rbernie
Contributing Member
I suspect that their existence is far more related to getting lots of paid OT to the ranks and political visibility to the local PD chief...
Never ascribe to malice what can just as easily be linked to simple greed.
DUI Checkpoint caught on film
- Thread starter Ian
- Start date
- Status
Never ascribe to malice what can just as easily be linked to simple greed.
Autolycus
Member
For those who support this kind of action in the name of the children...
I believe it is illegal to drink alcohol in Iran. Have you considered moving?
What would the Founding Fathers think if you told them that the police would be checking citizens on a public road and searching their property? Or even going so far as using their property without their permission?
I believe it is illegal to drink alcohol in Iran. Have you considered moving?
What would the Founding Fathers think if you told them that the police would be checking citizens on a public road and searching their property? Or even going so far as using their property without their permission?
JMusic
member
Here in Tennessee the State Police and even the SO does this on a frequent bases. One common spot is a quarter mile from my house and I was stopped there when I first moved to my location. The Officer was polite and so was I, He visually looked through my vehicle and boat that I was pulling, total time about 5 minutes.
I didn't like it one damn bit and have avoided the spot since. Time was 11 AM on a Saturday morning. My experience is that is not a good time to find drunks. They were gone by 6 PM.
Driving a vehicle is a privlage not a right no matter who pays for the roads and infrastructure. I don't see things changing anytime soon.
Jim
I didn't like it one damn bit and have avoided the spot since. Time was 11 AM on a Saturday morning. My experience is that is not a good time to find drunks. They were gone by 6 PM.
Driving a vehicle is a privlage not a right no matter who pays for the roads and infrastructure. I don't see things changing anytime soon.
Jim
I am glad
I am glad to see all of you with the liberty of yourself and others in mind. But I would like to bring reality of the law in to this discussion.
It seems that the blame is being placed on the LEO's for doing thier job. Yes, maybe the DUI checkpoint is wrong on principal... so blame the politicians who wrote the law, and the judges who approved it. Not the LEO's for doing thier job.
Michigan State Police vs Sitz 1990 <-- roadblocks are constitutional and not a violation of 4th ammendment as long as every driver, or a defined pattern of drivers (i.e every third driver) are stopped.
As for those of you who believe the LEO's had no legal right to remove the young lad from his vehicle
Pennsylvania vs Mimms 1977 <--- states that "the fourth ammendment allows LEO's to order the driver to exit the vehicle without requiring any additional factual justification". THat is quoted from the supreme court document.
There has been talk that the officer driving the car was an illegal search and seizure. It was not illegal because the officer did not dislodge anything to look. This falls under the plain view doctrine of Arizona vs Hicks 1978
As far as siezure goes, it would be easy to explain that the officer established reasonable suspiscion to detain the young boy due to the ruling of Illinois vs Wardlow 2000 that states if a LEO has made a lawful stop (in this case that is true) and encounters "nervous or evasive" behavior he may detain that person. The young man was not nervous, however he was evasive.
Those of you who are saying that the young man was exercising his 5th ammendment right not to self incriminate. That applies only if you have been formally arrested. In this case, he was not, he was being detained for investigation. Any statement he made could have easily been thrown out in court because he was not read his rights. So you have no argument there. Also, Terry vs Ohio 1968 states that an LEO may make "reasonable inquiries" as to the person's conduct. "Where are you headed" is definately a "reasonable inquiry".
Now, I do not necessarily agree with some of these case laws, however they are laws. If you feel that these are a violation of the constitution than take that up with the legislators and courts, do NOT blame LEO's who put thier lives on the line everyday.
Now, for all the defense of the officers, I must say that if they truly said anything to the effect of "If you don't stop running your mouth we'll find a reason to arrest you". That is DEFINATELY out of line. However we can't hear that on the video and must take the young man's word for it. Knowing that he intentionaly went looking for a confrontation I would be hard pressed to believe it. There are bad cops out there, but I don't see anything wrong with what these particular cops did as far as legality goes. Sorry but if you are going to stand up for something, at least now you truly know the laws.
I am glad to see all of you with the liberty of yourself and others in mind. But I would like to bring reality of the law in to this discussion.
It seems that the blame is being placed on the LEO's for doing thier job. Yes, maybe the DUI checkpoint is wrong on principal... so blame the politicians who wrote the law, and the judges who approved it. Not the LEO's for doing thier job.
Michigan State Police vs Sitz 1990 <-- roadblocks are constitutional and not a violation of 4th ammendment as long as every driver, or a defined pattern of drivers (i.e every third driver) are stopped.
As for those of you who believe the LEO's had no legal right to remove the young lad from his vehicle
Pennsylvania vs Mimms 1977 <--- states that "the fourth ammendment allows LEO's to order the driver to exit the vehicle without requiring any additional factual justification". THat is quoted from the supreme court document.
There has been talk that the officer driving the car was an illegal search and seizure. It was not illegal because the officer did not dislodge anything to look. This falls under the plain view doctrine of Arizona vs Hicks 1978
As far as siezure goes, it would be easy to explain that the officer established reasonable suspiscion to detain the young boy due to the ruling of Illinois vs Wardlow 2000 that states if a LEO has made a lawful stop (in this case that is true) and encounters "nervous or evasive" behavior he may detain that person. The young man was not nervous, however he was evasive.
Those of you who are saying that the young man was exercising his 5th ammendment right not to self incriminate. That applies only if you have been formally arrested. In this case, he was not, he was being detained for investigation. Any statement he made could have easily been thrown out in court because he was not read his rights. So you have no argument there. Also, Terry vs Ohio 1968 states that an LEO may make "reasonable inquiries" as to the person's conduct. "Where are you headed" is definately a "reasonable inquiry".
Now, I do not necessarily agree with some of these case laws, however they are laws. If you feel that these are a violation of the constitution than take that up with the legislators and courts, do NOT blame LEO's who put thier lives on the line everyday.
Now, for all the defense of the officers, I must say that if they truly said anything to the effect of "If you don't stop running your mouth we'll find a reason to arrest you". That is DEFINATELY out of line. However we can't hear that on the video and must take the young man's word for it. Knowing that he intentionaly went looking for a confrontation I would be hard pressed to believe it. There are bad cops out there, but I don't see anything wrong with what these particular cops did as far as legality goes. Sorry but if you are going to stand up for something, at least now you truly know the laws.
1911 guy
Member
Can you? Should you?
I've made this point again and again. Sometimes I think it falls on deaf ears. Just because you can do something does not necessarily mean you should do something.
We have been given a litany of legal jargon to approve that what happened was legal. I see nothing in there stating that an officer of the state is to use good judgement, polite conversation and common sense in dealing with the public. Just a list of what he/she can get away with. Sometimes legal and right are at opposing ends of the spectrum. Many who cheer for the Great Nanny have trouble comprehending this.
I've made this point again and again. Sometimes I think it falls on deaf ears. Just because you can do something does not necessarily mean you should do something.
We have been given a litany of legal jargon to approve that what happened was legal. I see nothing in there stating that an officer of the state is to use good judgement, polite conversation and common sense in dealing with the public. Just a list of what he/she can get away with. Sometimes legal and right are at opposing ends of the spectrum. Many who cheer for the Great Nanny have trouble comprehending this.
1911 guy
You're right, just because you are allowed to, doesn't mean you should. However, these are the tactics that the courts of our country have said the officers should use in order to do thier jobs. They are also trained, and learn to trust no one, just because the kid was cool, calm and collected and knew a little bit about his rights, doesn't mean that he wasn't hiding something. Saying that these LEO's should not follow thier policy as well as the court laws of our country is like saying the Lt. in another post on this forum, who is refusing to go to Iraq is justified. I believe that in both cases, officers are doing a job they signed up for. Or rather the LEO's are doing the job, and the Lt. is refusing to do his job.
You're right, just because you are allowed to, doesn't mean you should. However, these are the tactics that the courts of our country have said the officers should use in order to do thier jobs. They are also trained, and learn to trust no one, just because the kid was cool, calm and collected and knew a little bit about his rights, doesn't mean that he wasn't hiding something. Saying that these LEO's should not follow thier policy as well as the court laws of our country is like saying the Lt. in another post on this forum, who is refusing to go to Iraq is justified. I believe that in both cases, officers are doing a job they signed up for. Or rather the LEO's are doing the job, and the Lt. is refusing to do his job.
1911 guy
Member
Just becaue he was cool and knew some of his rights didn't mean he wasn't hiding something? Now we're to presume guilt and make observations that support our conclusion?
oobray, I'm not picking on you, it's just that you've been the only one to present a cogent argument for the opposition.
We are in fact dealing with a situation very similar to the Lt. in the other thread. The difference here is that the orders are in fact unlawful, per the constitution, both federal and I imagine all states. Laws are passed by penny ante politicians to get money in their coffers and nobody challenges them, least of all the cops who benefit from the extra cash, not personally, but in department funds. It is exactly the same thing, overlooking the right (challenging wrong laws and doing your duty) for the expedient (we want the cash, I don't want to go to Iraq).
oobray, I'm not picking on you, it's just that you've been the only one to present a cogent argument for the opposition.
We are in fact dealing with a situation very similar to the Lt. in the other thread. The difference here is that the orders are in fact unlawful, per the constitution, both federal and I imagine all states. Laws are passed by penny ante politicians to get money in their coffers and nobody challenges them, least of all the cops who benefit from the extra cash, not personally, but in department funds. It is exactly the same thing, overlooking the right (challenging wrong laws and doing your duty) for the expedient (we want the cash, I don't want to go to Iraq).
The question isn't whether the police have the right to perform checks... They already do.
Did the young man here have a right not to answer ... yes.
Was he respectful or wise ... no.
The police are there for our protection. Just as all of us respect the military for protecting our freedom, the police protect our freedom.
No nation can stand without law. Respect the authority.
Both were wrong... The boy for being rude, the officer for responding with an authority play.
Did the young man here have a right not to answer ... yes.
Was he respectful or wise ... no.
The police are there for our protection. Just as all of us respect the military for protecting our freedom, the police protect our freedom.
No nation can stand without law. Respect the authority.
Both were wrong... The boy for being rude, the officer for responding with an authority play.
If you don't have probable cause then why not be respectful of the citizen?
The kid was respecting the law by not breaking it. He could have been more respectful of the LEO, but does being respectful mean that he must answer questions about where he has been?
"If you don't have anything to hide" has become the justification de jure for expecting people to waive their rights.
Why not require all LEOs to publish their bank account records so we can be sure they aren't on the take? If you have nothing to hide...
If you don't have probable cause then why not be respectful of the citizens you are sworn to protect?
I think you mean "respectful of the LEO". The LEO is not the LAW.
The kid was respecting the law by not breaking it. He could have been more respectful of the LEO, but does being respectful mean that he must answer questions about where he has been?
"If you don't have anything to hide" has become the justification de jure for expecting people to waive their rights.
Why not require all LEOs to publish their bank account records so we can be sure they aren't on the take? If you have nothing to hide...
If you don't have probable cause then why not be respectful of the citizens you are sworn to protect?
Sindawe
Member
Thank you
Thank you 1911guy for your respect. I'm hoping to steer this post away from emotional attacks, to intelligent conversation of the laws. The purpose of my post wasn't necessarily to say that the laws truly are constitutional only to state that the LEO's were following what the courts have said is constitutional. I want the blame for these laws to fall on the proper people, the law makers and court officials, NOT the LEO's. We have three branches of government for a reason, and LEO's do not make laws, but ARE required to enforce them in thier entirity, they CANNOT pick and choose which laws to enforce, just as military members CANNOT choose which wars they wish to fight in. So the issues we should be discussing is whether or not the court laws that I presented are constitutional or not, as opposed to whether or not the LEO's conduct was legal, because it undeniably was legal.
Thank you 1911guy for your respect. I'm hoping to steer this post away from emotional attacks, to intelligent conversation of the laws. The purpose of my post wasn't necessarily to say that the laws truly are constitutional only to state that the LEO's were following what the courts have said is constitutional. I want the blame for these laws to fall on the proper people, the law makers and court officials, NOT the LEO's. We have three branches of government for a reason, and LEO's do not make laws, but ARE required to enforce them in thier entirity, they CANNOT pick and choose which laws to enforce, just as military members CANNOT choose which wars they wish to fight in. So the issues we should be discussing is whether or not the court laws that I presented are constitutional or not, as opposed to whether or not the LEO's conduct was legal, because it undeniably was legal.
Biker said:
So, you don't respect authority? You don't believe the police are here to protect our freedoms?
There are bad "eggs" everywhere, including the police, but we must respect their place in our free society, which can only be free by obeying laws for the common good.
High Planes Drifter
Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2006
- Messages
- 1,204
There is a difference between respecting, and fearing. When did we, as a society, begin to fear or government, and LEO ? If it continues, things will only get worse.
Scrutiny
The Police departments, as well as every other entity deserve public scrutiny. But I fear that there is a lot of scrutiny that is unfounded, or uneducated. Meaning that people blame the entity that represents the government rather than the government itself. I think we have now talked this one to death, hopefully someone got some good from it though. I thought it was a good topic. And my two cents about the police... They should neither be feared, nor unconditionaly trusted. They are human as we are and are subjected to our same desires and faults. Nothing more, or less should be expected of them. Just as I had a professor tell me once, the police are a necessary evil the public must endure in order to combat evil. Like I said though, they are not immune from justifiable scrutiny and punishment if necessary. This case however, does not justify punishment or action of any sort against the police.
