DUI Checkpoint on Video

Discussion in 'Off-topic' started by Malum Prohibitum, Jan 3, 2007.

  1. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,395
    395
    83
    19 year old driver. Is he standing up for himself or just being a little smartass kid disrespectful of authority?

    :D

    http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/15/1522.asp

    Video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 3715017278
     
  2. mzmtg

    mzmtg Active Member

    3,119
    0
    36
    They should have just tasered him and shot his dog...
     

  3. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,395
    395
    83
    Brett: Why are you moving my car?
    Officer #1: Because I'm going to talk you--I'm going to interview you because you didn't want to interview. You didn't want to sit down and have a talk with me.
    Brett: I do not want to talk about my personal life.
    Officer #1: Okay.
     
  4. ls1ssdavid

    ls1ssdavid New Member

    1,103
    0
    0
    Those officers and there supervisors and the whole department should be under investigation. That is sick. And goes against everything America stands for. That Teenager should be rewarded for standing up against unconsitutional actions. I'm glad he is suing. And wish him the best of luck.

    They knew exactly what they were doing because they wouldn't give there names. That's unbelieveable. Maybe this case will show other department's that they need to follow the letter of the law themselfs. That is why we have the rights we have. Once we cross the line we (America) are no better than our enemy's.
     
  5. ls1ssdavid

    ls1ssdavid New Member

    1,103
    0
    0
    That is why we have the "The Charters of Freedom." The Decloration of Independence, Consitution, And the Bill of Rights.

    Those officers just didn't break a small law. They crossed the line. But, that's why we have the system we have. I have faith that the issue will be resolved in the correct manor. Thanks to a 19 year old young man.
     
  6. pro2am

    pro2am New Member

    1,861
    0
    0
    Wow. I could not have done better. The kid kept his cool and responded respectfully. Nice.
     
  7. Rammstein

    Rammstein New Member

    5,798
    0
    0
    I have no faith that is will be resolved correctly.

    I see the officers being told "When you act stupid don't get caught on tape next time."

    They were fishing. They knew they were fishing. I know they were fishing. We all know... But, that's the real point to DUI stops. 70% trying to find drugs and 30% trying to find drunks.
     
  8. ls1ssdavid

    ls1ssdavid New Member

    1,103
    0
    0
    Rammstein- You maybe right. They may just get a slap on the wrist. But, individual's such as this young man are doing the right thing no doubt. And anyone who is willing to stand up for our Constutional right's get my backing.

    I wonder why this hasn't been on the National news. At least I haven't seen it. I'd like to see it on Bill O'reily, and Get some National attention.
     
  9. Rammstein

    Rammstein New Member

    5,798
    0
    0
    I concur. I applaud anyone willing to stand up for the right thing.

    It's not on national news because no one died and/or the kid wasn't black/hispanic/asian/muslim/poor or any combination thereof.

    Good thing this wasn't in Atlanta and he didn't have any pot on him. He could have been killed.
     
  10. ls1ssdavid

    ls1ssdavid New Member

    1,103
    0
    0
    I also thought it didn't get attention because he was a 19 year old white kid.
     
  11. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,395
    395
    83
    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.

    Pennsylvania vs Mimms 1977
    The fourth ammendment allows LEO's "to order the driver to exit the vehicle without requiring any additional factual justification".

    Illinois vs Wardlaw 2000
    If an LEO has made a lawful stop and encounters "nervous or evasive" behavior, he may detain that person.

    Terry vs Ohio 1968
    "reasonable inquiries" as to the person's conduct. "Where are you headed?"
     
  12. Kid Icarus

    Kid Icarus New Member

    104
    0
    0
    I actually saw a video floating aroung the 'net, from an attorney
    with senarios that show you exactly how to act/what to say in different
    situations with law enforcement. I can't seem to find it right now,
    but maybe it'll comeback to me.
     
  13. wwomack

    wwomack New Member

    160
    0
    0
    Where you referring to http://youtube.com/watch?v=yqMjMPlXzdA?
     
  14. Kid Icarus

    Kid Icarus New Member

    104
    0
    0
    That was it. Mostly geared towards drugs it appears, but I thought
    it brought up some good points.

