DUI Checkpoint refusal

[p m]

Axel -
this discussion reminded me of a joke I read on a Russian website a few days back -
"The level of democracy can be measured by the average distance between the document checks."

The longest I have ever driven in Russia without being asked for papers was 700 km (between St. Petersburg and Moscow, in mid-January) - which was handy because my van didn't have working brakes. The average - about 50 km.
I think my average no-papers-asked travel distance in the U.S. measures in tens of thousands of miles.

First-time visitors from Russia are uniformly amazed that there are no checkpoints at the entrances and exits from the cities. Mexico, on the other hand, with rifle-wielding troops at checkpoints, appears perfectly normal to them.

 

[Axel]

I do however, pick up numerous DWI patrol shifts every year, where I drive around on patrol, and my sole purpose for being there is to pull over vehicles suspected of being operated by intoxicated drivers.

I don't have a problem with that, and I don't think anyone else here does either - as you would have a reasonable suspicion when you pull someone over. As a matter of fact, I reported a suspected drunk driver on I-80 in PA a few years back, after watching him almost run someone off the road. Turned out my suspicion was right too - the guy was drunk and had already had his license suspended from a previous DUI.

Checkpoints where everyone gets checked regardless of suspicion is another matter entirely. I have a problem with traffic cameras too, for the same reason.

 

[teledan]

If you are not a US Citizen, you are required to carry proof of your immigration status at all times, and produce it on request. That's part of the deal you made to come here legally.

US Citizens on the other hand, are not required to carry proof of anything. So what is a US citizen supposed to produce to prove that they are legal, then? Are we supposed to carry our US passports at all times now? I have a problem with that.

And don't for a second think that the 100 miles from the border zone you can be asked for papers are only along the southern border with Mexico. The zone is 100 miles from *any* US border, that includes the Mexican and Canadian border, as well as the eastern and western coastline. In other words, the areas where the majority of the US population lives.

I don't know about you but I carry ID everywhere I go.

Just to state my opinion here, I don't mind at all telling a police officer (or anybody for that matter) that I am not driving drunk but I don't think I should be forced to. I also think it is stupidity to abuse your rights. When rights are abused, usually they are taken away or restricted. I don't think the right to remain silent was put in place to protect criminals from being punished for their crimes. I think it was put in place for other reasons.

 

[p m]

I don't know about you but I carry ID everywhere I go.

You mean U.S. Passport?
Because your driver's license doesn't state citizenship. And I just checked the CAC card - as federal ID as it gets, and it doesn't state citizenship, either.

 

[Axel]

I don't know about you but I carry ID everywhere I go.

So do I. But if you are a US citizen, how are you going to prove that unless you carry your US passport or birth certificate at all times? Should a CBP officer just take your word for it?

Non US citizens are required by law to carry proof of immigration status. US citizens are not. See the problem here?

 

[ptschram]

Paul,
As far as I'm concerned, If you said to me "I do not wish to submit to interrogation and am leaving", and when you told me that, you didn't reek of booze, and were able to get that sentence out clearly, my response would be, "sorry for inconveniencing you, have a safe drive home." Which would have been my response to 99.99% of the people who went through the stop. That also being said, My town hasn't run a checkpoint in over 2 years. When they did, I rarely worked them, as my personal belief isn't necessarily in complete disagreement with yours. I do however, pick up numerous DWI patrol shifts every year, where I drive around on patrol, and my sole purpose for being there is to pull over vehicles suspected of being operated by intoxicated drivers.

And just remember, according to Article 1 of the US Constitution, african american's are only worth 3/5ths of a white man, and native american are worth nothing. I don't believe that to be true, and I doubt you do either, but I mention that to show that the constitution can not always 100% be all end all. I also disagree with many of the decisions that the Supreme Court has made. And one day we may be able to sit down in private and discuss these. But, the US Supreme Court, along with the NJ Supreme court, along with many other states, has stated that LEO's are not entitled to free speech as granted by the US constitution, and I could be disciplined for whatever I may say on an open internet forum.

Trevor-
I recognize that you and Jason are the good guys and I hope you don't take it personally. I do appreciate what you do and in '96 I came very close to joining you behind that thin blue line (when you have a lot of education and emergency response training, trust me, you get preferential treatment if you're willing to be a patrol officer)-but thank God, I got an engineering job

If I didn't say my piece on these topics, I'd feel remiss. I look forward to our opportunity to discuss such topics. I'm sure it will happen right after I punch Dan in the mouth and hand him a home-brewed beer!

While there may be some portions of the constitution that may not fit our current mindset, there is a means to modify it, a means that is appropriately difficult to exercise.

As for carrying one's passport, I have carried my passport as my primary form of ID since the mid 80s. It is right next to my CCW and when I had one, my FFL.

Benjamin Franklin said that doing everything the law allows is freedom. I wish to be as free as I possibly can.

 

[Divied245]

the fifth amendment doesn't apply until you have been arrested and actually the 5th says nothing to the effect of the right to remain silent, Miranda v. Arizona is where that language came from. If you are stopped for a reasonable and articulable suspicion (terry v. ohio), you may be detained until the officers has confirmed or dispelled the suspicion.
Technically, they could have detained the guy for a reasonable period, but they probably knew it was more hassle than it was worth. They knew the guy was just trying to make a statement and probably not drunk, so let him go. The stop was not unconstitutional, even the second video posted wasn't unconstitutional (unlike what the ass-hat in the video is whining about).

And saying that the constitution and courts are wrong is retarded... With out an element of finality, laws are worthless. If you wish you change things, amend the constitution or bring a case for the Supreme Court to over rule, but don't think you can just disregard what laws have been made, everything will fall apart in a damn hurry.

I used to be under the thought process that, if I'm not doing anything wrong than what's wrong... But, after going to law school, I realize my real rights and I just want to be left alone like this guy did. Would I have done that? Probably not. Just as you aren't doing anything wrong though, neither are the cops.

 

[jim-00-4.6]

Just as you aren't doing anything wrong though, neither are the cops.

But which of the 2 has a gun, and lots of friends with guns behind him, and a shiny badge and the authority to fuck up your life for no other reason than he has to stand outside?

I used to live in this place where people were innocent until they were PROVEN guilty.
Now I live in a place where the government pricks say shit like "if you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have to worry."
I'm NOT doing anything wrong.
Prove that I was.
Or at least have some "reasonable suspicion" of my guilt.
Driving is not "reasonable suspicion" of intoxication.

And while I'm on the subject, what's with arresting people for walking while drunk?
If I'm at a bar, and I drink too much & decide to walk home, why is that a problem?
Obviously, if I'm peeing on someone's porch, that's an issue, but if I'm just staggering home, what's the issue?
I don't have any friends to give me a ride.
I spent all my money on beer, so I can't afford a cab.

Sounds like alcohol should be illegal.
Think of all the lives it would save.
"It's for the children."
Oh, wait. We tried that once, didn't we?

 

[jhk07]

the fifth amendment doesn't apply until you have been arrested and actually the 5th says nothing to the effect of the right to remain silent, Miranda v. Arizona is where that language came from. If you are stopped for a reasonable and articulable suspicion (terry v. ohio), you may be detained until the officers has confirmed or dispelled the suspicion.
Technically, they could have detained the guy for a reasonable period, but they probably knew it was more hassle than it was worth. They knew the guy was just trying to make a statement and probably not drunk, so let him go. The stop was not unconstitutional, even the second video posted wasn't unconstitutional (unlike what the ass-hat in the video is whining about).

And saying that the constitution and courts are wrong is retarded... With out an element of finality, laws are worthless. If you wish you change things, amend the constitution or bring a case for the Supreme Court to over rule, but don't think you can just disregard what laws have been made, everything will fall apart in a damn hurry.

I used to be under the thought process that, if I'm not doing anything wrong than what's wrong... But, after going to law school, I realize my real rights and I just want to be left alone like this guy did. Would I have done that? Probably not. Just as you aren't doing anything wrong though, neither are the cops.

It's not about the 5th. It's about the burden of proof on the state and a person does not have to say anything. Courts are wrong and have made bad decisions. To say we must obey is absurd. I am happy for my freedoms and I know people have it worse than us. But unless I give you a reason, leave me the fuck alone.
You can argue that they are constitutional, these "random" stops. No probable cause, no stop.

 

[Axel]

As for carrying one's passport, I have carried my passport as my primary form of ID since the mid 80s.

That's your choice, of course. But the point is that you are not required to carry it - so if you choose not too, how do you prove you are a US citizen if asked?

 

[Divied245]

I'm in he same boat too. I want all the freedom I can have, but there still must be an order. I'm not saying right or wrong... I'm stating the facts of what the law is, and what is and is not "constitutional" as deemed by the Supreme Court, and to say your above that law absurd.

But which of the 2 has a gun, and lots of friends with guns behind him, and a shiny badge and the authority to fuck up your life for no other reason than he has to stand outside?

The only reason people let this happen is the lack of knowing there rights. Just because cops have guns and badges doesn't mean you have to give up your rights. Dumb people like to consent to things they shouldn't for "fear" of cops getting to them anyways.
I suggest looking at:
US v. Drayton
US v. Mendenhall

It's not about the 5th. It's about the burden of proof on the state and a person does not have to say anything. Courts are wrong and have made bad decisions. To say we must obey is absurd. I am happy for my freedoms and I know people have it worse than us. But unless I give you a reason, leave me the fuck alone.
You can argue that they are constitutional, these "random" stops. No probable cause, no stop.

The part about "not having to say anything" falls kinda under the 5th. Other people brought that point up.

But you want to talk 4th amendment; search and seizure, and burden of proof.

Terry v. Ohio - Police have the right to stop any one for a reasonable amount of time (courts have found in some cases up to a couple hours to be ok.) to confirm or dispel a articulable suspicion that crime is afoot. They don't need probable cause to stop you.

prouse v. delaware - basically said that random stops to find probable cause to arrest is unconstitutional... not analogous to our facts here.

sitz v. michigan department of police - said that if there is higher need for that serves the public interest and as long as the stop is minimally invasive, it is constitutional (particularly drunk driving check points, what this case was about).. the very thing this conversation is about. This fall under a "special exception" needs for warrantless search and seizures.

Argue all you want but the law says they don't need probable cause to stop in certain situations.

Courts are wrong...? to what standard? Just because you disagree doesn't make them wrong. What particular decisions have been wrong? Site some cases.





Trust me, I love to not be hassled any more than then next, and I have actually told a cop to kiss my ass, But the law is the law. love it or hate it, your not above it.

 

[ptschram]

That's your choice, of course. But the point is that you are not required to carry it - so if you choose not too, how do you prove you are a US citizen if asked?

Having had my drivers license confiscated on a few occasions, I've realized that a driver's license is a license to drive, NOT an identification card.

 

[Blue]

I found this amusing and very sad at the same time.

<object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/R-Qg0C0WdJg?version=3&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/R-Qg0C0WdJg?version=3&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

That was funny. "You're number 5, you're in big trouble!" "You're number 5, you don't have any constitutional rights!"

Personally, I think cops love DUI checkpoints just because they love to set up orange cones and use their flashlights.

 

[Devildog01]

I like the fact that if your number 1-4 you could be shifaced and have a dead hooker in your trunk and pass rite bye.

 

[Axel]

Having had my drivers license confiscated on a few occasions, I've realized that a driver's license is a license to drive, NOT an identification card.

You brought it up:

We might not have border patrol checkpoints 100 miles from the border (WTF? We don't have a fence but you stop law abiding citizens and demand their papers?) if the citizenry hadn't all been good sheeple and gone along with it because it's "for our own safety".

Your drivers license has nothing to do with anything in this context. You may choose to carry your US passport as identification, but there is no law saying you as a US citizen is required to carry or even own one as long as you stay within US borders. Let's for arguments sake say you don't have your passport with you, and at some border patrol checkpoint you are asked about your immigration status by a CBP officer who thinks you are a Canadian. What do you do then?

Papieren, bitte.

 

[ptschram]

Let's for arguments sake say you don't have your passport with you, and at some border patrol checkpoint you are asked about your immigration status by a CBP officer who thinks you are a Canadian. What do you do then?

Papieren, bitte.

Tell him to go fuck himself unless he has clear and articulable suspicion. Then when i get in front of the judge, I tell him HE should be in jail for contempt as he is contemptuous of law abiding citizens and he should be shot, or better yet, hanged for his treasonous acts.

Now you see why the right to remain silent is so important.

Although, I did once again prove my inability to exercise that right when I refused jury duty recently and wrote on the form that the judges, prosecutor and sheriff should all be shot for their actions disarming m as a law-abiding American citizen.

I won't have to sit on any juries for quite some time.

 

[msggunny]

Dont drink and drive, you wont have anything to worry about.

Fight to get all the check points taken off then road, then dont bitch when a drunk crashes into your families minivan and kills everyone except for him/herself.

LEO's are stretched thin as it is.

Its funny, everyone seems to give the guys enforcing the rules shit until something bad happens to them.

 

[brian4d]

As stated DUI checkpoints don't work and some (including myself) see them as unconstitutional. NCHWP parks their cruisers all over the interstates here during the holidays. Theses are unmanned cruisers that just sit in one place. People slow down, it works and it's cheap.

If you want drunks off the road how about offer the general public a finders fee of sort. Give $50 or $100 for every reported driver under the influence. If it turns out they were drunk, reward the the whistle blower some cash. Drunk drivers would disappear off the road...

 

[ptschram]

As stated DUI checkpoints don't work and some (including myself) see them as unconstitutional. NCHWP parks their cruisers all over the interstates here during the holidays. Theses are unmanned cruisers that just sit in one place. People slow down, it works and it's cheap.

If you want drunks off the road how about offer the general public a finders fee of sort. Give $50 or $100 for every reported driver under the influence. If it turns out they were drunk, reward the the whistle blower some cash. Drunk drivers would disappear off the road...

Thank you for your support of the constitution!

Unfortunately, I'm afraid your bounty would be an unavoidable attraction to too many folks and might well tie up precious law enforcement resources that could be better spent patrolling.

I think we have plenty of folks who will not hesitate to pick up their cellphone to call the authorities if they see someone driving poorly-that's probably plenty of incentive right there.

As it is, due to efforts of so many organizations, we HAVE significantly reduced all driving fatalities and now we are into the mode of public control, not safety improvement.

More folks are injured tuning the radio, in conversations with passengers or applying cosmetics than are killed due to cellphones or being chemically impaired.

 

[Axel]

Tell him to go fuck himself unless he has clear and articulable suspicion. Then when i get in front of the judge, I tell him HE should be in jail for contempt as he is contemptuous of law abiding citizens and he should be shot, or better yet, hanged for his treasonous acts.

Now you see why the right to remain silent is so important.

Although, I did once again prove my inability to exercise that right when I refused jury duty recently and wrote on the form that the judges, prosecutor and sheriff should all be shot for their actions disarming m as a law-abiding American citizen.

I won't have to sit on any juries for quite some time.

I pretty much feel the same way, allthough my answer would probably be more along the lines of "I prefer not to answer your question. Are you detaining me, or am I free to go?"

These immigration checkpoints are another step towards a requirement for some kind of national ID, and it bothers me.