be the same, and easier to moderate. -ST911
Personally, I'm against them. They unnecessarily impede the peaceable travel of citizens. Everything a RSC is intended to catch is catchable by patrol and observation, which doesn't impede peaceable travel. So why do I work them when for me, it's strictly voluntary? Because they are going to occur whether I take part or not. I can do more to protect the rights of citizens by working contact than I can sitting at home complaining about them. It really is that simple.
You know people are not born LEO's right? Everyone that is a LEO is a "citizen" always. The stereotypes, are exactly that, A widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person, which is usually wrong when compared to a greater sampling.
But it is a free country, and you think whatever way you want, even if its statistically incorrect. If you believe that is what this thread is about then you and I have nothing more to discuss.
fify. If we always remember that part, perhaps we get more respect and cooperation from those we police.
Voodoo_Man
07-07-13, 22:16
Just remember that you are outnumbered by bad guys and employed by the citizens of a community. As I said in the dog thread it is better to have a community that values your services than trample rights and have nobody on your side.
Be safe and have a good night.
Guess we all know why threads like this go south quickly.
Around here this is how DUI checks are presented to the public.
http://wtvr.com/2013/05/24/group-holiday-weekend-dui-checkpoints-dont-work/
I have never heard of one referred to by any other means. IOW, it is for DUI --only--. How it actually gets used I don't know. I have never had anyone ask for ID other than mine. They ask for Lic/Reg/Insc. Invariably I don't have one of the later two but it's never been a problem.
I would be stunned if anyone asked for the ID of anyone in my car. Never been asked to turn my car off. Never been asked to step out.
I really don't have a big problem with DUI only. But looking past the immediately obvious I think should be illegal. No dogs, no scanners, just your observational skills. Take 60 seconds and make a decision of yes or no. Not a decision of maybe or could be or I need to ponder this one and especially not I'm going to find something.
Answers in bold.
Must be a half-arsed dog as they did not find anything.
-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."
I never liked working Roadside Safety Checks. Word traveled fast in the local taverns and within an hour people took different routes and drove around us.
I arrested more drunk drivers by patrolling than standing at an intersection. It seemed more fair to spot someone who was driving poorly than to screen people driving through an intersection. I also made a lot better criminal arrests by driving around than standing at an intersection.
DUI is not a right and it does cause a lot of death. Gun ownership is a right and it saves more lives than it takes. Two different animals.
Pat
We will see your responses here when the time comes...
-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."
You know people are not born LEO's right? Everyone that is a LEO was a "civilian" at one point. The stereotypes, are exactly that, A widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person, which is usually wrong when compared to a greater sampling.
Stereotypes are called stereotypes because they are usually, mostly right. The problem is that they always end up lumping in people who don't fit the bill and so they can end up hurting the innocent. That doesn't change the fact that for the other 99%, the stereotype is quite accurate.
That holds for everyone.
Alaskapopo
07-07-13, 22:33
You're not making a valid comparison. DUI is the result of drinking alcoholic beverages, which is a subset of the right to drink and consume liquids and foods, a right of a free man. DUI is the result of consuming too much of one very specific substance and THEN driving shortly thereafter.
Firearm ownership is a right of a free man.
What was your point again?
Exactly they are not a valid comparison read the post I was replying to my Honu.
Pat
Alaskapopo
07-07-13, 22:35
Stereotypes are called stereotypes because they are usually, mostly right. The problem is that they always end up lumping in people who don't fit the bill and so they can end up hurting the innocent. That doesn't change the fact that for the other 99%, the stereotype is quite accurate.
That holds for everyone.
Thats not true they are generally 99% wrong when applied to every individual member of the group on a individual basis. Plus sterotypes are generally overstating a a negative trait.
Pat
You know people are not born LEO's right? Everyone that is a LEO was a "civilian" at one point. The stereotypes, are exactly that, A widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person, which is usually wrong when compared to a greater sampling.
