Man Handled DUI CheckPoint Like A Boss

[Father Kit Cool Gun Garth]

 

[Major Hazzard, SASS #23254]

Friend of yours?

[Rye Miles #13621]

Really??

[Rip Snorter]

Back in the day, I would have had the window lowered and the license in my hand.  How many guys that age do you know that chew gum?!

[Colorado Coffinmaker]

 

Ah, Let's not turn The Saloon into You Tube shall we

[Alpo]

Personally, I consider DUI checkpoints to be illegal. Unconstitutional. I'm stopped for doing absolutely nothing wrong, on the off chance that I might be committing a crime.

 

Papiere bitte!!

 

Now, having said that, the guy in the car was an ass.

[Dantankerous]

57 minutes ago, Alpo said:

Personally, I consider DUI checkpoints to be illegal. Unconstitutional. I'm stopped for doing absolutely nothing wrong, on the off chance that I might be committing a crime.

 

Papiere bitte!!

 

Now, having said that, the guy in the car was an ass.

1000% exactly.

[Trigger Mike]

While I hate taking time

out of my day to stop for one, having been an officer I know they are a benefit to society.  Someone being a jerk only would raise my suspicion 

[Pat Riot]

1 hour ago, Alpo said:

Personally, I consider DUI checkpoints to be illegal. Unconstitutional. I'm stopped for doing absolutely nothing wrong, on the off chance that I might be committing a crime.

 

Papiere bitte!!

 

Now, having said that, the guy in the car was an ass.

I agree 100%
 

I was stopped in CA in a small desert town at a DUI checkpoint by the CHP. I was courteous but firm and rattled off two penal codes and one vehicle code they were violating by stopping me under the assumption I may have been drinking. 
I got a terse smile and a “Have a nice evening, Sir.” And away I went. 

[Widder, SASS #59054]

My guess is that the majority of those officers are super nice guys who would normally NOT be in favor of

any kind of 'stop' check points.   BUT, somebody on City Council or someone sitting behind a big oak desk

has decided to strut authority and has assigned the street LEO's a job to make it look like they are preventing

crime.    Of course, downtown in the back alleys or on Main Street USA, a door is being busted open by

crooks trying to steal a home owners belongings.

 

..........Widder

 

[The Original Lumpy Gritz]

Driving is a privilege, not a right. 

That guy in the video was a 110% AH!

[El Chapo]

40 minutes ago, The Original Lumpy Gritz said:

Driving is a privilege, not a right. 

That guy in the video was a 110% AH!

 

Yet traveling is a right.  As is being free from unreasonable seizures.

 

Seems like a useless distinction.

[Pat Riot]

2 hours ago, The Original Lumpy Gritz said:

Driving is a privilege, not a right. 

That guy in the video was a 110% AH!

Read item 10 of this Supreme Court finding. 
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-7237/215263/20220301155927765_20220301-153600-00002217-00002863.pdf

Yeah, the guy’s an AH, but he ain’t wrong. 

Edited September 2 by Pat Riot

[El Chapo]

35 minutes ago, Pat Riot said:

Read item 10 of this Supreme Court finding. 
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-7237/215263/20220301155927765_20220301-153600-00002217-00002863.pdf

Yeah, the guy’s an AH, but he ain’t wrong. 

 

That is a brief, not an opinion of the Court.

[John Kloehr]

45 minutes ago, Pat Riot said:

Read item 10 of this Supreme Court finding. 
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-7237/215263/20220301155927765_20220301-153600-00002217-00002863.pdf

Yeah, the guy’s an AH, but he ain’t wrong. 

Filing of a petition (request for certiorari), not a finding. Petition denied (21-7237):

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/051622zor_hgcj.pdf

 

On edit: The guy gave up his SSN for religious reasons, can't get a DL without an SSN (or other TID) in his home state. I respect his beliefs. He is still free to travel, just not by driving a car in his home state.

Edited September 3 by John Kloehr

[Pat Riot]

2 hours ago, El Chapo said:

 

That is a brief, not an opinion of the Court.

 

1 hour ago, John Kloehr said:

Filing of a petition (request for certiorari), not a finding. Petition denied (21-7237):

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/051622zor_hgcj.pdf

 

On edit: The guy gave up his SSN for religious reasons, can't get a DL without an SSN (or other TID) in his home state. I respect his beliefs. He is still free to travel, just not by driving a car in his home state.

Yep, my mistake. 
 

I’d still drive anyway. I drove for 7 years without a license. Age 15 to 22. Never got pulled over. 

[Ozark Huckleberry]

10 hours ago, Pat Riot said:

Read item 10 of this Supreme Court finding. 
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-7237/215263/20220301155927765_20220301-153600-00002217-00002863.pdf

Yeah, the guy’s an AH, but he ain’t wrong. 

