DUI checkpoints: another example of how they can be abused

kxkid, your reasoning is at best circular, what you're saying is "its a lawful order because its a lawful order." At worst, it's a case of "because I said so." Just because you told someone to do something, doesn't make it lawful. If you are in a position of authority as your posting would imply, you should be able to cite law(statute or case) that gives you that specific authority. More importantly, if you're not LE in TN, you should consider what might be a lawful order where you are, might not be there.
 
kxkid, There is a difference between an "order" given by a LEO, and an "order" given by a LEO that actually has a law behind it, that says I must comply.

For instance: The law says that if I am "blue lighted" by a LEO in a squad car, I must stop. This is a given and, I am following a "lawful order".
 
The video displays a classic case of "Contempt of Cop" IMO. I am definitely not anti-LEO. But I am against the tactics I saw the LEO use in the video.
 
Anyone who works a job whether it be a police officer or the lady at the local Starbucks, we have to show a bit of respect and civilized behavior. Ask yourself, do you appreciate people testing you and giving you a hard time at your job? The person who created this video was purposely trying to give the officer a hard time. In return for the hard time the officer was given, the officer gave the video creator a hard time. It seems like a fair exchange.

Before passing judgement on the officer in the video, ask yourself if you would appreciate someone giving you a hard time at your work. There must have been times in the past when someone gave you a hard time at your work and how did you deal with it? How did it make you feel? This is the officers job and its something he was assigned to do. He didnt wake up one day and choose to setup a DUI checkpoint. His superiors decided to set it up and he was involuntarily assigned to work it.

Write letters and meet with the political leadership and the head of the department. You are always free to protest with signs and the like in a civilized way. You can write posts on websites and send letters to the editor. However, the wrong way is to give someone a hard time at their job and thwart the checkpoint in some type of devious manner.
 
Anyone who works a job whether it be a police officer or the lady at the local Starbucks, we have to show a bit of respect and civilized behavior. Ask yourself, do you appreciate people testing you and giving you a hard time at your job? The person who created this video was purposely trying to give the officer a hard time. In return for the hard time the officer was given, the officer gave the video creator a hard time. It seems like a fair exchange.
Click to expand...

Therein lies the issue...being a police officer is not even remotely the same as working at starbucks. A police officer a) works for the public good b)operates under legal authority c) has the potential to commit violations of someones rights under the color of that authority to a vastly greater degree than someone behind the counter at starbucks. How are people to trust officers to properly uphold and enforce the law, if they succumb to petty revenge/tit for tat behavior?

If you want to related it to private sector jobs, do you really think that if an employee of starbucks, for example, went off on a rude customer that they would remain employed? So somehow, you expect a lower standard to be applied to those who enforce the law? "Well its ok because the guy had it coming." Really...is that your argument? Whether or not one would appreciate being given a hard time is not relevant.

Additionally, while they may not have chosen their specific assignment, they did choose to be a police officer. I can be relatively sure that no one ever told them: "Hey this is a super easy and laid back job, no one ever gives you any trouble." In fact I would guess at some point in time they were told or recognized, that is is not an easy job. What they do have control over, even after an involuntary assignment, is how they behave. If you feel that someone with no authority should act respectfully, shouldn't this also go for the person with authority, regardless of how the person they're interacting with behaves themselves?

The issue with just bringing it up via letter writing is that, barring state law issues(which in TN its unclear whether they would survive a court challenge), checkpoints are legal. However, just because the checkpoint is legal, does not make all actions conducted at the checkpoints legal. Additionally, for a lawsuit to change the law or manner in which the checkpoints are conducted, it has to be shown that they are not operating within the standards set forth, and or are incompatible with current state law or constitution. For a case like that to have standing or merit, that evidence should come from more than just a theoretical legal analysis, ie showing actual harms done to people passing through those checkpoints.

So, while in this case, the person failed to follow up with a complaint which would bring additional scrutiny to the issue, as a whole, without people doing such actions, rude or not, and if everyone just complied, the outcome would be continued issues like this.

Furthermore, it is interesting, that in an issue that revolves around specifically enumerated rights, that you would consider attempting to assert those rights as "devious." If you were just walking down the street, and an officer told you to stop where you were and submit to their questioning, if they could not provide RAS or PC, I suppose by your logic it would also be "devious thwarting" to tell them you do not consent and keep walking.

To be clear, obviously not all officers act in this manner. However, it should be clear to all officers that this type of behavior is questionable, and policies/laws tend not to just change on their own. Something has to effect change.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Except the checkpoint itself violates your rights, so why talk to them at all? Here they need to say when and where they will be doing one, so all of the drunks go a different way; thus only the law-abiding are harassed..........sounds like the same situation lawful gun owners are treated versus the criminals
 
A few years back, I was stoped by one of Dallas' finest. That considerate Gentleman was equally as rude and blunt as the uniformed officer in the video.

After all was said and done, I mentioned that I hadn't been spoken to iin that fashon since the early 60's. He chuckled and replied that an aggressive attitude displayed by the Officer helped to ptrvent roadside esclation. Everyone is then more likely to get home safely.

He then went about his business to 'protect and serve' and I went on about my business of getting to work.

Although I did then and do now understand the value of getting the early licks in, still it bothers me that my Mom and Bride could be treated in a like manner as SOP.

rant over,

salty

salty
 
sigcurious said:
And people conceal weapons illegally under their clothes, it doesn't automatically mean an order to lift one's shirt is lawful and constitutes a reasonable search barring any other evidence of wrong doing.
Click to expand...

Sure we do, it's called a Terry frisk, and was found constitutional by the Supreme Court in Terry v Ohio (1968).
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous.
Click to expand...
All I need is a reasonable belief that a person is armed. That falls way below the articulable "probable cause" necessary to support a warrant. Now, if I reasonably believe that a person is armed, and I conduct a Terry frisk, that can open the door to other articulable observations that might lead to probable cause.
 
No...you need RAS that they are committing, about to, or have committed a crime. Absent of specific state/local law that would make being armed/accidental revealing a crime, being armed in itself is not cause to conduct a detention and search (aka terry stop). That's vastly different than, just approaching someone, detaining them and searching them. Someone just walking down the street absent of those factors, is not free game for a terry stop.

If you actually read Terry, what made the detention and search reasonable was that the officer involved, noted distinctly suspicious behavior, specifically what amounted to casing the building, and was able to articulate based on that they there was suspicion of crime afoot. The terry decision is not "and or" being armed...its that based on suspicion of a crime, while the officer initiates a detention while investigating the possible crime, they may conduct cursory search for officer safety.

So again: No, an order to lift your shirt, barring any other evidence of wrong doing is not automatically a lawful order.
 
If you actually read Terry, what made the detention and search reasonable was that the officer involved, noted distinctly suspicious behavior, specifically what amounted to casing the building, and was able to articulate based on that they there was suspicion of crime afoot.
Click to expand...

I've read Terry (stem to stern) many times. If I can articulate a reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct, and if I can articulate a reasonable belief that the person is armed, I can conduct a Terry frisk. The question becomes, can I articulate reasonable suspicion? Sure I can, in those instances where I conduct the frisk.

I'm one of the most laid-back cops you've ever met. Easy to get along with, don't like hassling people, and I live in a VERY gun-friendly state. So, can I articulate? You betcha. I can articulate.
 
This
All I need is a reasonable belief that a person is armed.
Click to expand...

does not equal

If I can articulate a reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct,
Click to expand...

Your original statement lacked the context and specificity of the terry decision, which I pointed out. You orignal statement would indicate, armed even if legal, would constitute RAS for a terry stop. Which it does not.
 
If a person is armed then the officer has the right to do a Terry stop. The officer is making sure that person is legally carrying a firearm. There are people, even in friendly states, who are not legally carrying a firearm such as convicted criminals. There is also officer safety and the officer may want to make sure the firearm is not loaded around them.

If you are carrying anything which might harm the officer or others then a Terry stop can be performed.

Pawpaw is an experienced law enforcement professional and he knows what he can and cant do in his particular locality.
 
Are you saying that the act of being armed is, in and of it's self, RAS of a crime ?
Click to expand...

I would say so. The act of carrying a concealed handguns is a crime in my state unless you otherwise have a permit. So is carrying knives longer that 3.5in concealed. Again reasonable suspicion also falls on the officer's own experience.
 
Just to be clear...
State v Ferrand

We granted certiorari to consider whether the police, without knocking, requesting permission, or announcing their identity and purpose, may enter a private residence without a warrant and without probable cause and exigent circumstances, to investigate a person's non-threatening possession of a handgun on the porch of his own home...There was nothing to suggest that Ferrand had been or was engaged in the commission of any crime. State v. Moreno, 619 So.2d 62 (La.1993); State v. Belton, 441 So.2d 1195 (La.1983). Moreover, when they rushed across the threshold, the officers had no reason to suspect that anyone inside the apartment, including Ferrand, needed help, that any suspect was about to flee, or that any other course of action would create a grave risk of endangering their own lives. See Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 298-300, 87 S.Ct. 1642, 1646, 18 L.Ed.2d 782 (1967). Finally, the primary illegality of the entry tainted Ferrand's subsequent consent 398*398 to the search of his apartment moments later and required suppression of all of the evidence found in the home.
Click to expand...

Concealed may be different depending on state laws(as it is typically more regulated and specifically defined), but one cannot categorically say that possession of a firearm/being armed is RAS. I used this example because its from LA. However, in similar cases, courts across the country have ruled in the same fashion.

This is relevant to the checkpoints because the fourth amendment issues remain the same. In that each step of the sequence of events is critical. Just because one step is legal, does not make the subsequent ones also legal. Just because the initial stop is legal, does not automatically make the rest of the officers commands legitimate. So just as legally possessing a firearm does not automatically create RAS, how would not rolling down a window far enough to the officers satisfaction be a crime or cause suspicion of a crime?

For those advocating just complying etc, these questions are unlikely to to be answered by the courts if that is the only course of action that people take. Some people are willing to take these things to court, that doesn't mean you have to, but neither should you disparage them for it. Issues like this are murky, but that is not a reason to remain in the mud and put your faith in all officers actions being legitimate.

"good faith on the part of the arresting officer is not enough." . . . If subjective good faith alone were the test, the protections of the Fourth Amendment would evaporate, and the people would be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects," only in the discretion of the police.
Click to expand...
Beck v Ohio
 
johnelmore worte;

If a person is armed then the officer has the right to do a Terry stop. The officer is making sure that person is legally carrying a firearm. There are people, even in friendly states, who are not legally carrying a firearm such as convicted criminals. There is also officer safety and the officer may want to make sure the firearm is not loaded around them.

If you are carrying anything which might harm the officer or others then a Terry stop can be performed.
Click to expand...


teeroux wrote;
I would say so. The act of carrying a concealed handguns is a crime in my state unless you otherwise have a permit.
Click to expand...


So, using that same logic, merely driving an automobile is also RAS for a Terry Stop at any given time ?

IE: "He was driving an automobile, since it requires a "permit" I have a right as a LEO, to stop any vehicle, at random, minus any other infraction, simply to check his license"

Is this really the way you perceive the "Terry Stop" works ?
 
Last edited:
I do agree with you but it doesnt matter what we think or believe. What matters is how a judge or jury thinks and believes. So a judge or jury in Pawpaws area of operation is ok with searching any armed person.
 
In my opinion the driver was correct, and the police were wrong. After all it was a DUI check point. Never did the Officer's suggest the driver may have been intoxicated. A clear case of the police using a DUI checkpoint to allow for a fishing expidition. Wrong as two left feet. Never did the Officer request a drivers license, registration, or proof of insurance. Any or all would have been reasonable, and the driver would have had to produce these documents. Never did the officer ask if the driver had used alcohol, or other intoxicants. Refusal to answer this question would have given the Officers (in most states) the option of field intox test. Refusal of that may have resulted in an arrest. In the vidio it seems the police were focused from the beginning on searching the car...

My department used very similar enforcement tools. We call them "SAFETY CHECK POINTS" We'd pull every fifth car into a staging area and do a safety check of the vehical. Most of the violations were "Uninsured vehical" Next was "Unlicensed Operator" , then unregistered, uninspected, and forged inspection sticker. We'd get a few intox also. We did clear a lot of outstanding warrants. Using the number of every 5th car we were able to maintain some degree of random. All vehical documentation, and all license documentation was demanded, but any other information was by request. If a passenger refused to give his or her name... That was the end of it.
 
johnelmore wrote;
it doesnt matter what we think or believe. What matters is how a judge or jury thinks and believes
Click to expand...

Quite the contrary, What matters is what the Law dictates. Primarily, the Constitution of the U.S. and established case law.

So a judge or jury in Pawpaws area of operation is ok with searching any armed person.
Click to expand...

He has not answered that question yet but, I suspect that is not the "norm"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top