View Full Version : Legal in your state? (Jeff Gray on DUI Checkpoints)
platoonDaddy
01-04-15, 08:09
In a video posted to YouTube Thursday, longtime police recording activist Jeff Gray tests out a novel approach to DUI checkpoints in Florida: putting license, registration and insurance information in a plastic freezer bag, along with a Fair DUI message:
I remain silent
No searches
I want my lawyer
Attached to the inside of the car with a string, the bag is meant to keep a driver from having to roll down their window at a DUI checkpoint and, as Gray put it, put themselves in danger of having police “lie” and say their speech is slurred or that the smell of alcohol or drugs is wafting from the vehicle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YqEXTVe7MCQ
Voodoo_Man
01-04-15, 08:25
...so what happens when a police officer says he wants you to sign your name in front of him?
On top of that, in many places it is perfectly normal to conduct a traffic stop at rear of vehicle.
Checkpoints aren't legal....soooooo....
I do think its interesting this individual is seeking out the checkpoints though. Interesting tactic if you don't want to go through them.
Nope. In PA it's a guaranteed conviction and 1 year license suspension if you don't submit to a breathalyzer if the police think you're impaired.
Edit: which is complete bullshit.
Nope. In PA it's a guaranteed conviction and 1 year license suspension if you don't submit to a breathalyzer if the police think you're impaired.
Edit: which is complete bullshit.
In texas it is not a conviction, but there are no checkpoints either. Under texas law, when a person signs for their DL, they are agreeing to provide a specimen of their blood or breath upon request. Denial of such a request can (will) result in the suspension of a DL for 180 days.
Furthermore, if an officer has reasonable suspicion/probable cause to conduct a traffic stop in texas, they also have the right to investigate outside the scope of the original traffic violation if circumstances require so (and the officer can articulate the facts why). If someone handed an officer that bag on a string, I would expect them to ask questions. Those questions would involve the rolling down of a window and speaking with the driver. Slurred speech is one of those things that is pretty apparent if it is there, since nearly every car is going to have video now.
Frankly, I think this guy's entire premise is based on a supposition that all officers lie. Well, if he isn't intoxicated, then he shouldn't have a problem blowing, which would defeat the entire purpose of acting like a jackass and putting all of your stuff in a bag outside the window. A person's vehicle is not treated like their home and their expectation of privacy is pretty diminished. Anyone pulling this kind of stunt should probably be prepared for a pretty long evening. If they have been drinking as well...then they should probably be ready to cough up the $$$ the DWI is going to cost.
Checkpoints aren't legal....soooooo....
I do think its interesting this individual is seeking out the checkpoints though. Interesting tactic if you don't want to go through them.
You know what they say....you can't fix stupid.
Frankly, I think this guy's entire premise is based on a supposition that all officers lie. Well, if he isn't intoxicated, then he shouldn't have a problem blowing, which would defeat the entire purpose of acting like a jackass and putting all of your stuff in a bag outside the window.
I used to think like that, perhaps I'm growing into more of a libertarian as I get older, or perhaps it was a couple of pull overs where the officer acted like a power tripping jack-@ss, when I was nothing but polite with yes sir no sir answers to his questions? I've also had very pleasant encounters where the officer was a 100% professional gentleman. As with everything in life, nothing is cut and dry or 100% either way. But are you willing to take a chance on which variety you encounter?
A "checkpoint" isn't probable cause and I find his tactic mighty clever. The "if it saves just one life" mentality, that you hear all to often as it relates to guns, is the same mentality at work with these checkpoints. You should be under NO obligation to submit to a breath test, unless there is probable cause to suspect you've been drinking. Period, end of story.
ETA: For perspective, years ago, when I was much younger, I was hit head on at ~45 MPH by a drunk driver and did the windshield smash. The accident happened on a narrow Country bridge and I had no possible way of maneuvering to avoid the collision I saw coming. I still have the scar on my face as a reminder and can remember very specific details of the accident like it was yesterday. (Like my passenger, who braced for it, jumping out of the truck screaming "it's gonna blow" and leaving me on my own, soaked with gasoline, injured, semi-conscious, trying in vain to open a drivers side door that was apparently squashed like an accordion.)
Many states have implied consent laws in place in which you can be arrested and your car impounded if you refuse to submit to a sobriety check. BS law, but the law nonetheless. I learned my drunk driving lesson many years ago when I was 18, so I don't drive if I've consumed alcohol - ever. If stopped, I will volunteer to blow in the tube, what I will not do is let the LEO make a fool of me performing the "roadside dance". No sober person would consent to doing these things anyways.
SeriousStudent
01-04-15, 21:54
A slight sidetrack - A question for the LEO's.