 

SCOTUS upheld DUI checkpoints: Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990)

 

"In sum, the balance of the State's interest in preventing drunken driving, the extent to which this system can reasonably be said to advance that interest, and the degree of intrusion upon individual motorists who are briefly stopped, weighs in favor of the state program. We therefore hold that it is consistent with the Fourth Amendment. The judgment of the Michigan Court of Appeals is accordingly reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion."

 

Plenty of dissenting opinions, but it came down to the 'legitimate interest' balanced against the 'degree of intrusion'.

 

Don't like 'em, myself. 

 

One variation on the theme I saw locally was a deputy wearing a grungy field jacket over his uniform, holding a hand-lettered cardboard sign, standing in the median at an intersection. Looked for all the world like a panhandler begging change (except for the well-pressed uniform pants). All the sign said was, 'Please drive safe'. But when cars pulled to a stop at the light, he'd walk along beside them, looking in their windows to check for open containers. When he saw one, he'd notify deputies waiting further down the road to pull the car over.

[Subdeacon Joe]

12 hours ago, The Original Lumpy Gritz said:

Driving is a privilege, not a right. 

That guy in the video was a 110% AH!

 

He was terse, but 111% within his rights.   He wasn't insulting,  unless you consider stating your intention to exercise your rights being an AH.

[Pat Riot]

Pretty sure the smart phone now makes all check points pretty useless. 

[Subdeacon Joe]

3 hours ago, Pat Riot said:

Pretty sure the smart phone now makes all check points pretty useless. 

 

Santa Rosa Police Department has them from time to time, usually late on a Friday night, say about 2300 Friday to 0200 Saturday.  When they release the report they always seem to have nailed 2 or 3 idjits for driving under the influence.  Every once in a while nab someone for "felon in possession of a firearm."

Idjits.

[Colorado Coffinmaker]

Unfortunately, there is entirely way too much KRAP floating around the internet and especially You tube.  DUI checks are quite legal.  Asking for your Drivers License is legal.  We do have the right to refuse to answer questions.  Failure to show a valid Drivers License can lead to arrest and having your vehicle impounded.  Most  self righteous indignation is just so much horse puckey and can lead to a stay in the Grey Barr Resort.

[Texas Jack Black]

On 9/2/2024 at 1:46 PM, Alpo said:

Personally, I consider DUI checkpoints to be illegal. Unconstitutional. I'm stopped for doing absolutely nothing wrong, on the off chance that I might be committing a crime.

 

Papiere bitte!!

 

Now, having said that, the guy in the car was an ass.

 You are on a public road.  they can and do stop cars

[Cypress Sun]

7 hours ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

 

Santa Rosa Police Department has them from time to time, usually late on a Friday night, say about 2300 Friday to 0200 Saturday.  When they release the report they always seem to have nailed 2 or 3 idjits for driving under the influence.  Every once in a while nab someone for "felon in possession of a firearm."

Idjits.

 

They do them around here about once a month and EVERY holiday. When they do them, they run multiple locations in the Tampa Bay area. Always get around 20 drunks, 15 or so expired registration/license/etc., always at least one felon with firearm and at least one arrest on a bench warrant.

 

The drivers that spot the checkpoint and do a U-turn or obvious evasive turn will FOR SURE get followed and pulled over. I think they look for that more than anything else.

 

Personally, I detest drunk driving...that said (and regardless of what the court rules), I feel that the random DUI checks are a violation of the Constitution and am therefore against them.

[John Kloehr]

9 minutes ago, Cypress Sun said:

...that said (and regardless of what the court rules), I feel that the random DUI checks are a violation of the Constitution and am therefore against them.

This came up in a west-coast state many (40?) years ago. The state made several changes to the DUI checkpoints.

 

First, no longer a DUI checkpoint, it was a vehicle safety inspection. License, registration, insurance, tire tread, taillights, turn signals, driver coherence.

 

Second, random was not acceptable, so pull over everyone on a particular road.

 

Third, they put a sticker on the windshield good for a year; not really a full free pass but current stickers did get verified and released from the line.

 

Within a few years, the safety program was dropped as not cost effective.

[Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619]

We don't have these in this state; at least I've never encountered one nor heard of one.

[John Kloehr]

Separate memory, driver training in high school at 15-1/2, got license at 16.

 

High school instructor informed us that if we were pulled over on a bicycle, we did (by law) have to identify ourselves.

 

If we were pulled over driving a vehicle, we had to present our driver's license.

