Sobriety Checkpoints....

[sm]

There are still some "old school" out there, and trying and making some progress with the new Rookies.

I have not had a drink since March of 1984. I admit/ have admitted I made my mistakes, some behind the wheel. I am not proud of that, I have paid my dues, made my amends and worked the 12 steps. I have helped/ shared with others on this board and other boards. Look up my posts here, at THR .

Now I did swerve to avoid a raccoon one night about 11pm. Blue lights and pulled over. As required by AR statute I had my license and CCW handy and offered it to the Sheriff. I said " Officer, I swerved to avoid a raccoon". Now the Older Sheriff asked if I had been drinking. 'No sir, I am a friend of Bill W and have been since '84". Sheriff said he was too.

Second Car pulls up and Rookie comes up passenger side. He yelled at the Rookie to turn off that damn light and quit looking inside the cab of my truck, he sent the Rookie away. Older fella and I visited, we knew some of the same folks.

He never doubted me, I never faulted him for doing his job. He never asked if I was CCW-ing or where my gun was.

--

The Charge nurse, and a supervisor did not like the fact I used common sense and thought on my feet in the OR. My eyes were red from allergies ( ragweed) and many of us reacted to the powder in the vent system from gloves. We were mandated to go powderless in 6 months time.

I was accused of taking drinking and all sorts of Authority being tossed at me, talking down to me.

I DEMANDED I be tested right that moment. They did expect this- they expected me to refuse, to give them a reason - something to work against me.
I had to call someone in to cover me. I took that test and passed. I DEMANDED another one- this time a blood test. I even offered to pay for the test. I passed that one. I then demanded a test to make sure my eyes were red from allergies - and not Pink eye. Word came to the accusers - " you screwed with the wrong guy".

My Boss came in to wee what was going on - she knew I was innocent- and I was sent home with pay. All sorts of abuse of power from Charge nurse and that supervisor.

Oh it got serious, there was to be a meeting. I refused to attend - my record spoke for itself. Records would show why I did what I did to keep a patient safe and alive. If one tells the truth - they do not have to remember a lie.

What happened? I never attended the meeting - matter of principle. Charge Nurse lost her license, Super was fired. Other Drs nurses, my Boss... spoke on my behalf.

See the REAL reason I was trying to be let go [ fired] was medical supplies were going out the back door, monies was not accounted for. I was not a dumb person- the fear of being found out was too great with me on the job.

So pull me over and I will bet any amount of money I pass. I do not have to remember a lie - will the Officer?

I have also many a time when the De-tox center was open near hear broken the speed limit and rolled thru a stop, giving pints of whiskey to a drunk to keep from going into DTs. I have had blue lights pull me over- I was short - quick and to the point, I didn't bother with license, or nothing. Told one to either bust me, cuff me, or shoot me, I was fighting the clock to save a man's life. The man was LEO in that instance.

I would do my best to call a LEO and tell them I had to make a run to detox. Sometimes I couldn't. You would be surprised the # of times I had an escort to Benton Services. I did not take advantage of my standing,or abuse it.

I know the law, I know the tough job it is. This drinking dealie hits a nerve with me. I have been on both sides of the law with it. None of anyone's business what is in my truck. In the old days there were pints of booze to keep someone from going into DTs, even keeping LEOs, or family of LEOs.

Abuse of Authority of any kind hits a nerve with me. Don't mess with my Constitution or BoR.

My "pursuit of happiness , freedom of travel" - might be saving a person's life- even that of a non fit person for LEO duty with a ETOH problem!

 

[Eghad]

When I retire and get some time on my hands I might have to test this out........ I will have plenty of time to do the research...lol before I take the plunge

 

[pamick]

If I may get personal, FrankDrebin, I've read your posts on various matters and thought you were a reasonable guy. However, upon reading your posts posts on this particular issue, you clearly come across as a a cop on a power trip. Well, you have the resources, the crew cut, and the stick to make a window opening wider. Well, Frank you're a bad cop with an attitude. You have no business wielding authority. And it's the likes of you, who cause regular folk to resent cops. You do your DUI roadblocks and defend them until the cows come home. But tell us, Frank, what are you doing everyday to get the real bad guys off the street?

 

[JimDiver]

+1 to the above post by pamick.

I never said I'd punish him for not talking to me, I said I'd arrest him for failing to comply with a lawful order. And it is not violence and not escalation. It is making an arrest using the minimum of force necessary.

