DUI checkpoints: another example of how they can be abused

Those guys have worked I-24 for years. Surprised the guy was not taken in on a drug charge.
 
Last edited:
Yep, That's why I built an automotive DVR with a few higher end IP cameras, I can video in and around my vehicle, while driving and stopped, and for a couple hours without the engine running. I haven't run into an officer who wants to violate my rights yet.
 
Those guys have worked I-24 for years. Surprised the guy was taken in on a drug charge.
Click to expand...

I didn't get out of the video or the article that he was arrested on a drug charge.
 
You're just seeing one side of the story, and while it isn't complimentary to my brethren in blue, it's what passes these days for activism. Good for him. If he wants to roll up on DUI checkpoints with a camera rolling, then he should go for it.

I read the comments at the bottom of the linked page. Evidently, the kid didn't even file an AI complaint, he simply wanted to post a YouTube video telling his side of the story. Well, he did that, and like most YouTube videos, it isn't vetted, nor is it evidence. Without the complaint, it's nothing.

Were I the local sheriff, I'd probably investigate. I'd darn sure want to see the officer's report. Did the officer do anything wrong? I don't know, I've only seen one side of the story. Was the officer able to articulate his concerns? Were there exigent circumstances? Were they looking for a courier driving the same make/model/color of car?

Everyone at the linked page seems to be outraged. Okay, I get that, but I don't know the other side of the story. There are too many questions that are unanswered.
 
Dunno about that. What I saw is an officer go into #1 hostile/aggressive mode once the citizen made it clear he knew the law and his rights. That officer clearly felt challenged by the citizen's knowledge, not by any presumed misconduct the driver had committed.

Remember that we as citizens are not entering these roadblocks because we desire the thrill of interacting with law enforcement. We're on our way home, or to work, or wherever, and pulled over with no probable cause to believe we've done anything illegal. So, if anyone needs to bite his tongue and be more tactful, politic and thick-skinned, it's the police officer, NOT the citizen.

Police officers work for the public, not the other way around. Public servants, as much as you may hate it, owe the citizens you work for the basics of courtesy, civility, and calm, rational behavior. The officer in this case went ballistic not because the citizen did anything wrong, but because he wasn't adequately submissive. That's totally unacceptable.

Oh, and by the way, what possible relevance do the Facebook comments below the video have to this discussion?
 
The one problem I have with the kid is his refusal to roll his window down a bit further.

It's a DUI checkpoint. It's not hard to imagine that the reason someone doesn't want to roll down their window is because they're drunk and don't want the officer to smell them.

Otherwise, don't answer questions if you don't want, all the rest of it is fine.

IMO, he clearly created the confrontation on purpose and probably expected that leaving the window up would get him the confrontation.

I'm not excusing the officers attitude, at all, nor to I excuse the well-known but no less wrong intentionally using the dog to bypass the consent to search but the kid should have rolled down his window. That's not an unreasonable request. If you want to roll down the window and state your rights, go ahead, but roll down the window.
 
Brian, although he maybe SHOULD have rolled it down, I don't think there's anything that can compel him to roll the window down. I think he has the right to keep his windows rolled up.
 
iraiam,
I meant to say surprised he "was not" taken in on a drug charge. Went back and edited to include not.
 
dakota.potts said:
Brian, although he maybe SHOULD have rolled it down, I don't think there's anything that can compel him to roll the window down. I think he has the right to keep his windows rolled up.
Click to expand...

At a border control checkpoint what do you think happens if an officer motions you to stop? You must interact with them, and it just makes it easier on everyone if you are polite. If you don't have anything to hide, then just be civil. I am sick and tired of people not even wanting to talk to police officers because they "know their rights". If you are arrested then yes, keep your mouth shut. But if it is a checkpoint then roll down your window, speak to the officers, and be on your way.

If any police officer motions for you to pull over, then do so. And expect to obey them. You don't have to, but then expect to be arrested for obstruction.
 
Hunter, I respect your opinion and in all reality that is probably how I would handle a situation.

However, after complying with a stop, there should be no reason to ask a person to roll their window down past speaking distance. If you ask and that person decides to (as I might after an initial exchange with an officer), I would do so. On a tangent, I would also provide ID or at least verbally identify myself without detainment unless I had some reason not to. But it is within the rights of others not to.

If a cop suspects a person is behaving erratically, he or she may then have reasonable suspicion to ask the person to submit to a breathalyzer or other alcohol test. At this point I would think that person would have to submit or be arrested.

Likewise, if an officer saw a bunch of orange pill bottles with no labels on the floorboard, I think that should prove more than reasonable suspicion for a search to verify what the drugs are.

This kind of activism does make people more aware of their rights. It makes them draw a line in their mind. "I will talk to a cop and give identification but will not submit to any searches" "I will not provide any information without reasonable cause" etc. And when something happens in the future and the checkpoints progress to be more intrusive (as will happen due to human nature) they will be more aware of their rights and where to take a stand.