I don't drink and drive, period. If asked, my plan was to always offer a blood draw. I have some challenges due to previous CNS/skeletal injuries that I bet would have me failing some of the balance and coordination tests.
In my thoughts, it's pretty much a moot point, since I don't drink and drive, drive safely, and we don't have checkpoints here in Texas. But I have always planned to do that if ever stopped.
If you were an LEO and I offered to voluntarily go give a blood sample on the spot, would that make you willing to probably forgo the usual roadside stuff?
Thanks.
I used to think like that, perhaps I'm growing into more of a libertarian as I get older, or perhaps it was a couple of pull overs where the officer acted like a power tripping jack-@ss, when I was nothing but polite with yes sir no sir answers to his questions? I've also had very pleasant encounters where the officer was a 100% professional gentleman. As with everything in life, nothing is cut and dry or 100% either way. But are you willing to take a chance on which variety you encounter?
A "checkpoint" isn't probable cause and I find his tactic mighty clever. The "if it saves just one life" mentality, that you hear all to often as it relates to guns, is the same mentality at work with these checkpoints. You should be under NO obligation to submit to a breath test, unless there is probable cause to suspect you've been drinking. Period, end of story.
ETA: For perspective, years ago, when I was much younger, I was hit head on at ~45 MPH by a drunk driver and did the windshield smash. The accident happened on a narrow Country bridge and I had no possible way of maneuvering to avoid the collision I saw coming. I still have the scar on my face as a reminder and can remember very specific details of the accident like it was yesterday. (Like my passenger, who braced for it, jumping out of the truck screaming "it's gonna blow" and leaving me on my own, soaked with gasoline, injured, semi-conscious, trying in vain to open a drivers side door that was apparently squashed like an accordion.)
A slight sidetrack - A question for the LEO's.
I don't drink and drive, period. If asked, my plan was do always offer a blood draw. I have some challenges due to previous CNS/skeletal injuries that I bet would have me failing some of the balance and coordination tests.
In my thoughts, it's pretty much a moot point, since I don't drink and drive, drive safely, and we don't have checkpoints here in Texas. But I have always planned to do that if ever stopped.
If you were an LEO and I offered to voluntarily go give a blood sample on the spot, would that make you willing to probably forgo the usual roadside stuff?
Thanks.
Not LEO, but had a similar situation. In a car (passenger), get pulled over for speeding about an hour after a concert let out. Both of us in our EMT uniforms. Cop let the driver to a breath test without the sobriety tests and let us on our way.
I assume very situation dependent.
A slight sidetrack - A question for the LEO's.
I don't drink and drive, period. If asked, my plan was do always offer a blood draw. I have some challenges due to previous CNS/skeletal injuries that I bet would have me failing some of the balance and coordination tests.
In my thoughts, it's pretty much a moot point, since I don't drink and drive, drive safely, and we don't have checkpoints here in Texas. But I have always planned to do that if ever stopped.
If you were an LEO and I offered to voluntarily go give a blood sample on the spot, would that make you willing to probably forgo the usual roadside stuff?
Thanks.
Never involved in local LE, but I can tell you that most police agencies in my county cannot take your blood on the spot. They will have to transport you to the jail where a nurse, if available, will handle the blood draw. If there is no jail nurse (or if the nurse thinks you are too inebriated), they will take you to a local emergency department for the draw. This is fairly routine at my hospital since nurse staffing at the jail is hit or miss at night. While you will not incur a hospital bill for this draw (our hospital has a contract with the county for this service) it may be a long night depending on our patient volumes. In otherwords, it might be best to grab a Snickers - you're probably not going anywhere for a while....
SeriousStudent
01-04-15, 22:26
Never involved in local LE, but I can tell you that most police agencies in my county cannot take your blood on the spot. They will have to transport you to the jail where a nurse, if available, will handle the blood draw. If there is no jail nurse (or if the nurse thinks you are too inebriated), they will take you to a local emergency department for the draw. This is fairly routine at my hospital since nurse staffing at the jail is hit or miss at night. While you will not incur a hospital bill for this draw (our hospital has a contract with the county for this service) it may be a long night depending on our patient volumes. In otherwords, it might be best to grab a Snickers - you're probably not going anywhere for a while....
Ah yes, that was poorly stated on my part. I meant that I would volunteer (while at the traffic stop) to give a blood draw, and go with the officer to where ever they performed the procedure.
And yes, I bet it would take a while. I am a pragmatic person, however, and know that a lawyer's DUI fees around here start at $5,000. I'll sit in an ER reading the Kindle app on my phone for a few hours, and deal with the wait.
A fair number of my neighbors are cops, and are dear friends. But the thought of one of them juggling a Streamlight while trying to get a good stick on a vein makes my knees shake. :cool:
I'll ask them the next time they wander over for Bourbon and cigars. Thank you for the answer, kind sir.
