DUI checkpoints: another example of how they can be abused

[bikerbill]

I've been stopped three times in the past few years (no tickets issued) and the interaction with law enforcement was nothing but pleasant, smooth and quick. That said, this seems to be a case of an officer a bit too full of himself who decides to make this guy's life miserable because he wouldn't roll down the window.

A Chicago Tribune story a few years ago said drug sniffing dogs are right about 44 percent of the time, and only 27 percent of the time when a Hispanic driver was involved. I wouldn't want to spend the night in jail based on that level of accuracy. The story said that in many instances where the dog was wrong, he was reacting to a cue from his handler, not a drug scent.

Investigators at the University of California at Davis assessed the accuracy of 18 drug and/or explosive detection dog/handler teams in a four-room church. No drugs or target scents were present in any of the rooms, but handlers were falsely told that contraband was present in two of the rooms, each marked by a piece of red construction paper. Authors reported 225 incorrect responses overall, but found that dogs were more likely to provide false alerts in rooms where their handlers believed that illicit substances were present.

I haven't read every post on this topic; did they ever do a breath or blood test on this guy? It WAS a DUI checkpoint, after all.

 

[glh17]

bikerbill,
The sheriff's deputy is a member of a drug task force that works I-24 in Rutherford County, just outside of Nashville going toward Chattanooga. This force has worked that section of I-24 for 20 or so years. A friend of mine's son is on the force. Rumor is that a lot drug trafficking passes through that section of the interstate.

Normally, they don't operate checkpoints. They look for speeders, bad tail lights, etc... in order to make stops. They've made some big drug busts over the years and have a reputation and it's not for adhering to the 4th amendment. They definitely "profile." A Hispanic would be crazy to try the stuff this kid did.

I think the deputy just got ticked off at the kid for not rolling his window down all the way. Not sure, but my guess is that state troopers were also working the DUI checkpoint and this guy messed with the wrong person.

 

[bikerbill]

Interesting .. thanks for the clarification ...

 

[zincwarrior]

The thing I find troubling is that we are arguing over how we should behave at police checkpoints in a free country.

We should be ashamed that we accept the presence of such checkpoints as compatible with our liberty.

Musher wins the thread. We have already given up too much.

 

[PawPaw]

Are you saying that the act of being armed is, in and of it's self, RAS of a crime ?

No, not saying that at all. I live in Louisiana, which is a very gun-friendly state. I assume that 25% the people I interact with are armed. That doesn't make them criminals. I also assume that half the cars I stop have firearms inside. That doesn't indicate criminal activity. Not at all.

The thing I find troubling is that we are arguing over how we should behave at police checkpoints in a free country.

We should be ashamed that we accept the presence of such checkpoints as compatible with our liberty.

I agree with that as well. I'm no fan of checkpoints. Don't like them at all.

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

Nope, I didn't say that either. Most folks would be horrified, and rightfully so. I personally would never do such a thing. It would be unethical, and probably unlawful.

 

[OuTcAsT]

Originally Posted by johnelmore
So a judge or jury in Pawpaws area of operation is ok with searching any armed person.

Nope, I didn't say that either. Most folks would be horrified, and rightfully so. I personally would never do such a thing. It would be unethical, and probably unlawful.

I had a feeling that was the case, thanks for clearing that up !

 

[Kreyzhorse]

They generally don't like legal lessons from civilians in my expierence.

And that is part of the problem.....

Clearly this kid wanted to push their buttons that night, but a lot of these officers think that above the society they serve by using terms like "civilians."

I'm not saying that all officers have that mentality but clearly some do.

 

[glh17]

Why is it that the deputy would not respond to the driver's question about being free to go or am I being detained?

I've notice a few you tube videos dealing with the questioning of someone who has not committed an apparent crime and the police seem to never want to answer these questions. Why is this? Seems some sort of game is being played and I wonder what it is.

 

[csmsss]

Why is it that the deputy would not respond to the driver's question about being free to go or am I being detained?

I've notice a few you tube videos dealing with the questioning of someone who has not committed an apparent crime and the police seem to never want to answer these questions. Why is this? Seems some sort of game is being played and I wonder what it is.

Because they don't want to say "Yes" and because saying "No" would open up the door to false arrest suits. They are not, however, required to answer questions, so they stand mute. They hope you will infer from their silence that you are not free to go, when, in reality, you are.

 

[iraiam]

I have been detained for refusing to answer questions, like "Where are you going?" and "Where are you coming from?"

I absolutely will not answer any questions of this nature and simply state that I will not discuss my whereabouts or answer any further questions. This has never really gone over very well in the few instances it's come up, but that's the way it is.

I did have one officer get quite irritated with me for politely refusing to answer his questions, he became obviously irritated and began raising his voice at me, when he asked me again "WHERE ARE YOU GOING?" I answered with "Anywhere I GD well please!" Fortunately there were other officers there who were much more professional and apparently of higher rank than this guy.

Most of this comes from legal advice that I have paid actual $$ for, basically I was told to never, ever, answer police questions, no matter how meaningless or insignificant you think your answer is, ANYTHING you say at any time can and will be used against you.

 

[Koda94]

Because they don't want to say "Yes" and because saying "No" would open up the door to false arrest suits. They are not, however, required to answer questions, so they stand mute. They hope you will infer from their silence that you are not free to go, when, in reality, you are.

Does this mean that if they don't answer your question ('am I being detained') you can just drive off?

How much of the checkpoint process is one required to comply?

I'm assuming here they can only detain you if they have probably cause to suspect driving under the influence and would be required to tell you that if they answer yes. So the minimum requirement is to satisfy that query by engaging the officer verbally and visually from within your car, anything beyond that without being detained would be unreasonable and a violation of your rights!

 

[teeroux]

State vs Ferrand was not a case involving illegal carrying of a concealed handgun or other dangerous weapons. Terry Stop does not usually apply to people in their own residence or curtlage.

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"

I never said that at all. Probable cause is need to stop a vehicle other than D.W.I. check points of course. There is no reasonable suspision to stop a vehicle to check a drivers license alone. You don't have any reason to suspect the license is bad.

I was speaking of carrying concealed handguns or dangerous weapons. It is a crime to carry a concealed handgun not withstanding a permit. If you see what you have a reasonable belief to be a hangun butt in a persons waistband you have a reasonble suspision that a crime is occuring. This is different from your example of driving in that the act of driving itself is not a crime. Carrying a concealed weapon is.

 

[sigcurious]

State vs Ferrand was not a case involving illegal carrying of a concealed handgun or other dangerous weapons. Terry Stop does not usually apply

Although I wasn't responding to you, that's exactly the point. johnelmore was attempting to state that any weapons possession was RAS of a crime and that the local case law supported that. Also, I already noted that CCW is a special case, subject to different rules.

Does this mean that if they don't answer your question ('am I being detained') you can just drive off?

How much of the checkpoint process is one required to comply?

To the first, probably not a wise idea, if you read the michigan decision cited earlier in this thread, you are being detained/seized, and it is lawful/reasonable.

To the second part that is the $64,000 question, because they failed to define it in the michigan decision. This would come down in large part to your local laws, but even then it would could be fuzzy. This would also relate to the first question, how long is the seizure lawful? They're pretty clear about only covering the initial stop and questioning, along with it being "brief". But again, this wasn't even close to defined.

 

[jimpeel]

So what if, after being ordered to exit the vehicle, the kid had locked the doors and left his keys in the ignition? Would they have broken his window to effect the search based on Fido's nose; which in this case proved to be quite fallible?

In such a case, would they be required to attain a warrant?

What if the person had done as above but has an external keypad on the door. Can the police order them to enter the code to open the doors? Can one refuse? Knowing the code, but stating you don't, would be taken as providing false information to a police officer -- an arrestable offense.

 

[OuTcAsT]

teeroux said;

There is no reasonable suspision to stop a vehicle to check a drivers license alone. You don't have any reason to suspect the license is bad.

I agree, however then teeroux said;

It is a crime to carry a concealed handgun not withstanding a permit. If you see what you have a reasonable belief to be a hangun butt in a persons waistband you have a reasonble suspision that a crime is occuring. This is different from your example of driving in that the act of driving itself is not a crime. Carrying a concealed weapon is.

These two statements do not "jive" together. It is not a crime [in Tennessee] to carry a concealed handgun unless you do not have a permit, just as it is not a crime [in Tennessee] to operate a motor vehicle on public roads unless you do not have a permit.

Again;

You don't have any reason to suspect the license is bad.

I do not see a distinction between the two and, in fact, there is none.

 

[patrickmn]

Tennessee Code Annotated

I've been reading the laws...

(a) (1) A person commits an offense who carries with the intent to go armed a firearm, a knife with a blade length exceeding four inches (4''), or a club.

(e) (1) It is an exception to the application of subsection (a) that a person authorized to carry a handgun pursuant to § 39-17-1351 is transporting a rifle or shotgun in or on a privately-owned motor vehicle and the rifle or shotgun does not have ammunition in the chamber. However, the person does not violate this section by inserting ammunition into the chamber if the ammunition is inserted for purposes of justifiable self-defense pursuant to § 39-11-611 or § 39-11-612.

(2) It is an exception to the application of subsection (a) that a person who is not authorized to possess a handgun pursuant to § 39-17-1351 is transporting a rifle or shotgun in or on a privately-owned motor vehicle and the rifle or shotgun does not have ammunition in the chamber or cylinder, and no clip or magazine containing ammunition is inserted in the rifle or shotgun or is in close proximity to both the weapon and any person.

39-17-1308 gives a list of "defenses", including having an Handgun Carry Permit.

It's a crime to possess a loaded firearm in Tennessee. The reason so few people are arrested for that crime is because most people possessing a firearm can use one of the defenses from 39-17-1308. I've seen it debated that if a police officer sees a gun in a car, they have a reason to believe the driver is committing a crime because they are.


If you're pulled over for a traffic violation you should be polite because you were caught doing wrong. If you're being inconvenienced by a checkpoint, I see no reason to be happy about it.

 

[csmsss]

If you're pulled over for a traffic violation you should be polite because you were caught doing wrong.

Huh? Did I miss something? We're skipping the trial phase these days and going directly from officer's accusation to conviction?

 

[patrickmn]

What I meant was that you can say "I do not submit to searches or answer questions" in a polite way or a rude way. I think if a driver knows they were committing a traffic violation they they should make those statements in a polite way. Being rude in that case isn't going to help anything, but being polite could get the driver off with a warning for something the driver knows they were doing wrong.

 

[deepcreek]

What I meant was that you can say "I do not submit to searches or answer questions" in a polite way or a rude way. I think if a driver knows they were committing a traffic violation they they should make those statements in a polite way. Being rude in that case isn't going to help anything, but being polite could get the driver off with a warning for something the driver knows they were doing wrong.

A year large majority of traffic stops are traps. Come around the corner road block, drive past the sigh behind the tree speed trap, etc.
The interaction usually starts with “do you know what you did wrong” trick question. First it gets people to incriminate themselves and it also is designed make people feel like they are in the wrong so they are submissive and guilty before they even go to trail.

This thread is about illegal road blocks the the law enforcement doing these illegal activities are in the wrong.

Why should citizen just going about daily living all the sudden be wrong ? Because they are not "polite" during illegal stops ?

 

[Texshooter]

I do not like to make even a 1/2 way judgement based on videos such as these, but I believe this officer to have betrayed himself in several ways.

- When the young man, in a polite fashion, questioned him on rolling down the window. The officer immediately took on a very beligerent, if not aggressive, tone. That being said I would have probably had my window already rolled down without thinking about it.

- The officer made sarcastic remarks about the person asking about his Constitutional rights. Officer - you are the servant, not the master. If you were upset for missing some BBQ ribs on the 4th, well, you chose your line of work. You are a government employee.

- This officer needs help - and it does not involve a pay increase.