Consider many people would love a machine gun but don't think it's part of their right under the 2nd amendment and feel they will never be able to own one.

So too should many people enjoy their 4th and 5th amendment protections and be more aware of what they are afforded.

Comparing the 4th and 5th amendments to the 2nd once again, this is like open carrying an AK pistol in a Federal park with your hand on the grip and looking for a police officer. If you want to open carry an M249 for your protection because you legitimately believe it is your best bet, do so. Doing so for the point of posting a YouTube video and rallying a community is ill-advised and should be done very carefully. Likewise, if you want to enjoy your protection from unreasonable searches because you legitimately think it's in your best interest, do so.

Disclaimer: I haven't seen the video yet so I'm not protecting the guy in question, just a hypothetical person.
 
What most of you do not realize is that when a peace officer gives you a lawful order like roll your window down more you have to. The kid thinks he knows the law and got himself in trouble. I have delt with this being a police officer myself. Also there is no command for giving a "false alert" for a dog. I worked a lot hand in hand with my departments k9's, yes sometimes dogs do hit on cars that Dont have anything in them, usually there has been something in there. Just because he says he's had nothing in it, he does not know what his friends have brought in it. I have also had dogs hit on brand new cars that roll right off the show room. They are trained on orders and some drugs like meth and cocaine they use everyday cleaner products that we all have under our sinks and in our garages and cars. Yes the officer had a attitude but he's probably been dealing with people like this kid all night and is fed up with it, you forget they are human too and they have seen and dealt with things that you would never want to see or deal with or he just came from a accident where someone died because of a drunk.
 
Sorry....you just can't excuse an officer for being rude or going beyond the bounds of normal police work by saying he might have been having a bad day. They are hired to do a job and the state of their liver should not enter into their performance. Police regularly overstep their bounds anymore as they do unnessary...and illegal searches... of people, and expect people to obey them as they would the word of god.
There is a situation anymore where the police basically do anything they want to meet their agenda and let the city paid attorneys sort it out. The poor citizen is left to hire their own attorney and go bankruptcy trying to defend themselves. There has been a barrage of lawsuits against city officers the past 20 yrs. or so...and some, though admittably not all of it, is justified.
Police work is a tough demanding job, but if a person can't handle the stress of it, they should be doing something else.
 
I pretty much suspect that the driver did this as a set-up. That is he set-up his camera, got prepared then drove to the check stop. He was lucky & got the result he was looking for without going to jail.

I feel like the police department itself should be doing these types of "set-up's". Watch what their officers are doing & correct bad police behavior & weed-out the officers that use the job to feed their egos.

I also have no doubt that a good handler can trigger a dog to give a false positive if he wants. It doesn't even have to be a verbal que. If this is a valid video, the officers have no excuse for there behavior, no matter what.
 
kxkid wrote:
What most of you do not realize is that when a peace officer gives you a lawful order like roll your window down more you have to.
Click to expand...

The key word is "lawful". Care to cite any law that makes this particular order lawful ? Simply because a LEO gave the order ?

Also there is no command for giving a "false alert" for a dog.
Click to expand...

Really ? That depends on what constitutes an "alert" The dog in the video clearly is following a command.

Officers do not explain to you what the dog's reaction will be if he "alerts" on something so, anything could be considered a "hit".

This particular "checkpoint" has existed in that area for years and, pops up at random. I drive through this area regularly, had my entire truck searched for no reason other than the "alert" of a dog. They found nothing because, there was nothing to find. I filed a complaint but, nothing has changed.

Hopefully this video will cast some needed light on this "checkpoint".
 
Last edited:
I sure don't see that as 'activism'. Nor preserving and protecting any "rights".
I just see a stupid kid who wanted to play stupid games with the cops.
And so I guess he won a stupid prize.
dc
 
As far as I can tell, "lawful order" means that the "order" is not requiring you to do something unlawful.

In other words, a LEO walks up and says "You! Go drag race down Main Street with that guy over there." Unlawful order because what you're ordered to do is unlawful.

"Roll down your window!" Rolling down windows is not unlawful. Therefore it is a "Lawful Order".

Agree or not that it should be that way, it appears to be, as far as I can tell.
 
As far as I can tell, "lawful order" means that the "order" is not requiring you to do something unlawful.
Click to expand...

I don't find it to be quite so simplistic.

A "lawful order" has to be based on a legal precedent. In other words: It has to have a law that enumerates the power of the police to issue such an order to make it "lawful.
 
Well, if you can point me to something that spells that out I'd happily agree but everything I've looked at indicates what I said above. I can't even find a single definition of "lawful order" in any penal code or other official place, despite the fact that the penal codes are filled with the phrase. Everything I read basically says that you must do what a LEO says to do unless the action ordered is itself unlawful. There are, of course, exceptions and specifics that have been clarified by courts but, generally speaking, it seems that a "Do this..." is a "lawful order".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top