I'd rather blow or give blood long before the field test. I'm so uncoordinated I'd probably fail on my best day.
Incidentally in my younger days I had a lead foot and got pulled over more than my fair share. The number of times I got asked "are you wearing Cologne or anything like that?" (I don't ever) just to then be asked to blow and it come up a big fat 0 was interesting to say the least. It's an implied consent state so why BS, if you want me to blow just ask me to blow.
Moose-Knuckle
01-05-15, 03:18
A slight sidetrack - A question for the LEO's.
I don't drink and drive, period. If asked, my plan was to always offer a blood draw. I have some challenges due to previous CNS/skeletal injuries that I bet would have me failing some of the balance and coordination tests.
In my thoughts, it's pretty much a moot point, since I don't drink and drive, drive safely, and we don't have checkpoints here in Texas. But I have always planned to do that if ever stopped.
If you were an LEO and I offered to voluntarily go give a blood sample on the spot, would that make you willing to probably forgo the usual roadside stuff?
Thanks.
Blood is king in court. Thanks to the CSI TV series and the like juries eat up blood specimens compared to breath test results. For a blood draw the LEO would have to track down a Judge willing to sign a warrant and then a certified phlebotomist. That can be easier said than done depending on the jurisdiction. One area LEA has their Detention staff certified as phlebotomist for this very reason.
.........................
If stopped, I will volunteer to blow in the tube, what I will not do is let the LEO make a fool of me performing the "roadside dance". No sober person would consent to doing these things anyways.
Its not a dance. They are very simple maneuvers that use divided attention and multi tasking (like driving a vehicle does) to determine if you are physically able to drive. Furthermore, HGN is pretty simple "stand there and look at the stylist" test....no dancing involved. They do however indicate fairly quickly how trashed someone is.
Now if you don't want to get a DUI, and are drunk, I'd suggest refusing to do the maneuvers. But if you're actually drunk, and driving like you're drunk, you're probably screwed anyway. I have ZERO sympathy for people who get DUI's.
I do not however agree with blood draws. Just not my thing, and kinda just falls under "not worth it to me". My main concern is getting drunks off the road.
.........................
Thankfully, as a driver, under most circumstances, you can refuse to perform SFSTs. Disclaimer: Check your state laws.
See edited post...its nice in theory but if you're actually DUI....might not help.
Outlander Systems
01-05-15, 11:42
I remember rolling through a DUI checkpoint, and the first thing out of the Deputy's mouth was, "Who wants to go to jail tonight?"
The first question during the roadside tests is if you have any physical conditions that would keep you from performing the tests. A quick HGN test or a portable breathalyzer is really quick and easy to do. If I ever get pulled over for suspicion of DUI I'll just ask the officer or that. Since I don't drink I doubt that will happen.
platoonDaddy
01-05-15, 13:24
I remember rolling through a DUI checkpoint, and the first thing out of the Deputy's mouth was, "Who wants to go to jail tonight?"
Back in the late 80's being still dumb, I partied until the bars in DC closed. Knowing I was in harms way, decided to stay right-behind a Greyhound bus out of DC. Big as dog poop when the bus pulled away from a red light, officers everywhere. Of course I was first in line and the officer "are you drunk?" Knowing I was going to jail, my reply "amen!" He looked at me and said get the f'*ck out of here.
That was it for me, I now NEVER ever drink and drive.
.........................
Under texas law, when a person signs for their DL, they are agreeing to provide a specimen of their blood or breath upon request.
No.
See TC724.011
Outlander Systems
01-05-15, 16:59
L
Back in the late 80's being still dumb, I partied until the bars in DC closed. Knowing I was in harms way, decided to stay right-behind a Greyhound bus out of DC. Big as dog poop when the bus pulled away from a red light, officers everywhere. Of course I was first in line and the officer "are you drunk?" Knowing I was going to jail, my reply "amen!" He looked at me and said get the f'*ck out of here.
That was it for me, I now NEVER ever drink and drive.
I'm sure he was screwing around, but I was having a rough night so I wasn't in the mood for it. Normally I'd have a snarky one-liner.
Its not a dance. They are very simple maneuvers that use divided attention and multi tasking (like driving a vehicle does) to determine if you are physically able to drive. Furthermore, HGN is pretty simple "stand there and look at the stylist" test....no dancing involved. They do however indicate fairly quickly how trashed someone is.
Now if you don't want to get a DUI, and are drunk, I'd suggest refusing to do the maneuvers. But if you're actually drunk, and driving like you're drunk, you're probably screwed anyway. I have ZERO sympathy for people who get DUI's.
I do not however agree with blood draws. Just not my thing, and kinda just falls under "not worth it to me". My main concern is getting drunks off the road.