But it is a free country, and you think whatever way you want, even if its statistically incorrect. If you believe that is what this thread is about then you and I have nothing more to discuss.
Cops are civilians...
-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."
Voodoo_Man
07-07-13, 22:48
Cops are civilians...
Not according to the context of Euro's post.
Eurodriver
07-07-13, 22:52
Cops are civilians...
-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."
Just trying to make a distinction between LEOs and non LEOs for ease of understanding.
SeriousStudent
07-07-13, 23:22
Guys, we've talked about gun control and cops are/aren't civilians.
Let's not.
Honestly, neither is really related to this issue. I appreciate the calm that a lot of people have shown today, I truly do.
But that sound you all hear is swirling water. If you don't want this flushed, discuss the merits. Thanks.
RogerinTPA
07-07-13, 23:28
You know people are not born LEO's right? Everyone that is a LEO was a "civilian" at one point. The stereotypes, are exactly that, A widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person, which is usually wrong when compared to a greater sampling.
But it is a free country, and you think whatever way you want, even if its statistically incorrect. If you believe that is what this thread is about then you and I have nothing more to discuss.
I beg to differ. That line of thinking and mindset is the problem. You are still a civilian. The job is law enforcement. You are 'of' the community in which you serve and swore to protect. Those in LE are not the military, nor are they a paramilitary force, although many wish and think they are, dressing and equipping themselves like the military and calling themselves 'operators':rolleyes:. IMHO, anyone who thinks those who serve in LE and thinks LE = Military, is in dire need of a psych evaluation. With all these oversteps with LE being publicized on a regular basis, many feel it is that very military mentality, above the law fantasy that endangers the public and manifests itself through citizen abuse.
I've had several discussions in the past with police officers thinking they did the same job, the same duty and same responsibilities as military officers, and had deeply embedded that idea into their psyche. The term 'officer' is a designation to grant LE the authority to perform the job. That's it. Quite frankly, they need to go back to the official designation of 'constable' or 'law keeper' so it curtails mental mission creep into the minds of the overly enthusiastic military frame of mind, while granting the same authority. Annual remedial scenario based training on the US Constitution, would also aid in slowing down citizen abuse.
Alaskapopo
07-07-13, 23:45
I beg to differ. That line of thinking and mindset is the problem. You are still a civilian. The job is law enforcement. You are 'of' the community in which you serve and swore to protect. Those in LE are not the military, nor are they a paramilitary force, although many wish and think they are, dressing and equipping themselves like the military and calling themselves 'operators':rolleyes:. IMHO, anyone who thinks those who serve in LE and thinks LE = Military, is in dire need of a psych evaluation. With all these oversteps with LE being publicized on a regular basis, many feel it is that very military mentality, above the law fantasy that endangers the public and manifests itself through citizen abuse.
I've had several discussions in the past with police officers thinking they did the same job, the same duty and same responsibilities as military officers, and had deeply embedded that idea into their psyche. The term 'officer' is a designation to grant LE the authority to perform the job. That's it. Quite frankly, they need to go back to the official designation of 'constable' or 'law keeper' so it curtails mental mission creep into the minds of the overly enthusiastic military frame of mind, while granting the same authority. Annual remedial scenario based training on the US Constitution, would also aid in slowing down citizen abuse.
Law enforcement is a para military organization. Sure we do a lot of community based services from removing dead cats from the road to finding missing kids. But we are also tasked with arresting criminals. Also annual training is hard to come by and I would rather spend time on something use full for officer safety like weapons training or defensive tactics vs historical classes on the Constitution. We read the legal briefs and keep up on the case law and that should be enough.
Pat
I've had several discussions in the past with police officers thinking they did the same job, the same duty and same responsibilities as military officers, and had deeply embedded that idea into their psyche.
that's a bit scary.....
The civilian issue was clarified a couple of posts up just so you know.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.