No. If you would bust out my window just cause you don't want to deal with my cracked window, that is escalation and violence. I would hardly call it a minimum.... not by a long shot.

They're not roadblocks. There's a difference. And what is a "roving patrol" by NHTSA standards?

Roadblock. Checkpoint. Whatever. I think you know exactly what they were saying... you just don't like it.

Deal with it. Checkpoints simply are not as effective at getting drunks off the road.... They harass and annoy citizens and violate our rights.

 

[CarbineCaleb]

As long as the officers are professional and polite, I don't have a problem with it. They normally do this on Friday and Saturday nights in the viscinity of bars... I know why they're stopping me, and I know there are a lot of drunk drivers out there - if the driver is young, male, and it's Friday or Saturday night around bars... you're going to find pretty rich mining for drunks at the wheel - as far as I am concerned, good, get 'em off the road.

I'd rather be inconvenienced and have some potential negligent homicide headed off then just make it safe for drunk drivers. I know some people will oppose the practice on principal, but I don't look at this that way - I view it in strictly practical terms.

 

[guntotin_fool]

Frank I would agree as well but add that I hope you can learn from the feelings of the people who are writing here. We are the ultimate patriots.
We understand and want to obey all ALL laws, However, we understand that such laws must not violate the Constitution nor cross that line of Morality from which the Constitution was drawn.

We will be the first to stand next to you in a life and death battle with those who would threaten or attack our Union, our Nation, but at the sametime, We will fight to the death those whose intent is to bring down the Nation by internal subterfuge. If you are so intent on stopping the crime of DWI, drive around near the local taverns and beer halls. Watch those who come stumbling out of the bar and take five attemptes to put the key inthe door lock.

Or get in your car and put the radar away and look for people who can not keep the car in a lane. Or ride the curb. leave the businessman alone who is only gettng paid when he puts his face in front of the customers. Let the plumber get to his next job ontime so he can get home to his kids on time.

There is no corelation between speed and accidents rate IF you factor out alchol. none. Tickets are an attempt by insurance companies to force the police to quantify driver performance and risk. Look at your radar gun in your patrol car. Did you konw almost all of them inthe USA are provided by pro-insurance industry groups and organisations in order to give police a better way to raise insurance rates.

I find DWI blockades to be a complete and utter invasion in privacy and violation of the Constitution as when you pull in usually two sometimes three cops all have the maglights on and shining into the car looking for a reason to pull you out of the car. This is not road safety. if it was, It would be done at 2;15 am after bar closing. then you might have a chance at pulling over a statiscally significant number of DWI's.

 

[LAK]

Antipitas

Toll roads were always the method by which the States maintained the highways. It's the original "pay-as-you-go" system

Except that this is handing over publicly funded highways to private corporations who will be collecting the toll as part of their business enterprize.

Thanks for the other info.

 

[FrankDrebin]

What happened to that generation of cops that used to question and disregard abusive legislation?



They are retired, the new militarized LEO is now here.

I see...so you think cops have become MORE "abusive" with regard to the constitution than they were, say, in the mid 70's? You really believe that?

Most people don't know these things, and those of us that do are too chicken to go through with it.

It's a whole lot of hassle, plus it makes the local cops furious!

Did ya get this far Frank?

I believe I stated earlier that even though the landmark case of MSP V. Sitz was a Michigan case, Michigan law still holds that sobriety checkpoints are no allowed. As far as being a hassle, you're dreaming if you think the stuff you posted makes the local cops "furious". I don't know any who take this personally.

If I may get personal, FrankDrebin, I've read your posts on various matters and thought you were a reasonable guy. However, upon reading your posts posts on this particular issue, you clearly come across as a a cop on a power trip.

So, you would do what in the situation I brought up where the man cracks the window, refuses to talk to you and refuses your command to get out of the car?

Frank, what are you doing everyday to get the real bad guys off the street?

You might be surprised at how many "real" bad guys are taken off the streets as a result of traffic stops after the officer determined the driver had something to hide as the result of abnormal behavior.

There is no corelation between speed and accidents rate IF you factor out alchol. none.

So when you cut down your perception/reaction distance by X amount of feet because you're speeding, then get into an accident that you could have avoided had you had another half second and 60, or even 40 feet to react, there is no correlation with speed? None? When the guy (or woman) in front of your slams on the brakes to avoid a squirrel in the road and you lock up your wheels and rear end him because at your speed it would have taken you 100 feet to stop in a skid vs. 90 feet, there is no correlation between speed and you rear ending the car in front of you? None?

I find DWI blockades to be a complete and utter invasion in privacy and violation of the Constitution as when you pull in usually two sometimes three cops all have the maglights on and shining into the car looking for a reason to pull you out of the car.

What about border checkpoints? Does an American have a right to drive back into the country from Mexico without having his car searched? Did you know that the Border Patrol has the right to search your car within X number of miles from an international border with no probable cause and no search warrant? How about fugitive checkpoints? Are more people killed by escaped fugitives who can reasonably be caught by checkpoints than are killed by drunk drivers?

No. If you would bust out my window just cause you don't want to deal with my cracked window, that is escalation and violence. I would hardly call it a minimum.... not by a long shot.

Violence against what? Your car window? You? If I broke your window, it would be because YOU refused to get out of the car, not because you refused to roll your window down. What would you do in that situation if you were the police? I don't think anyone has provided an alternative yet. Call a tow truck? Screw around trying to unlock the door in the middle of nowhere at night while the guy in the car, maybe with tinted windows, is doing God knows what, maybe pointing a gun at your head? What would you do?

As far as the power trip thing, I don't think so. I think you (and I'm using "you" generically here) came up with this idea of thwarting the police in their effort to legally obtain as much information as they can through a legal traffic stop through all of their senses, by not rolling the window down, thereby depriving the cop of his ability to smell what's in the car, see the inside of the car clearly, maybe even see YOU if the windows are tinted, see what you may be concealing on the seat of the car by refusing to exit, etc. Then when the cop breaks your window to get you out of the car because YOU refuse to get out, you learn that YOU really aren't in control of the traffic stop after all. I don't think the cop in my scenario is the one on the power trip. He has the (reasonable, I might add) legal authority to get you out of the car. YOU don't have the right to refuse. Granted, my scenario applies to the regular old run of the mill traffic stop, not necessarily checkpoints. I've never participated in one, and I arrest very few drunk drivers. But what about checkpoints. Do you think it would be reasonable to believe that someone who just cracks their window at an obvious sobriety checkpoint is trying to hide something? Maybe the booze on his breath? Do you think that should reasonably raise a red flag with the officer and maybe motivate him to check further while staying within the boundaries of the applicable law?

We understand and want to obey all ALL laws, However, we understand that such laws must not violate the Constitution nor cross that line of Morality from which the Constitution was drawn.

I don't think you DO understand the laws. I get the impression that you, or at least others here don't believe the police have the right to order the driver out of a car on a traffic stop. ESPECIALLY the driver who is exibiting abnormal behavior that would lead a reasonable police officer to believe that he is trying to conceal something. Well, that IS the law, and the police DO have that legal authority. And now you're getting bent out of shape when I tell you what I would legally do when a person escalates a "routine" traffic stop into an arrest by refusing to comply with that authority. Should the law apply to different people differently based on where they live? Do you think the police should have the right to get someone out of the car in the proverbial "known drug area" at 3:00am on a traffic stop, but not you at 10:00am on Main Street?

Is it your position that the police do NOT have the authority to get someone out of their car on a traffic stop lacking probable cause for an arrest? If so, I have no further comment, because like it or not, the police DO have that authority, and a large number of "real bad guys" have been arrested as a result of police using that authority while conducting the ubiquitous traffic stop.

 

[LAK]

If we apply the castle doctrine here - as in that some states regard a motor vehicle - one should not have to "get out" unless there is PC, similar grounds or warrant relating to a specific crime.

 

[FrankDrebin]

If we apply the castle doctrine here - as in that some states regard a motor vehicle - one should not have to "get out" unless there is PC, similar grounds or warrant relating to a specific crime.

I'm talking about federal law here. There's no way I can talk to you about the different law in each state. If you can post the individual state's law on the subject, we can talk about it. However, I tend to believe that this "castle doctrine" may have more to do with searching a car that's parked in the curtiledge of a dwelling than getting the motorist out on a traffic stop. Just because I can compel the driver and passengers to exit doesn't mean I can search the car without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, unless they refuse to exit, and I arrest them and search incident to arrest.

I would be interested to see the state law that says the police can't compel the driver to exit a car without probable cause.

 

[gburner]

Frank...

Your ego is over riding your brain. The end does not justify the means. I don't care how many 'bad guys' you catch at traffic stops. If their arrest comes at the price of you wiping your fanny with the constitution then its you who are violating the law.

Folks who would trade freedom for security deserve neither.

 

[MikeTx]

tI'd rather be inconvenienced and have some potential negligent homicide headed off then just make it safe for drunk drivers. I know some people will oppose the practice on principal, but I don't look at this that way - I view it in strictly practical terms.

Those that give up freedom for security shall have neither. - one of the dead white guys.

 

[CarbineCaleb]

MikeTx: Eh, what important freedom have I given up by stopping to talk with these guys for less than a minute? I am not detained, I am not prevented from going anywhere, and this isn't happening every time I get in the car, so what is the big issue?

To me there is a cost, which is the inconvenience, which I consider minor - it's not even close to a traffice jam, which I face on any given commute. And there is also a benefit, which is greater safety from negligent homicide.

Beyond that, I can see that in principal you can say, give an inch and "they" will take a yard - but that's really an unsupportable statement about the future - it's an opinion, rather than a fact. I don't really see this as "us and them", either.

While I realize that my government makes mistakes and has bad people in it, I also realize that private citizenry makes mistakes and has bad people in it. I don't see the government as being somehow worse than other people, because to me, they are just people, no better, no worse.

 

[Al Norris]

Frank wrote:
I believe I stated earlier that even though the landmark case of MSP V. Sitz was a Michigan case, Michigan law still holds that sobriety checkpoints are no allowed.

Yes, because even though the SCOTUS ruled that such stops did not violate the 4th, Michigan basicly said, you guys are wrong. It violates and this our state, and such stops are unlawful. Common sense ruled, at least in one state!

As far as being a hassle, you're dreaming if you think the stuff you posted makes the local cops "furious". I don't know any who take this personally.

First, you have to either know how to write a proper Demurrer yourself or pay an attorney to write it, based upon more than the info I posted. Then when you are stopped, and you will be... You don't have a license and your vehicle is not registered... and then taken to jail, you will file the Demurrer. You will then get a copy of the Courts answer and have the court return your property which was unlawfully impounded, and be on your way... until the next LEO stops you. After being stopped four or five times in the same jurisdiction....

And you will have to go through this in every jurisdiction you travel. Gets expensive and time consuming. But it not only can be done, it is done. The most recent that I know of, Charles Sprinkler of Ojai, CA in 2003. Ventura Combined Superior and Municipal Court of California, Case # 2002: 013, 441.

As to why it makes other LEO's mad... Maybe it's because all that mandatory stuff isn't mandatory for a person that is exercising their right. Maybe it's because that outside of standard moving violations, they can't stop him. I don't really know. A couple of the old timers here in my town are saying they are gonna try it when they retire, but the young LEO's keep saying it's not a right, it's a privilege. I've talked to our local prosecutor and he has said he would throw the book at me. A Muni judge I've talked to, told me no comment. A district Judge told to me to file the brief, he'd answer me in court.

My license doesn't expire until 2010... Until then, I'm bound by the License Agreement. I'll be 60 then....

LAK wrote:
Except that this is handing over publicly funded highways to private corporations who will be collecting the toll as part of their business enterprize.

Except, I never said it was right! There is a legal cite that this too (the entire "Toll Road" thing) is unlawful.

 

[Robert Garner]

FrankDrebbin and others concerned;
Any person who Deliberately ingests potable spirits, and drives; should be charged with attempted murder.Any who does the same and actually kills another should be executed for premeditated murder, preferably on the spot ,from the most convenient lampost.
Go to work Frank
Good Hunting
God Bless
Y'all are blessed Franks a cop... they wouldn't let me

 

[JimDiver]

Violence against what? Your car window? You? If I broke your window, it would be because YOU refused to get out of the car, not because you refused to roll your window down.

If you ordered me out, I would get out, and lock the door behind me. I still would not talk to you or do your field sobriety "test".

 

[FrankDrebin]

If you ordered me out, I would get out, and lock the door behind me. I still would not talk to you or do your field sobriety "test".

Then we'd get along fine...

 

[Don Gwinn]

Well, this is way hotter than it is bright.