LOL META destroys Zito again. Zito, you don't know how to throw the towel in?
LOL META destroys Zito again. Zito, you don't know how to throw the towel in?
Zito, put down the mustard.Originally Posted by zitothebrave
Literally the first thing the officer says (after mumbling "howadoin'") is for the guy to roll down his window. To which the kid awkwardly replies "this is fine." (*) Now, this is a perfectly legitimate request at a DUI checkpoint, since the whole point is for him to look you over and see if you are drunk. The cop could have pulled him over right there, since the kid hasn't allowed him to do his legal check. But then he asks him a second question "How old are you?" The kid says jaggedly intones "Uh... is that a... required.... question to answer?" THAT'S TWO STRIKES, GET THE **** OVER KID, IT'S ESCALATED INVESTIGATION FOR YOU.
*He could have at least said something like "No thank you, I am aware of my rights and that I don't have to allow that." Instead he said something that made it sound like he thought the officer was giving him friendly advice, like a stoner or something.
You still aren't understanding the topic at hand here. I'll try one more time.
The whole point of this is about our rights being taken away. They were given to us by the constitution and now they're slowly doing away with them. The supreme court is one of the reasons why they are being taken away from us. It's not like supreme court rulings are everything that is good with the world. They may be the law now but that doesn't make them constitutional. The only reason they were able to get around DUI checkpoints is because there were no cars back when it was written. The ruling itself was still 6-3, which meant 3 of the justices thought it was unconstitutional.
The supreme court could come out and rule in favor of the NSA tracking all of our calls, internet activity and every step we take in life. I'd would immediately say that it's BS and an infringement of our rights and and privacy while you'd say that the NSA tracking everything we do is legal because the supreme court ruled in favor of it. The whole point is that the laws they are making these days are made to take our rights away. Everything that we think is a "right" has a loophole designed in it to work against us. Just look at any high profile court case involving searches or seizures. They all have some sort of "it's unlawful to search and seizure without probable cause except for under special circumstances". That basically means they can make up their own special circumstances whenever they want.
Lol so because he answered questions asked to him, and fumbled over asking the officer if he needed to know his age, that's cause for him to be treated hostile? Lovely.
As far as the "impeding the check" or whatever there's nothing in Sitz that dictates what can and can't be checked, again pointing out the issue I stated earlier with the wide open area that the SC allowed. But I would say that what the kid experienced wasn't along the lines of a minor inconvenience as was stated in the ruling of Sitz.
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
Again, people who don't understand the constitution should not be allowed to lecture about it. The Constitution itself does not "give us rights." The Constitution gives the government rights, and sets limits on the rights of the government. This mentality is why a number of the founding fathers actually argued against the Bill of Rights, because they said that articulating these rights made them seem like they emanate from the document, rather than them being "natural" rights.
Actually, the Supreme court saying something is exactly what makes something constitutional.
Wha.. what?
Actually, if you read the dissents, their big issue was not that the 4th amendment was being trampled, per se, but that there was no evidence that DUI checkpoints were actually doing any good, and thus there was no real societal benefit to balance out the infringements. Pulling cars over for checks without individual probable cause is an allowable 4th amendment infringement in a number of circumstances (e.g., immigration check points, truck weigh stations), but they thought DUI checkpoints might actually just be counterproductive.
He answered them strangely and refused to let the cop get a good look at him. That caused him to be selected for further investigation, yes.
I don't understand what you think is supposed to happen. The cop has like 20 seconds to judge whether something is suspicious. After 20 seconds, he does NOT arrest the person, but just has to decide whether to investigate further or send them along. But you think that refusing to roll down your window is fine. You think that refusing to answer questions is fine. So you think that you should just be able to roll up to a checkpoint with your window up, answer every question by shouting through the window, "No, thanks I'm fine!!!," and that the cop's only response should be "Well, shucks, that gent sure seems sober, move along now"?
Ok, first off, we both know that of the two of us, I'm the only one that actually read the court case. You are getting your synopses from DUI defense lawyer websites. If you want to opine about what Sitz did and did not dictate go read it first. I'd be glad to continue this conversation afterwards.
Anyway, Sitz did not lay out specific rules for DUI checkpoints because the scope was broader than that. But they (a) laid out a "balancing" requirement to judge whether an 4th amendment infringement was reasonable, and (b) specifically endorsed the Michigan checkpoint procedures, which are almost exactly the same as what happened to this kid.