 

But we did not have to present our driver's license if we were pulled over while on a bicycle, we just had to identify ourselves. And if we did present our driver's license when pulled over on a bicycle, any ticketed violation would go against our vehicle driving record.

 

Fast forward some weeks after I got my driver's license and was on my bicycle (gasoline costs money). I ran a stop sign. Well, I joined a bunch of other riders who crossed when the officer stopped the vehicles so riders who were waiting could cross. And I came up on the tail end of the riders who were not yet moving so I continued across with them.

 

The officer who controlled the intersection flagged me over for not stopping at the stop sign... Seriously?

 

So he asked me for my driver's license and I stated I was not operating a motor vehicle. He asked me if I had a driver's license and I informed him I was a licensed driver. He then asked if I was refusing to identify myself. Absolutely not, I can identity myself. Then why won't I present my driver's license? Because I am not operating a motor vehicle. He then asked me why I would not give him my name... Because you have not asked for my name. WHAT IS YOUR NAME! I gave it. Same for address when requested. He then asked why I did not stop for the stop sign. I stated it was because he directed the entire group to cross. He wrote me up a warning for not stopping.

 

So while I recognize the guy in the video was being a dick, I note it is not illegal to be one.

Edited September 3 by John Kloehr

[Badlands Bob #61228]

We had to do some research on the location we were planning on doing the road check.  We had to stipulate on the form what we were looking for and why.  Example:  3 DUI related traffic accidents on that road in the past month.   The biggest problem was getting enough manpower to work the road check.  If any officer pulled a car out of the line to write a ticket, he would be busy for at least 15 minutes.   It's very easy to get all your officers busy writing tickets or transporting criminals to jail.  

 

If some guy rolled up and and just cracked his window, was chewing gum and started all that 'I'm not answering any questions" business, he is either drunk or a sovereign citizen.  Both of which need further scrutiny. 

 

I understand the police are kinder and gentler these days.  It's probably a good thing I retired when I did.  

[Subdeacon Joe]

5 minutes ago, Badlands Bob #61228 said:

If some guy rolled up and and just cracked his window, was chewing gum and started all that 'I'm not answering any questions" business, he is either drunk or a sovereign citizen.  Both of which need further scrutiny. 

 

You say that  insisting that LEOs respect your civil rights means you’re guilty?

 

Interesting bit of jurisprudence. 

 

In California what he did was perfectly within that law.  He showed his ID when requested, and also informed the deputy that he was not answering questions.  Doesn't matter that he was chewing gum.  

 

Say a department set up an "Illegal Firearms Checkpoint."  Would you allow a random pat down?  Even if you weren't carrying or had a  CW?  

 

≈============

 

As I was typing this response it struck me that he acted a lot like many LEOs do when they pull someone over.  Brusk,  terse, just short of being rude. 

 

And,  before all the LEOs here,  both  current and former,  dog pile on me for saying that ALL  cops are rude AHs, note that I didn't even say most, just "many." 

 

25 minutes ago, Badlands Bob #61228 said:

It's probably a good thing I retired when I did.  

 

Yes,it probably is.....

[Alpo]

16 minutes ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

Would you allow a random pat down?  Even if you weren't carrying or had a  CW? 

And New York City they call that a stop and frisk. Everywhere else they call it a Terry stop.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-and-frisk_in_New_York_City

 

Pretty sure the Supreme Court has declared it constitutional.

 

 

[John Kloehr]

I do want to contrast my youthful west coast experiences with those as an adult in Tennessee. I have not met a finer group of LEOs anywhere else.

 

There was that time when a rat nest caught fire under the hood of a borrowed vehicle, I was sweaty, needed a shave and haircut, and my clothes were ratty. No issue with the pistol on my belt, no request for ID, just dealt with the presenting problem (underhood fire). Did I need the fire department? No, but take a cruise up to where I came from, I have no idea if I might have dropped flames along the road. I did thank and suggest the group who stopped to help and put out the fire with bottles of drinking water take off when the officer pulled up, they looked nervous.

 

Did get pulled over for 60 in a 45. Long story, but no intent to speed, just flow of traffic. Informed officer of my sidearm, no problem, got a warning for two violations (speed and headlight out, headlight is why he chose me out of the line).

 

In another event, got called to the bottom of the mountain for a friend in an accident (hit and run). Officer asked me if I had a permit for my sidearm. "Yes sir, I do, I forgot to grab my cover garment when I got the text for this." No followup to prove a license (license was for open or concealed). It was my bad for not concealing.

 

LEOs around here have been stand-up straight with me, maybe just because I am no longer under 20 (or 30). Maybe because this is not a "progressive" area. Anyway, honest citizens going about their legitimate business do not seem to be either an enforcement priority or a revenue generator. Not sure tourists get the same deference though; the Carolina Squat is now outlawed and locals know not to do stupid stuff during any car event.

Edited September 4 by John Kloehr

[Subdeacon Joe]

37 minutes ago, Alpo said:

And New York City they call that a stop and frisk. Everywhere else they call it a Terry stop.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-and-frisk_in_New_York_City

 

Pretty sure the Supreme Court has declared it constitutional.

 

 

 

 

58 minutes ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

Say a department set up an "Illegal Firearms Checkpoint."  Would you allow a random pat down?  Even if you weren't carrying or had a  CW?  

 

You left out  the part about it being  an  organized Checkpoint.  Completely different.  A Terry Stop involves some REASONABLE  suspicion.   The checkpoint is stopping and frisking EVERYONE.  Are you saying that the LEOs have reasonable suspicion for every person to be searched?

[Widder, SASS #59054]

Most of 'US' seem to form our opinions of folks based on YouTube videos.   And we base our opinions on 'groups of people', like

LEO's, based on YouTube videos.

 

The problem is....... ONLY the negative videos are shown on YouTube.    Nobody puts the good stuff on YouTube cause it doesn't

garner much attention.

 

My guess is that there are THOUSANDS of vehicle stops everyday and hundreds of those stops are probably being filmed

with a GoPro or Phone.    Only some folks want to be put on YouTube so they stage a situation and make themselves look 'tough'

and put it on YouTube for the gullible YouTube watchers.

 

We all know there are bad LEO's among the many good ones.   HECK, it ain't much different than politicians or even

Preachers or TV Evangelist.    

 

I doubt we will ever see a YouTube video of an LEO giving some life support help to an elderly heart attack victim before

First Responder could arrive.   Or delivering a new born from a screaming mother who didn't make it to the hopital

and get her epidermal before delivery.       Those type of things don't seem to get filmed and put on YouTube.

 

Y'all have a good day.   

And God Bless those in uniform who stand in harms way and take great efforts to help keep us safe.

 

..........Widder

 

[Subdeacon Joe]

16 minutes ago, Widder, SASS #59054 said:

I doubt we will ever see a YouTube video of an LEO giving some life support help to an elderly heart attack victim before

First Responder could arrive.   Or delivering a new born from a screaming mother who didn't make it to the hopital

and get her epidermal before delivery.       Those type of things don't seem to get filmed and put on YouTube.

 

 

Ah...

Yes, there are quite a few of LEOs rendering aid in medical emergencies.  Even one of a female cop who couldn't swim going into a pond to rescue a kid, then performs CPR

 

Or crawling out on the ice

 

 

 

 

  Also of cops sitting on a porch step with a lonely kid, just shooting the breeze and keeping him company for a few minutes.  Or shooting hoops.  Or playing catch with a football.  Jumping rope with kids.  Even breakdancing
 

 

 

 

Or just plain dancing
 

 

 

But this one takes the cake:
 

 

 

So, yeah, there will NEVER be a video on YouTube showing cops in a good light. OK, I'll give you that none of those examples were of a cop giving aid to an elderly heart attack victim, so you are probably right about that.

 

Quote

 And we base our opinions on 'groups of people', like

LEO's, based on YouTube videos.

 

I would add that those 'groups of people' include YouTube.

[Major Hazzard, SASS #23254]

On 9/3/2024 at 4:54 AM, Subdeacon Joe said:

 

He was terse, but 111% within his rights.   He wasn't insulting,  unless you consider stating your intention to exercise your rights being an AH.

No, I consider acting like an AH means being an AH.  It's like just about any other conversation one may have with a stranger, police officer or otherwise.  You're under no obligation to be enthusiastic, but being an AH, like that guy, is a choice better taken elsewhere,.  A civil servant just doing his job doesn't deserve that attitude.  It amounts to bullying in my view, certainly nothing to be proud of.  

[Subdeacon Joe]

46 minutes ago, Major Hazzard, SASS #23254 said:

No, I consider acting like an AH means being an AH.  It's like just about any other conversation one may have with a stranger, police officer or otherwise.  You're under no obligation to be enthusiastic, but being an AH, like that guy, is a choice better taken elsewhere,.  A civil servant just doing his job doesn't deserve that attitude.  It amounts to bullying in my view, certainly nothing to be proud of.  

 

I don't see him as being an AH. Being brus, terse, whatever,  isn't being an AH.

Did he insult the deputy?  No.

Did he belittle the deputy? No.

Did he make any disparaging remarks?  No.

Did he refuse to display ID?  No.

 

Could he have been less abrupt?  Yes.  But so could the deputy. 

He pretty much echoed the attitude of the deputy.