Excuse me for using the vernacular term "roadside dance" to describe the field sobriety test. My point was that a sober person would generally not consent to the coordination test because they would see it as a waste of time and a way for an unscrupulous LEO to claim someone did not perform to their satisfaction and detain them further. As I wrote, my lesson was learned over 30 years ago and I do not get behind the wheel if I've had alcohol. So as not to waste everyone's time, I'll volunteer to take the Breathalyzer. In my learning experience, I had stopped drinking 3 hours prior to the traffic stop. I did the tests, the LEO said I did just fine, but I "smelled like a brewery" and had me take the Breathalyzer test. I blew a very expensive .109 (limit in my state at the time was .10), so now I don't chance a repeat lesson.
If someone handed an officer that bag on a string, I would expect them to ask questions. Those questions would involve the rolling down of a window and speaking with the driver. Slurred speech is one of those things that is pretty apparent if it is there, since nearly every car is going to have video now.
Frankly, I think this guy's entire premise is based on a supposition that all officers lie. Well, if he isn't intoxicated, then he shouldn't have a problem blowing, which would defeat the entire purpose of acting like a jackass and putting all of your stuff in a bag outside the window. A person's vehicle is not treated like their home and their expectation of privacy is pretty diminished. Anyone pulling this kind of stunt should probably be prepared for a pretty long evening. If they have been drinking as well...then they should probably be ready to cough up the $$$ the DWI is going to cost.
The whole license/registration/insurance outside, or held against the window thing is legal in many states, based on precise reading of state statute, many read must present, or must display, instead of must give.
Why do folks do that? Usually on advice of an attorney. The idea is that by not speaking with the officer, refusing to exit or take field sobriety tests, the driver is forcing the officer to make their arrest decision on 1) vehicle in motion cues; 2) observation of stop cues; 3) personal contact cues. The idea is that if the officer arrests, and the subject refuses to blow, the attorney can prevail by proving the officer lacked PC to arrest. The other thing the attorney counts on is the officer getting a little ego involved in the whole thing and making procedural errors.
Obviously the guys making the video weren't intoxicated. The average DUI offender drives while impaired 50+ times a year before being caught, over 30% of the drivers killed in fatality crashes had BAC's of over .08, in most of those crashes involving a DUI driver, the driver was not the only victim of the crash. Considering all that, I think the guys are douchebags, not civil rights crusaders, but that is just me.
However I do take issue with this - if he isn't intoxicated, then he shouldn't have a problem blowing - unless there is PC, the person shouldn't have been arrested, and in every state I'm aware of, a non-commercial driver has to be arrested before they are required to submit a sample - b, u, b.
A slight sidetrack - A question for the LEO's.
I don't drink and drive, period. If asked, my plan was to always offer a blood draw. I have some challenges due to previous CNS/skeletal injuries that I bet would have me failing some of the balance and coordination tests.
In my thoughts, it's pretty much a moot point, since I don't drink and drive, drive safely, and we don't have checkpoints here in Texas. But I have always planned to do that if ever stopped.
If you were an LEO and I offered to voluntarily go give a blood sample on the spot, would that make you willing to probably forgo the usual roadside stuff?
Thanks.
You have to be arrested before the implied consent law requires you to submit.
In many states they have a PBT statute that allows the officer who 'reasonably suspects' a person is impaired to demand they submit to a non-evidentiary PBT test. In our state it is 6 month suspension for refusing. Once again, in court the state/officer has to prove they had reasonable suspicion to request the PBT.
About 7 years ago I had an accident which resulted in a pretty severe concussion and both my temporal bones being broken. I'm a SFST instructor, and it is a hoot to see me demo the tests, I can not do the one leg stand to say my soul.
SeriousStudent
01-06-15, 00:00
You have to be arrested before the implied consent law requires you to submit.
In many states they have a PBT statute that allows the officer who 'reasonably suspects' a person is impaired to demand they submit to a non-evidentiary PBT test. In our state it is 6 month suspension for refusing. Once again, in court the state/officer has to prove they had reasonable suspicion to request the PBT.
About 7 years ago I had an accident which resulted in a pretty severe concussion and both my temporal bones being broken. I'm a SFST instructor, and it is a hoot to see me demo the tests, I can not do the one leg stand to say my soul.
Same here. My medical history is either very exciting or terrifying, depending on your point of view. I'd have have a better chance scoring a Vegas weekend with Halle Berry than standing upright with my eyes closed, without my cane.
Nothing like two TBI's, both with penetrating trauma to the skull. Add a roadside sobriety test to the mix, and hilarity ensues.....
I'll just do the Big Bad Wolf thing when offered a breathalyzer, and then we'll all play vampire if it goes from there.
Straight Shooter
01-06-15, 00:01
I remember rolling through a DUI checkpoint, and the first thing out of the Deputy's mouth was, "Who wants to go to jail tonight?"
I HATE those kind of smart-assed ****s.
I was stopped by the CHP several years ago on a trumped up violation. In fact, I was already in a parking lot exiting my vehicle when they pulled in front of me to confront me.
Both idiots attempted to convince I needed perform stupid human tricks which I politely declined since they are not mandatory in most states. The only thing required is blood or a breathalyzer. After I passed the BAC and was told I could go, I asked why I was stopped. I was told because I hadn't been wearing my seatbelt. Which is impossible for them to know or have seen as the interior of the vehicle was black, I was wearing a black gore tex jacket and I had tinted windows all the way around and the officers were at a right angle to my vehicle and had less than 3-4 seconds of visual on me when they made the left handed turn past me.
eightmillimeter
01-07-15, 12:05
I was stopped by the CHP several years ago on a trumped up violation. In fact, I was already in a parking lot exiting my vehicle when they pulled in front of me to confront me.
Both idiots attempted to convince I needed perform stupid human tricks which I politely declined since they are not mandatory in most states. The only thing required is blood or a breathalyzer. After I passed the BAC and was told I could go, I asked why I was stopped. I was told because I hadn't been wearing my seatbelt. Which is impossible for them to know or have seen as the interior of the vehicle was black, I was wearing a black gore tex jacket and I had tinted windows all the way around and the officers were at a right angle to my vehicle and had less than 3-4 seconds of visual on me when they made the left handed turn past me.
IG,
Let me say first you have my utmost respect on these boards. But as an aside, your perception of this (as dictated) implies not that the officers were wrong in stopping you for not wearing a seatbelt, but that they (based on your analysis of their POV) simply could not have "seen" the violation. I guess what I am getting at is that you don't argue they screwed up because you really had your belt on, but that that they shouldn't have been able to see that the belt was off in the first place.
Although it is certainly more difficult to ascertain if a person is belted under conditions you describe, its certainly not impossible either for a Highway Patrol officer who makes a living working traffic.
platoonDaddy
01-07-15, 16:11
My personal opinion on Jeff Gray: he is playing the lottery on a LEO making a stutter-step to enable him retire on tax payers monies.
My personal opinion on Jeff Gray: he is playing the lottery on a LEO making a stutter-step to enable him retire on tax payers monies.
How would that work out? I don't know Florida law, but if a Leo did a traffic stop just on reasonable suspicion for DWI and someone put that out there window, it wouldn't work it.
Actually I was wearing my seatbelt. And my vehicle was already stopped and I was out of it when they pulled up in front and then began the "have you been drinking spiel".
IG,
Let me say first you have my utmost respect on these boards. But as an aside, your perception of this (as dictated) implies not that the officers were wrong in stopping you for not wearing a seatbelt, but that they (based on your analysis of their POV) simply could not have "seen" the violation. I guess what I am getting at is that you don't argue they screwed up because you really had your belt on, but that that they shouldn't have been able to see that the belt was off in the first place.
Although it is certainly more difficult to ascertain if a person is belted under conditions you describe, its certainly not impossible either for a Highway Patrol officer who makes a living working traffic.
How would that work out? I don't know Florida law, but if a Leo did a traffic stop just on reasonable suspicion for DWI and someone put that out there window, it wouldn't work it.
No, since the LEO can order any or all of the vehicles occupants out. Also, a driver is not entitled to legal representation on the side of the road.
IG,
Let me say first you have my utmost respect on these boards. But as an aside, your perception of this (as dictated) implies not that the officers were wrong in stopping you for not wearing a seatbelt, but that they (based on your analysis of their POV) simply could not have "seen" the violation. I guess what I am getting at is that you don't argue they screwed up because you really had your belt on, but that that they shouldn't have been able to see that the belt was off in the first place.
Although it is certainly more difficult to ascertain if a person is belted under conditions you describe, its certainly not impossible either for a Highway Patrol officer who makes a living working traffic.
Who gives a flying f? Seatbelt laws are retarded (for anybody 18 or older - not properly safety installing a minor in a vehicle should be punishable), therefore I don't give a crap about them whatsoever. Not wearing a seat belt is dumb, therefore I always do, but writing laws to legislate a self-solving behavior is idiotic, and the fact that it's used to trump up otherwise stupid traffic stops is one of those things that makes a profession worthy of respect end up being adversarial to the population they're sworn to protect and serve.
ClearedHot
01-08-15, 02:46
No, since the LEO can order any or all of the vehicles occupants out. Also, a driver is not entitled to legal representation on the side of the road.
You're not legally compelled to exit your vehicle just because the officer wants to talk to you outside. Big difference between a request to have you step outside your vehicle and a lawful order. You would be wise to have the office clarify on which one it is.
It is against the founding principles of this country to impede the movement of a citizen on a public thoroughfare without probable cause.
You're not legally compelled to exit your vehicle just because the officer wants to talk to you outside. Big difference between a request to have you step outside your vehicle and a lawful order. You would be wise to have the office clarify on which one it is.
Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977)
What has Mr. Gray accomplished to date? Have there been any changes to statutes or procedures in any of the jurisdictions where he has gone through DUI roadblocks and recorded the officer's activities? If there have, please identify the jurisdictions.
I have never heard of any. But if someone is intoxicated and thinks this is going to fly the are wrong. I've already read one sheriff's response and his right, that is suspicious, and it may even been obstructing under Florida law (interference with public duties in some jurisdictions)
platoonDaddy
01-09-15, 15:57
What has Mr. Gray accomplished to date? Have there been any changes to statutes or procedures in any of the jurisdictions where he has gone through DUI roadblocks and recorded the officer's activities? If there have, please identify the jurisdictions.
Wasn't he part of the case that filming LEO's wasn't a crime?
.........................
.........................
Wasn't he part of the case that filming LEO's wasn't a crime?
I don't know. Which case? Where was the case adjudicated? Did the ACLU get involved?
It is against the founding principles of this country to impede the movement of a citizen on a public thoroughfare without probable cause.
Probable Cause? Or Reasonable Suspicion?
Actually I was wearing my seatbelt. And my vehicle was already stopped and I was out of it when they pulled up in front and then began the "have you been drinking spiel".
Oh so the whole "im not driving NOW" argument is valid in your opinion? LOL I've had people pull into driveways and get out as I was trying to catch up to them....funny thing....it wasn't their driveway. Same goes for businesses, etc. "My car is stopped and Im not in my car, you cant get me now!" doesn't work...if THEY SEE YOU DRIVING AND WATCH YOU GET OUT OF YOUR CAR. Or how about the old "parked DUI". You're telling me if someone is parked....say in the middle of an intersection passed smooth out, end up blowing a .300, they shouldn't be cited for DUI? Since of course they WERE PARKED right???? No, that's an outrageous thought process.
Just some honest truth there....no trumping here...
.........................
Did you miss the part about the trumped up seat belt violation (for which no ticket was issued?). And the fact that they didn't observe me driving erratic, failing to maintain a single lane of traffic, etc.. etc..
Bottom line is that it was after 130 AM, they were bored and made up a reason to pull up to me in a parking lot and then ask if I was drinking and then administer a BAC test.
Oh so the whole "im not driving NOW" argument is valid in your opinion? LOL I've had people pull into driveways and get out as I was trying to catch up to them....funny thing....it wasn't their driveway. Same goes for businesses, etc. "My car is stopped and Im not in my car, you cant get me now!" doesn't work...if THEY SEE YOU DRIVING AND WATCH YOU GET OUT OF YOUR CAR. Or how about the old "parked DUI". You're telling me if someone is parked....say in the middle of an intersection passed smooth out, end up blowing a .300, they shouldn't be cited for DUI? Since of course they WERE PARKED right???? No, that's an outrageous thought process.
Just some honest truth there....no trumping here...
Stops when RAS or PC is present are acceptable, but are easily abused by LE, especially RAS. Road blocks to serve the purpose of "general crime-fighting," checking license/registration, checking for DUI, checking immigration status while not at the border, etc., WITHOUT RAS or PC, are unconstitutional, regardless of how the judiciary has ruled in regard to their constitutionality.
Vehicle inspection (verification) are my personal favorite flavor of road blocks/stops.
Eurodriver
01-10-15, 09:28
Did you miss the part about the trumped up seat belt violation (for which no ticket was issued?). And the fact that they didn't observe me driving erratic, failing to maintain a single lane of traffic, etc.. etc..
Bottom line is that it was after 130 AM, they were bored and made up a reason to pull up to me in a parking lot and then ask if I was drinking and then administer a BAC test.
I love the lines in this thread "Highway patrol who do it for a living can spot you not wearing a seatbelt"
LOL - being HP doesn't mean you have x-ray vision. My dad has gotten pulled over so many times for this type of stuff because he frequently drives between 1am-5am.
"Why did you stop me?"
"Your license plate light is out" Then, after the stop, walks around the back of his car and its working fine.
It's pretty stupid. If you follow someone long enough everyone gives legitimate reasonable suspicion for a stop. Lying about why you are stopping someone does so much more harm than good.
Did you miss the part about the trumped up seat belt violation (for which no ticket was issued?). And the fact that they didn't observe me driving erratic, failing to maintain a single lane of traffic, etc.. etc..