This is you just using real weaselly language to avoid admitting you're wrong. Pretty much everyone agrees that the drug dog/search crap was not a minor inconvenience, but that's not what we are talking about. The minor inconvenience was rolling down your window and answering some boring questions for 20 seconds. If you don't agree that this was a "minor inconvenience," then you should turn off the internet because you don't have many more brain cells left to lose and you should treasure these last remaining moments. His refusal to cooperate with the minor inconvenience was probable cause for a greater inconvenience.
Carp (07-25-2013)
Meta, Zito will get back to you after doing some googling.
Question for the pro-cop folks...
If a cop comes to my house and wants to search it for drugs, and I say "no - not until you go get a warrant" - is that me being a dick? Should that be enough reason for him to have enbough suspicion to be allowed in?
I'll think about that and answer if you answer whether you think driving on a public road is the same as your house.
What I think should happen is that a DUI checkpoint you should have to answer a few questions that are not specific. His window was open so that he and the cop could communicate. Want him to lean out the window and breathe in the cops face so the cop can get a good whiff of his breath? The issue is that there's no recourse for this type of police behavior. If you think how the cop acted was right, I don't really know what to say. Even if you assume the kid should have been pulled to the side, should the cop have been yelling at him? Should he have triggered the dog to search his car? So on so forth. You seem to think the cops reaction is OK. I think that it isn't. We live in a country where police can do damn near anything they want to and can get away with it as long as they just "inconvenience" people. That cop should be fired as should anyone who witnessed them tipping off the dog and not speaking up about it. Police are there to police crimes not to harass citizens, even if that citizen is "being a jerk"
I've read Sitz. I'm well aware that you think you're high and mighty king of all information and no one else knows anything about anything you may have perused at one point or another. I'll admit that it's been several years since I read it so I'm not 100% keen on all the details from memory but I recall my synopsis that I did on it.
And you're right they did lay out a balancing part and a part of that being that it wasn't a grave inconvenience to the innocent and that it wouldn't violate 4th Amendment rights. Which again you can argue very easily was not the case in the video as he was pulled off to the side because he didn't want to tell a cop his age or roll his window all the way down and the cop essentially searched his car without probable cause or a warrant.
And you are yet again pointing out the issue with the ruling of Sitz and the legality of DUI checkpoints, there are no rules and they'll keep getting pressed more and more until cops can just randomly stop you and search your car to find stuff that's illegal.
So you're saying it's impossible to answer questions through an open window? It must be all the way down? Why isn't it just a minor inconvenience for the cops to stop you make you get out of the car and sing the national anthem it only takes a few seconds.
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
Your car is your property, that has been set as a standard in court cases and you're entitled to privacy in your own car. Your house is on land owned by the US Government. They can if they choose kick you out of your house and build a highway through it if they damn well please. They dont' do that but a car on a public road should be viewed the same as a house on public land. It's your own little piece of ownership in a grander world.
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
I don't think you understand the laws of real estate.
I am a "pro-cop" folk?
Maybe you should Google Eminent Domain?
If a cop sees something illegal on your property they can come in regardless correct? Smae basic premise with an auto should be in place.
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
I do not think it is the same
I do not need to google eminent domain as I have a a degree in real estate.
Eminent domain is the power of the governement to take PRIVATE PROPERTY for public use.
Your comment was:
"Your house is on land owned by the US Government."
The purpose of the stop is to observe, visually and audibly, whether drivers are impaired. He refused to let the cop observe him by only cracking his window. And then he answered abnormally. I don't see how you don't get this.
Clearly, you do not.
He only started yelling at him when he refused to pull to the side and instead started saying "AM I BEING DETAINED!?!?"
This proves what I've suspected all along: you aren't paying any attention to what I wrote. I've already said their is plenty of very real cop abuse and that the dog stuff was bullhockey. Congratulations. You lose.
Ok, then the situations are not the same either. A DUI stop is a quick roll down the window and check to make sure driver isn't drunk. It would be like a cop coming to your house and visually observing you from the doorway.
The act of searching the car was due to the driver not being cooperative and not allowing the cop to judge whether the driver was sober or not.
I was talking in a more grand scheme. Your land is in the US, they can take it from you if they choose. Not saying they will but neither can the government just take your car.
If you don't think your house and a car should have similar policing as far as searching goes, then lulz.
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
I think they are different for different reasons. One is a mobile property and one is not.
But you never answered my question, if a cop knocks on your door - thinks you could be high, and asks to search your house for drugs. If you say no, then what? Isn't that enough reason for the cop to be suspicious and go in your home?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote