DUI CheckPoint REFUSAL!

[Jerry]

Ah..it must be more of that invisible text in the fourth amendment. Again, I lack any magic powers to see that ****.

Folks this is why no Libertarian has ever been President, or held a majoring in either the House or Senate.

 

[Linc]

Try refusing a checkpoint on I-76 in Colorado and all other roads in this part of Northeast Colorado.
This would be one of the REDDEST areas in the Nation, which also wanted to secede from CO.
The Police complex in Fort Morgan is the finest that Law Enforcement abuse money can buy.

 

[Linc]

We should go back to monopolies, like the ones TR got rid of.
Like the ones with the internet and with Comcast
Monopolies go well with the 4th amendment .

Go ahead and name one thing the nannies don't want to protect people from. Good luck finding that one thing not at least regulated. lol.

 

[Jerry]

So DUI checkpoints where they stop everyone on the road without probable cause is not nanny state nonsense?

I chimed in about K9s specifically, not checkpoints in general.

Here's some reading material: Police Chief Magazine - View Article

A January decision of the U.S. Supreme Court sheds new light on the constitutionality of vehicle checkpoints, specifically "informational" checkpoints. This column reviews that case, Illinois v. Lidster, and vehicle checkpoints in general.....

Sobriety Checkpoints
Sobriety checkpoint stops without individualized suspicion are constitutional.6 Considering a checkpoint program to detect drunk drivers, the Court noted that each stop lasted approximately 25 seconds. Officers directed any driver who showed signs of insobriety to the side and administered field tests; intoxicated drivers were arrested. The Court held that the magnitude of the government's interest in eradicating the increasing problem of drunken driving outweighed the slight intrusion the stop imposed on all motorists.

 

[Henrin]

Folks this is why no Libertarian has ever been President, or held a majoring in either the House or Senate.

Yeah, we don't make up **** that isn't written in the Constitution. It's kind of our thing.

 

[Henrin]

I chimed in about K9s specifically, not checkpoints in general.

Here's some reading material: Police Chief Magazine - View Article

Yup, they ruled for government power and "safety". I'm aware. A good old rights give in to safety argument, which is of course completely void of all logic.

 

[Linc]

It's kind of an 'All-American' thing, not an 'our' thing..
No sub-group of Americans owns the Constitution anymore than another sub-group, especially Libertarians on a rage, like Nugent .

 

[jamesrage]

A perfectly legal search of the area around the car where the driver has no "reasonable expectation of privacy" and thus no warrant required.

The fourth amendment is not about privacy.It is about unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant. THe fourth not only guards yourself, your houses,and papers against unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant it also guards effects.Effects is personal property and a motor vehicle is personal property.

 

[Henrin]

We should go back to monopolies, like the ones TR got rid of.
Like the ones with the internet and with Comcast
Monopolies go well with the 4th amendment .

Monopolies go well with the 4th amendment? Come again?

 

[SMTA]

1.) Clearly you're not going to get the brightest individuals in the world to be police officers. That much is evident.

2.) The driver was being uncooperative and obstinate. It really didn't need to escalate the way it did, and shows immaturity on the part of the driver and an inability to navigate his way through the situation.

3.) The kid is probably a punk law student

4.) The cops let their ego get in the way.

5.) The cops have to be able to do their job, which is to inspect you for drugs and alcohol at checkpoints.

The driver was legally affirming his rights in a polite manner.

The fact that he did not submit to unnecessary commands obviously is more than you can achieve yourself, which does not make him a 'punk' or incorrect.

The cops job is not to misrepresent the law, conduct illegal searches, nor to intimidate innocent Americans.

Just because you don't have the spine to stick up for your own rights does not allow you to denigrate someone who is doing the work for you.

You have a nice day and enjoy those rights that you have - even if you do nothing yourself to preserve them - and disrespect those who do that work for you.

 

[RogueWarrior]

I've never heard of internal border patrol checkpoints other than the one on the main highway going North from Tijuana. Would they stop me? If so, I'm clearly not foriegn, so within the first few wordsm I think it would end.

But maybe you're postulating more common checkpoints on a regular basis, yes, I suppose in another 50 years, as we have 500 million mouths to feed and technology has made the officers very safe and very heavily armed, this is not at all impossible. Think of when cops used payphones - then think NSA's thousands of contractors filtering a billion conversations - and the changes always go one way. I'm not speaking of societal issues, just simple stuff - like checkpoints.

Funny thing is, it will seem completely natural when it arrives. We had 3 decades to adjust to the computer. You barely notice it now, anyone can look up anything at any time.

The police are increasingly militarized and aggressive. Look at the wacky criminals of America. Deal with a few of those morons and an officer quickly loses use for anyone else. DUI is any easy sell. Who doesn't hate drunk drivers? But the temptation to search for drugs or bomb material is getting greater and greater.

I'll use my charm school training to get me through. And my ID. Any suggestions as to some way to improve my technique?

We tend to be passive so I don't expect a revolution. This is partly caused by sheer population. This country started off with a few million people. Now look at these swarms of humans.

United States Border Patrol interior checkpoints - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The whole idea of 'internal checkpoints' is proof positive of a police state. Control disguised as public safety.

The day will come when 'within hundred miles of the border' will become 'within a hundred miles of an international entry point. Meaning any airport that receives international flights.

 

[d0gbreath]

Getting drunks off the street, and deterring drunk driving, is far more important than some douchebag's 'fight the power' bullcrap.

It's more about mutual respect than "fight the power".

 

[d0gbreath]

Are you also against stop signs and traffic lights?

Yes, yes I am.

 

[Ikari]

Using a dog outside your car is like a cop walking past you while you wreak of whiskey. No warrant needed.

No it's like waking around your car with an electronic air analysis device that reads out and says so and so is drunk. Like a breathalyzer...and you need warrant for that.

 

[Henrin]

Yes, yes I am.

The only time stop signs annoy me is when I'm out in the middle of the country and there isn't a car for miles, but for some stupid reason there is a stop sign. I can't help to think in those cases that if ever there is a time when two people come to the intersection that they couldn't handle it without the stop sign. If 99% of the time nothing is at the intersection, than really, how is the stop sign worth the hassle? I swear I'm in the country side all the time stopping at stop signs for no ****ing reason. I guess I could just run them, but knowing my luck there would be a cop and I really don't care to deal with overgrown bullies.

 

[Jerry]

The fourth amendment is not about privacy.It is about unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant. THe fourth not only guards yourself, your houses,and papers against unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant it also guards effects.Effects is personal property and a motor vehicle is personal property.

Looking in public places is not an unreasonable search.

If you drop your keys in a parking lot do you need to get a warrant before looking around for them? No. And if you see them laying next to or slightly under another car in the lot do you need to get a warrant before picking them up? No.

That's exactly what using a K9 is.

 

[Jerry]

No it's like waking around your car with an electronic air analysis device that reads out and says so and so is drunk. Like a breathalyzer...and you need warrant for that.

If you have so much liquor in your system that an electric-nose can pick up strong readings from outside the car, you're the problem.

You're siding with drunks and crying about a 25 second delay.

 

[Jerry]

The only time stop signs annoy me is when I'm out in the middle of the country and there isn't a car for miles, but for some stupid reason there is a stop sign. I can't help to think in those cases that if ever there is a time when two people come to the intersection that they couldn't handle it without the stop sign. If 99% of the time nothing is at the intersection, than really, how is the stop sign worth the hassle? I swear I'm in the country side all the time stopping at stop signs for no ****ing reason. I guess I could just run them, but knowing my luck there would be a cop and I really don't care to deal with overgrown bullies.

If you looked into a given intersection's history, there was probably an accident years back and a politician passed a feel-good order just to look good.

 

[Ikari]

If you have so much liquor in your system that an electric-nose can pick up strong readings from outside the car, you're the problem.

You're siding with drunks and crying about a 25 second delay.

No, I side with the Republic and the necessity for properly controlled government.

 

[Jerry]

No, I side with the Republic and the necessity for properly controlled government.

DUI checkpoints cost you 25 seconds. Opposing DUI checkpoints is opposing a 25 second delay. Thus you're complaining about 25 seconds.

DUI checkpoints are the consequence of drunk drivers. Opposing DUI checkpoints is to condone drunk driving. Thus you are condoning drunk driving.

That's very pathetic.

You should instead oppose drunk driving so that these checkpoints don't occur, but you don't care about public saftey because you're an idealist who only pays attention to your misguided crusade, which in truth is just you reaching out for the affection you never got as a child.

Go ahead and have your tantrums, I look forward to seeing you on BlueTube.

 

[clownboy]

No it's like waking around your car with an electronic air analysis device that reads out and says so and so is drunk. Like a breathalyzer...and you need warrant for that.

Nope, just like no warrant is necessary to search your trash. I don't like dogs period, so of course I have an innate objection to their use in police work, but we have electronic sniffers now. You're right though, the issue needs to be addressed clearly. Are DNA sniffers going to be allowed?

In the end, if you drink, any amount, and drive, I'm more than happy to see you stopped and tested.

 

[Henrin]

Nope, just like no warrant is necessary to search your trash. I don't like dogs period, so of course I have an innate objection to their use in police work, but we have electronic sniffers now. You're right though, the issue needs to be addressed clearly. Are DNA sniffers going to be allowed?

All that does is show they violated the Constitution in similar ways.

In the end, if you drink, any amount, and drive, I'm more than happy to see you stopped and tested.

And what of all the people that get stopped when there is no probable cause to stop them? You know, like at DUI checkpoints.

 

[Hard Truth]

:rofl Good one!


...wait, you're not being sarcastic? You actually believe that public defenders are something other than horrendously overworked, underpaid, bottom-of-the-barrel lawyers too burnt out by dealing with the dregs of the justice system to give a **** anymore? Wow, that's just sad. I hope you'll always be able to afford your own lawyers, because such unrealistic expectations could get you severely disabused by the criminal justice system.

That is often true, but it is better to work with a public defender than to consent to a police search and then accept the first plea deal the police or DA offers.

 

[specklebang]

United States Border Patrol interior checkpoints - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The whole idea of 'internal checkpoints' is proof positive of a police state. Control disguised as public safety.

The day will come when 'within hundred miles of the border' will become 'within a hundred miles of an international entry point. Meaning any airport that receives international flights.

You realize we are agreeing, right? Theoretically, by virtue of the NSA and similar agencies, we are already long past the level of intrusion of a checkpoint. By virtue of the Patriot Act (thank you Mr. Bush & Mr. Obama and your fellow "lawmakers" from both parties) they can already do anything they want in the name of "national security". But actual checkpoints on a daily basis is still in the future. Those will be state and city investments and they'll need to seize more assets before this will be affordable.

 

[Cardinal]

Here is a compilation of the top refusals for 2013. The very last scene (fast forward to 14:11) will make some laugh hysterically.

Oooooohhhh, that woman was pissed.

It is interesting to see though how the "am I being detained" routine is only as effective as the honesty of the officer.