Bottom line is that it was after 130 AM, they were bored and made up a reason to pull up to me in a parking lot and then ask if I was drinking and then administer a BAC test.
Holy Crap..i did!
Years back when I frequently drove to Mississippi from Waco and traveled at night, the same cop would stop me and say that I was weaving. Then, he would recognize my Dalmation dog and 870 on the floor board, grin, and wish me a safe trip.
About blowing and not when taken to jail on DUI suspicion: Texas law allows a hefty penalty for refusing to blow. If you blow and lose, then there's no way out. If you refuse to blow, then your attorney has wiggle room because it's up to the district attorney to take the next step. You can buy out of a no blow charge but not a blow and lose charge. Or, I should say that it's much more difficult and expensive to do so. If the no blow charges of losing your license could not be beat, then the blood test rule would not have come about.
You're not legally compelled to exit your vehicle just because the officer wants to talk to you outside. Big difference between a request to have you step outside your vehicle and a lawful order. You would be wise to have the office clarify on which one it is.
On a T-Stop, I can order any occupant out of the vehicle. I should have clarified.
Eurodriver
01-11-15, 12:26
On a T-Stop, I can order any occupant out of the vehicle. I should have clarified.
So the question (point of this thread) becomes - are DUI checkpoints traffic stops, and do I have to get out of the vehicle if you order me to?
They publish DUI Checkpoints around here in the newspaper (by law) and social media gets blown up when one shows up. It's amazing that they manage to ever get anyone for anything at all, since most of the roads here are in a grid and you can easily make one left and one right and be passed it. You just have to do it a few blocks beforehand otherwise you get the "Hey, we saw you avoiding our roadblock. I smell weed in your vehicle." chat.
.........................
Eurodriver:
According to Pennsylvania v. Mims, 434 U.S. 106 (1977) the officer can order the driver to exit the vehicle on a traffic stop; in Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 (1997) the SCOUS further held that the Mims finding also applies to passengers. If the officers manning the roadblock have asked you to get out of the vehicle they should already have reasonable suspicion that you are impaired. According to Mims you have to exit when asked to do so, for officer safety, not investigatory purposes. You do not have to take field sobriety tests. In our state you do have to take a PBT (non-evidentiary preliminary breath test) if you don't your license can be suspended.
What To Do At A DUI Roadblock
The following article appeared in Volume 2, Issue 4 of the NMA Newsletter. (National Motorist Association)
By William Pangman, a past president and founder of the Wisconsin Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
What is a motorist obliged to do when confronted with a police roadblock?
The United States Supreme Court arrived at an answer to this question in Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, 110 S.Ct. 2481 (1990). In Sitz, a group of Michigan motorists challenged the constitutionality of a highway sobriety check-point utilized by the Michigan State Police. The only check-point operated in Michigan was in Saginaw County. The operation lasted for an hour and fifteen minutes and every vehicle passing through the designated location was stopped for approximately 25 seconds. When officers believed that the drivers stopped at the check-point might be under the influence of an intoxicant, those vehicles were asked to pull over to the side of the road and drivers were requested to perform field sobriety tests.
Out of the 126 motorists which passed through the check-point, only three motorists were asked to pull over. These facts were apparently important to Supreme Court Chief Justice Rehnquist, who wrote the opinion for the majority. The Court determined that the Michigan check-point, under the facts and circumstances presented, did not create an overwhelming intrusion on individual's privacy under the Fourth Amendment.
Rehnquist applied a three-point balancing test to determine whether sobriety check-points in general are reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. This test involved balancing the State's interest in preventing accidents caused by drunk drivers, the effectiveness of the sobriety check- points in achieving the goal, and the level of intrusion on an individual's constitutional right to privacy caused by the check-points.
The Chief Justice reasoned that no one could seriously dispute the magnitude of the drunken driving problem or the State's interest in eradicating it. Moreover, Rehnquist found that a 25 second delay in travel was minimally intrusive on motorist's rights, especially considering the fact that traveling motorists could turn off the road when they saw the roadblock, or make U-turns to avoid passing through it. As to the effectiveness of the sobriety check-point, the court held that the procedure was effective, even though only 1 of the 126 drivers stopped was arrested.
In the final analysis, it is now the law that from a narrow Fourth Amendment standpoint, nondiscriminatory sobriety check-points in general are not unreasonable. Bear in mind that other Fourth Amendment problems with sobriety check-points may exist when individual drivers passing through the check-point are asked to pull over.
Police do not have the right, per se, to check driver's licenses or registrations when the stop is not initiated by a violation. However, where the police have a reasonable suspicion of illegal conduct, even though there is not actual violation of the law they may examine drivers' licenses or registration.
In the Sitz case, officers were not allowed to make a driver pull over and show his/her license or check the driver's registration unless the officer noticed signs of intoxication. Moreover, a driver never has to consent to a police search of his or her person or vehicle, but, the police may make such a search even without the driver's consent when either: 1) they have probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband or the fruits or instrumentalities of a crime; 2) when the driver has been placed under arrest; or 3) they may make a visual inspection of the inside passenger compartment from the officer's position outside the vehicle, to observe illegal articles in plain view.
As to the extent of motorists rights; when citizens are faced with roadblocks, they should be cooperative. If they do not roll down their window it seems that the officer's suspicion would be heightened and, at minimum, may give the officer grounds to require the driver to pull over to the side of the road.
Upon initial contact with the roadblock, citizens may politely refuse to answer any of the officer's questions. The following is an example of an assertion of rights that can be reproduced and handed to an officer at a roadblock:
Assertion of Rights:
Officer, please understand:
•I refuse to talk to you until I consult with my attorney. I also refuse to consent to any search of these premises or any other premises under my control, or in which I have a possessory, proprietary, or privacy interest, including my car, my body, or effects. I hereby demand to immediately be allowed the reasonable opportunity to obtain the advice of my attorney by telephone.
•I desire to exercise all my rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this State, to be free from your interference with my person or affairs.
•If you attempt to question me, I want my lawyer present. I refuse to participate in any line-up or to perform any physical acts, or to speak or display my person or property at your direction, without first conferring with my lawyer.
•If I am under arrest, I wish to invoke and exercise my Miranda rights. If you ignore my exercise of these rights and attempt to procure a waiver, I want to confer with my lawyer prior to any conversations with you.
•If I am to be taken into custody, removed from my present location, or separated from my property, I request a reasonable opportunity to make arrangements to secure my own property. I do not consent to any impoundment or inventory of my property. I do, hereby, waive any claim of liability for loss, theft, or damage against you, your superiors or any other authority, and agree to hold all harmless therefrom, if I am afforded the reasonable opportunity to arrange for the safekeeping of my own property. If this reasonable opportunity is denied or is unavailable, I demand that only such intrusion occur as is minimally necessary to secure such property, hereby waiving any claim of liability for your failure to scrutinize the property or its contents prior to it being secured.
•If I am not under arrest, I want to leave. If I am free to leave, please tell me immediately so that I may go about my business.
(My notes: I would not try to be so officious - 'Officer, I know you are just doing your job, but I am not willing to answer any question, and I would like to leave unless I am under arrest.' 'Officer, as I said, I know you are just doing your job, but I would like to speak to my attorney at this time.' 'Officer, once again, I know you are just doing your job, but I do not consent to any search of my person, possessions, or vehicle.')
We advise our clients to hand this card to the officer along with their license when stopped or contacted by police. However, drivers need not even present their license during the initial contact with the officer in a roadblock situation.
Drivers may also refuse to perform field sobriety tests. This does not prevent the officer from arresting the driver. However, the arresting officer will have substantially fewer factors to support the arrest when it is challenged later in court.
Generally, by the time the officer has requested a driver to perform these roadside agility tests, the officer already believes the driver is intoxicated. Citizens should think long and hard before deciding whether or not to provide the officer with additional "evidence" of intoxication by performing the field sobriety tests.
If the motorist does not wish to comply, the police, in absence of an articulable reason to believe a crime has been or is being committed, must allow the driver to proceed. In the face of police inquiries based on less than probable cause, the citizen has the right to remain silent and move on without fear of retaliation in the form of further detention. The "right not to respond" permits motorists to refrain from engaging in alphabet recitations or other "command performances" of verbal and physical exercises.
The Supreme Court of Oregon observed:
"I know of no law that obliges a driver to answer an officer's questions or perform 'field tests' directed at determining whether the driver has committed the crime of driving under the influence of intoxicants. Reluctance to inform the detained driver that such cooperation is voluntary can only demonstrate the state's willingness to take advantage of those of its citizens who are ignorant of their rights though it must respect the rights of those who know them."
Info from NHTSA on how to conduct check points:
http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/enforce/LowStaffing_Checkpoints/pages/Guidelines.htm
Info from criminal law free advise website:
http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/drunk_driving/dui-checkpoint-overview.htm
^^And that is excellent information.^^ How one uses it is up to the individual.
THE best info. I have seen to date on info. that one may use to arrive at their own decision on how to proceed.
Eurodriver
01-13-15, 06:21
^^And that is excellent information.^^ How one uses it is up to the individual.
THE best info. I have seen to date on info. that one may use to arrive at their own decision on how to proceed.
That is excellent info, however, I am much more likely to follow the "Hey bro, no drinking tonight just passing through" rule around here. No sense in making waves when there aren't any.
.........................
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.