DUI Checkpoint Video

Agreed with ESP.

I used to be in the "nothing to hide" crowd, until I realized the more and more of that nothing to hide leeway you give them, the more they're going to test and push the limits.

Our rights are our rights. We shouldn't have to give leeway to someone who's supposed to be PROTECTING OUR RIGHTS, when we shouldn't have to.

I shouldn't have to do something just because a police officer tells me to. If he has no legitimate probably cause for doing so, then there's no reason he should continue pursuing. If this was a DUI checkpoint, take the kid smell his breath and give him a blow test. Why the trouble of searching for leprechaun gold in his car? Bringing the dog out?

The kid didn't wreak of alcohol, and the guy was searching everywhere and couldn't find anything, yet he wanted to show him who's the authority figure and still went cowboy.

Thank god this wasn't a black guy, they probably would've harassed him even more and Sharpton and Co would be all over it.
 
goldfly said:
ask a lawyer

they would tell you to only roll down the window far enough to get your id out of the car
Click to expand...

They would tell you that, and then they would tell you roll your window down all the way if the cop asks, because refusal to do so is an unnecessary instigation.

I don't think he was a jackass for not rolling his window all the way down at first; that's sensible. I think he was jackass for how how he reacted to reasonable benign requests.
 
ESP47 said:
If you are driving along legally and minding your own business, there should be no reason why you should have to stop at a DUI checkpoint. The 4th amendment guards you against unreasonable searches and seizures unless there is probable cause.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this is wrong. The Supreme court has ruled the 4th amendment allows for DUI checkpoints. I think there should be a fine for people who complain about the infringement of rights they don't have.
 
BravesFanInSAV said:
If this was a DUI checkpoint, take the kid smell his breath and give him a blow test.
Click to expand...

This, of course, is more than the cop was even going to do had the kid behaved like a normal person. The breathalyzer would never have come out. He'd just look him over, ask him some questions, and send him on his way.

BravesFanInSAV said:
Why the trouble of searching for leprechaun gold in his car? Bringing the dog out?
Click to expand...

Because he was trying to look him over to see if he was inebriated and ask him some questions to judge his mental state. Exactly the things you just said he should do. The kid resisted both of those things, which is suspicious.

The dog and search were an f' you to a kid that was wasting their time.
 
Metaphysicist said:
Yeah, this is wrong. The Supreme court has ruled the 4th amendment allows for DUI checkpoints. I think there should be a fine for people who complain about the infringement of rights they don't have.
Click to expand...

Actually the SC ruled in favor of DUI checkpoints as long as there was no discrimination (or something along those wordings) which one could construe a cop pulling someone over without probable cause as discrimination right?
 
Carp said:
Still trying to see horrible the abuse of power in the video. Watched it at least 20 times. I'll admit, the dog part was a bit much, but the guy had it coming. Sorry if I don't feel pity for the stupid.
Click to expand...

The guy had it coming? LMAO

And you don't see the abuse in power? Seriously? Wow.
 
Carp said:
LMAO!

You do realize all DUI checkpoints are advertised in the paper and on the news like at least week before don't you? And they news tells you specifically they will be checking ID's as well as checking to see if you have been drinking Yet this moron makes a clear decision to go there and stir the pot.
Click to expand...

Ah ok so if you advertise that someone is gonna take our rights then it's all good.

Sure the kid was being an intentional thorn, but the cop was the one in power and those in power have the responsibility to behave a certain way, he didn't.
 
Metaphysicist said:
Because he was trying to look him over to see if he was inebriated and ask him some questions to judge his mental state. Exactly the things you just said he should do. The kid resisted both of those things, which is suspicious.

The dog and search were an f' you to a kid that was wasting their time.
Click to expand...

When did you become as irrational as Carpe?

It's acceptable for the police to be dicks to you for you not bending to their whim? What a great mental state that is.
 
zitothebrave said:
Actually the SC ruled in favor of DUI checkpoints as long as there was no discrimination (or something along those wordings) which one could construe a cop pulling someone over without probable cause as discrimination right?
Click to expand...

I want you to think again about what you are saying because it doesn't make any sense.
 
Metaphysicist said:
I want you to think again about what you are saying because it doesn't make any sense.
Click to expand...

I refuse to think things over twice!

But I will post this

"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."

In fact one could argue the general opinion of the of the SC ruling in favor of allowing DUI checkpoints was that it was minimally invasive and only delayed most motorists for 25 seconds or so. That clearly is not the case of what was shown in this video. it was highly invasive and one can easily make an argument that his 4th Amendment rights were violated.
 
Dude, I googled your quote, and from the very page you are quoting:

"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."

Come on.
 
Dude you still haven't handled my poitn about Sitz, you know the actual SC ruling. Remind me again, were they checking everyone's papers at Sitz?
 
Papers? Wha... try and keep those goalposts planted, sir. My direct quote you took issue with:

Because he was trying to look him over to see if he was inebriated and ask him some questions to judge his mental state. Exactly the things you just said he should do. The kid resisted both of those things, which is suspicious.

At no point did I say the police should be asking everyone for their papers.

Anyway, my quote is exactly what Sitz was about. The officers briefly detained the citizens to ask them questions and visually assess them for signs of intoxication. If they found something suspicious, they would extend the detainment and have the person pull over.

THAT SAID, the procedures in Sitz did in fact call for police to check license and registration once the person went from regular person to suspicious person. Quoting Rehnquist:

Under the guidelines, checkpoints would be set up at selected sites along state roads. All vehicles passing through a checkpoint would be stopped and their drivers briefly examined for signs of intoxication. In cases where a checkpoint officer detected signs of intoxication, the motorist would be directed to a location out of the traffic flow where an officer would check the motorist's driver's license and car registration and, if warranted, conduct further sobriety tests. Should the field tests and the officer's observations suggest that the driver was intoxicated, an arrest would be made. All other drivers would be permitted to resume their journey immediately.

Note that "signs of intoxication" does not mean "open and shut evidence." They move the guy to the side to do an actual investigation. Refusal to roll down your window for a visual investigation or answering questions in a suspicious manner could be simple signs of intoxication that warrant further investigation.
 
So if you don't roll your windows down all of the way you're showing signs of intoxication? LMAO. If that guy was drunk that I have a drinking problem cause I never think more sober than that.
 
Yeah, if you are a cop at a DUI checkpoint, and you go to do the banal "How are you this evening" and the guy refuses to roll his window down or answer basic questions, that's a pretty decent sign he could be intoxicated. It's not evidence, but it is grounds for suspicion, which is why you have him pull over to do an actual investigation. How are you not getting this?
 
Lol let's watch the video again.

He followed the instructions going to the last questions, answered how he was doing and said that having the window at the height it was at was fine without slurring his speech. He asked his age which you are never required to tell anyone.
 
BravesFanInSAV said:
Agreed with ESP.

I used to be in the "nothing to hide" crowd, until I realized the more and more of that nothing to hide leeway you give them, the more they're going to test and push the limits.

Our rights are our rights. We shouldn't have to give leeway to someone who's supposed to be PROTECTING OUR RIGHTS, when we shouldn't have to.

I shouldn't have to do something just because a police officer tells me to. If he has no legitimate probably cause for doing so, then there's no reason he should continue pursuing. If this was a DUI checkpoint, take the kid smell his breath and give him a blow test. Why the trouble of searching for leprechaun gold in his car? Bringing the dog out?

The kid didn't wreak of alcohol, and the guy was searching everywhere and couldn't find anything, yet he wanted to show him who's the authority figure and still went cowboy.

Thank god this wasn't a black guy, they probably would've harassed him even more and Sharpton and Co would be all over it.
Click to expand...

He probably lets the kid on his merry way if the kid rolls his window down. But, barely rolling his window down and acting like a jerk started it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top