    The one thing in that video that got me was, locking your doors
    when asked to get out of your vehicle. The officer would definatley
    think you were hiding something then. So then maybe he would
    have probable cause if he didn't before.
     
  15. Rammstein

    Rammstein New Member

    5,798
    0
    0
    MP, per the cited case above, would an officer still have legal standing to detain if someone respectfully declined a warrantless search? After all...what do we have to hide?
     
  16. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,395
    395
    83
  17. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,395
    395
    83
    I was just throwing up food for thought on how a court might come down on this.
     
  18. USMC - Retired

    USMC - Retired Active Member

    5,215
    0
    36

    This is how I read it... :puke:

    :shock: :lol:
     
  19. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,395
    395
    83
    For the benefit of those here, I will post what I posted about these cases over at THR, responding to oobray, who tried to set everybody straight.

    Oobray wrote:
    Oobray, if you are a lawyer, then you need to turn in your bar card. If you are not a lawyer, then you need to quit pretending.

    You claim to have informed everybody so that they "truly know the laws." :rolleyes:

    Yeah.

    Let us examine what you had to say.

    Illinois v. Wardlow involved a guy who took off running in a drug area! What the court really said was that "nervous, evasive behavior is a pertinent factor in determining reasonable suspicion," not that nervous or evasive behavior on its own justifies anything. It is one factor among many, but what you must forget is that it is one factor in determining what? Reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion of what? Reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed or is about to be committed. Reasonable suspicion means that one is "justified in suspecting that Wardlow was involved in criminal activity, and, therefore, in investigating further." Yeah, that's a quote from Wardlow.


    This is in the context of a traffic stop, where one is not only suspected of a crime, but the officer witnessed a crime. You are already detained. the court's reasoning was that there is no real difference between detaining you in the seat of your car and detaining you outside the car.

    "The police have already decided that the driver shall be breifly detained; the only question is whether he shall spend that period sitting in the driver's seat of his caror standing alongside it." Oh, yeah, that's a quote from Mimms, too.

    The Mimms case is not in the context of a DUI checkpoint, which courts uphold only if the level of seizure is de minimus - a check of the license and on your way. At DUI checkpoints, they can only detain you further if there is reasonable suspicion of a crime (DUI) from this very brief and minimal intrusion. And no, refusing to be interrogated or discuss one's personal life with the officer does not create "reasonable suspicion" of DUI.

    As for Terry, it requires more than a "hunch" that there is criminal activity. Without reasonable suspicion - no "reasonable inquiries." At this particular DUI checkpoint, there is no suspicion of any wrongdoing, and therefore reasonable inquiries are not necessary to dispel the officer's suspicions. What suspicions? Suspicions of what? Did you actually read any of these cases?

    Well, you got this one generally right.:neener:

    BUT you left out the context when you went on your wild ramapge with the other cases.

    "It is important to recognize what our inquiry is about. No allegations are before us of unreasonable treatment of any person after an actual detention at a particular checkpoint. . . . We address only the initial stop of each motorist passing through a checkpoint and the associated preliminary questioning and observation by checkpoint officers. Detention of particular motorists for more extensive field sobriety testing may require satisfaction of an individualized suspicion standard."

    That quote is the context. And what level of intrusion did they approve? Ordering people from their cars for being smart mouths or not answering questions about their personal travel plans? Um, no.

    Remember, the suspicion has to be reasonable, and it has to be suspicion of a crime, not suspicion that the officer does not like the driver's attitude.
    :scrutiny:
     
  20. ls1ssdavid

    ls1ssdavid New Member

    1,103
    0
    0
    Also in all these cases brought to light it seems that for whatever reason or another that the LEO seem it justified to detain you only results in just that. You being detained. Not in anything else. So it still in my opinion doesn't justify officers to search your vehicle without "Probable Cause". Of course unless you have something illegal in plain view.

    Detain- To keep in custody or temporary confinement.

    Which is not the same as arrest. You are not charged of a crime yet. The LEO's are trying to figure out if a crime has been commited. But that doesn't mean they can use unlawful means to find something to charge you with (i.e an illegal search and seizure). In my opinion in the case that was brought up on this forum originally. The LEO's are not legaly justifed to do what they did.