The Police departments, as well as every other entity deserve public scrutiny. But I fear that there is a lot of scrutiny that is unfounded, or uneducated. Meaning that people blame the entity that represents the government rather than the government itself. I think we have now talked this one to death, hopefully someone got some good from it though. I thought it was a good topic. And my two cents about the police... They should neither be feared, nor unconditionaly trusted. They are human as we are and are subjected to our same desires and faults. Nothing more, or less should be expected of them. Just as I had a professor tell me once, the police are a necessary evil the public must endure in order to combat evil. Like I said though, they are not immune from justifiable scrutiny and punishment if necessary. This case however, does not justify punishment or action of any sort against the police.
Not in California, no.
Furthermore, what is "authority?" When do you quit "respecting" it?
Do you willingly go to Auschwitz because "authority" decides you must?
If not, then where is the line?
Cops are nothing but citizens with a tax-funded job. What does "authority" even mean?
jnojr
Member
No, they don't!
"The policec", as agents of the government, have no rights. Individuals have rights.
Yes, checkpoints are technically legal, but the laws that support checkpoints are unConstitutional. Yeah, I know... some court or another has decided no they're not. I don't care. A group of old men and women can't revoke my rights by sitting up on their bench and saying "We think this is OK".
This is where revolutions come from... when the government becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy of curtailing liberty and quashing rights. One branch of government passes a law that's wrong. Another branch cheerfully enforces it because "it's the law". And a third branch upholds that law because they all go to the same cocktail parties and have the same campaign donors. And presto! all of our rights can now be removed, because the circle is complete.
Our government still puts on a charade of appearing to care what "the people" think. But with every election, no matter who wins, we get more of the same. Being given a choice of who gets to strip you of your rights this year is not a legitimate form of government.
jnojr
Member
Clearly they aren't! They're around to enforce the law. When the law serves to strip us of our liberties, the police enforce it because "that's their job".
This country would be a much better place if the Prime Directive of all civil servants was to protect freedom and rights, and all other activity was subordinate to that directive.
rmurfster...
If the "authorities" want respect, then they should act... respectable.
And no, I do not respect authority without a prior history of respectable behavior, nor do I suffer from the delusion that police in any way "protect freedom".
If the "authorities" want respect, then they should act... respectable.
And no, I do not respect authority without a prior history of respectable behavior, nor do I suffer from the delusion that police in any way "protect freedom".
joab
Member
I quit reading at the second page so if more info has come out I don't know
But why are so many giving total credibility to this kid?
Is it simply because of the typical cop bashing that has found favor on these forums?
The audio is barely audible we have only the kid's word stating that things were said as he says they were said.
I missed the search completely and saw no abuse of the kids car.
If there was any it certainly was not of the magnitude that he was complaining to the supervisor about.
I recently moved a 12x20 shed with an old 81 three speed Ford truck there was smoke billowing from the clutch and the truck drove off perfectly.
there was no lurching or over revving shown on the tape so how could there have been any damage at all?
In my opinion the kid is either a verifiable liar that has not earned any credibility
But why are so many giving total credibility to this kid?
Is it simply because of the typical cop bashing that has found favor on these forums?
The audio is barely audible we have only the kid's word stating that things were said as he says they were said.
I missed the search completely and saw no abuse of the kids car.
If there was any it certainly was not of the magnitude that he was complaining to the supervisor about.
I recently moved a 12x20 shed with an old 81 three speed Ford truck there was smoke billowing from the clutch and the truck drove off perfectly.
there was no lurching or over revving shown on the tape so how could there have been any damage at all?
In my opinion the kid is either a verifiable liar that has not earned any credibility
El Tejon
Member
joab, because everything I have seen, it is the police who are acting illegally and lying, not him.
busy_squirrel
Member
Nope! Was simply saying that by his tone of voice when he "noticed" the DUI stop, it was obvious that he went there with the intention of filming a DUI checkpoint.
Nope, even if an offense HAS been commited.
No, I don't think it's reasonable to expect so much trouble, Nothing wrong with that at all, As far as I know they havn't.
It would be nice if we lived in a society where "to protect and serve" was an LEOs motto. We don't live in that time anymore. I don't think it should be that way but the reality is that that is reality.
Officers are trained to find evidence to build a case. Yes, the officer's job IS to look for evidence to any crimes. That is not the defendants job. It is also not the judge, jury, or either attorneys job. PDs are the ones who are supposed to look for evidence. That's why I don't take it personal when an officer tries to find evidence I'm guilty of something, even when I'm innocent.
I just utilize my rights, and understand that I'll (unfortunately) be the one paying a lawyer if I hafta defend myself. I hate that the system and its "lawyers" aren't financially responsible for when their prosecutions fall through, but it is reality whether I like it or not.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked