4th of July DUI Checkpoint - Drug Dogs, Searched Without Consent. Is This Legal?

reply to post by jude11


I am all for protecting freedom, but this video simply screams "set up". First, the guy provokes the police, when they are simply pulling him over. His immediate first response was to refuse to lower the window. If this was a DUI check (and we have only his word on that), then this would raise immediate suspicion in the police. I believe he did this intentionally. Note that he was recording from the start, as though he had an idea something would happen. Instead of simply offering courtesy, he provokes, guaranteeing a negative response of some sort. He could have stated that his window wasn't working properly. If that had been me, that would be a fact. He instead made it look as though he had something to hide. Next, he edits the video, so that we cannot see everything that the dog does, so we have, again, only his word that there were no legitimate hits. We also have only his word that he wasn't actually arrested for something they did find. We don't hear the comments he claims the officer made. Plus, directing a dog to check an area does NOT promote a false hit, as he claims. The dog simply sniffs. It's very possible the guy put something, some residue, on the car to cause the dog to react, just so that he could complain. Is it possible that the police in this case overstepped the boundaries? Sure. It happens. However, we don't see the proof here, and there is plenty to suggest he set this whole thing up. He even tried refusing to pull to the side when told. The police can pull people over legally, if they have reason to suspect a crime, such as driving under the influence. His shady behavior provided the reason.

I just had an added thought. it's entirely possible that the police found something on his person, and/or that he failed a sobriety check, and that's why they brought in a dog and searched the vehicle.

Originally posted by jude11

Originally posted by whyamIhere
Gestapo type checkpoints...

Show me your papers.

Dogs are just a ploy to obtain a phony warrant.

This should go viral....The kid still has rights.

At a DUI check point...from what I understand, you ask if the driver has been drinking and if there is reasonable suspicion, take a breath test. Now blood can be demanded or forcibly taken but that's another thread.

Do they have the right now to detain, search etc?

Peace

The bigger question seems to be, are these checkpoints legal? If the police do stop you for some valid reason, and then have suspicion of drugs or something, they can search. They do have to have a real reason, though. Some probable cause. If this guy was actually innocent, he could have simply pulled over, exited the car, and locked the door, pocketing the keys. Then, they can't just look in and "see" some probable cause. Now, it's entirely possible for a cop to claim the person looks under the influence of some drug, and use that as an excuse, which is flat WRONG. I still think this was set up, though. That we don't see the most damning actions or hear the comments makes me suspicious.

All in all, though, it's the idea of a checkpoint, at all, that bugs me.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes


If it was simply about DUI they would do other things then mess with people at checkpoints I am going to tell you that you should research this for yourself and come up with your own conclusions here let me help

For your review if interested:

here

Your going to do a whole lot of math and fact checking here

How about the next invasive tactic for levity

I find it odd that the CDC claims between Drugs and Alcohol while driving encompasses %49 of all traffic fatalities in 2010 %31 alcohol and %18 Drugs while at the same time

"There were 3,092 deaths in distraction-related accidents in 2010, but the number is likely much higher."

(EdgarSnyder an all that fun stuff)

and all accounts claim that there is more deaths than this related so what comes next distracted drivers killed more then drugged drivers?

"How to reverse the trend? “Criminal charges for texting while driving and routine examination of cell phone records in accident investigations may act as effective deterrents to drivers,” they suggested.

The study was published online Thursday by the American Journal of Public Health."

Routine checks of phones at your DUI checkpoints next? I could crunch all the numbers but something is very askew with the numbers.


this is just a tip of the ice berg this is also a small grasp on something I privatley emailed someone for ppl that just cannot and will not do some real research if you want your constitution thrown in then here have some of this
RIGHT HERE

RIGHTS The "most sacred of liberties" of which Justice Tolman spoke was personal liberty. The definition of personal liberty is: "Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property ... and is regarded as inalienable." 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987 This concept is further amplified by the definition of personal liberty: "Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct." II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135 and further ... "Personal liberty -- consists of the power of locomotion, of changing situations, of removing one's person to whatever place one's inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due process of law." Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed.; Blackstone's Commentary 134; Hare, Constitution, Pg. 777

Then when it all hits you that its more for profit and all the neat little numbers make you say wtf my wtf moment came when the numbers say 1% of 112 million ppl are stopped at checkpoint and is worthwhile was there but really I was amused at them at the CDC using source number 3 with the UCR to site preventative measures the UCR provides statistics not a definative source to claim lower BAC and raise alcohol taxes but when you invest quite a few hours into it maybe you will draw other conclusions but I will say it is a flashy trend

reply to post by Brotherman


Interesting links. That is why I stated my issues is with the checkpoints, not this particular video. Checkpoints can be avoided, and frequently, they arrest people that PASS a breathalizer. Yes, indeed, all about the money, AND the power. People accept such checkpoints, assuming they will be safer on the road. Any real drunk will know where these things are, and avoid them. They have had checkpoints for years, and people still drive drunk, and wreck. Placing all the cops at the checkpoints on patrol near the bars, looking for bad driving, would be FAR more effective. That would not, however, make people complacent to being stopped, questioned, even searched, without complaint, in most cases. I haven't seen checkpoints for phones, but I KNOW that they have, in some places (like where I live), told police to stop people on a cell phone, even if the person isn't driving erratically or dangerously. Under the Constitution, we should be able to do whatever we want in our vehicles, as long as we aren't a safety hazard or otherwise infringing on the liberties of others. As it is, we have arbitrary limits on alcohol (ONE drink, for most people, is all you can do without crossing the limit), restrictions in many areas about simple communication, and talk about more. I have no issues with a cop pulling over someone who is driving unsafely, for whatever reason. I do have issues with them pulling someone over who is NOT unsafe, simply because of some random action. What next? Laws like they have in Japan, that you cannot eat in your car? No radio? No conversations with passengers? No scratching your nose? Then it will be pedestrian infractions. "Papers, please, and welcome to Nazi USA."

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes


if anything it makes drunks drive i mean hardcore drunks drive earlier to avoid them read the links and do a little math read a little and draw a conclusion and make a stance this thread is dead I could go on forever about this topic but I did go pretty deep into research more than enough for a college paper just for a thread because i was suspicious lol you dont need to roll a window down all the way if this guy wasnt recording he might have been shackled and beaten and threatened to be electrocuted cause it happened to me once by harrisburg PA cops and i was in a cab something to think about

read the links about your phone you let them have checkpoints now what do you think happens next I could play rag doll all day


also my links dont provide evidence to much of anything unless you do the math yourself they claim 49% of all people killed on highways are by either A DUI or B Drugs but claim 1/4th of the 32800 + ppl killed on the highway each year is by cell phones but dont have a number also if you have alcohol in your trunk and the accident happens it is also an alcohol related fatality your numbers are cooked do the research put intellect first and emotions last just because you think does not make it right I really encourage you to actually read and research
Check this out as well If you would rather watch things

Originally posted by Brotherman
reply to post by raifordko

 

In texas they check your vagina for POT apparently

Constitutional Law surpasses state law in any state as far as I know, but has it ever dawned on you that constitution or not you were born with rights therefore you shouldnt need a piece of paper anyways to tell you about this as a libertarian I hope you have read this

The Law by Frederic Ba...

1) you are correct that federal constitional law overrides state law, but the federal constitution and the 4th amendment, according to the SCOTUS, allow DUI checkpoints.

2) Your link shows an actual illegal search and detainment. One officer was already fired, the other suspended and probably being fired. The department will have the # sued out of them and will lose. Apples to oranges.

Dont know if this has been mentioned or not, but I believe there's confusion here between something being either legal.illegal & something being moral/immoral.

At one time slavery was legal. (Obviously) Did that make it right? Was helping slaves escape illegal? Yes. Was it moral? Yes.

I think what's scarier is that alot of ppl can't discern the difference between these two terms. You actually have to explain to some of these "yes men" that just b/c it's "legal" don't make it right!

reply to post by schadenfreude


I think you meant "Is it moral? No", as slavery was extremely immoral...

Now on to your next point. I am not a yes man. I am a Libertarian who views this as a gross violation of the original intent of the Constitution and a huge impedance to personal liberty. However, that doesn't change the fact that this is, was and for the foreseeable future will be, legal.

You can't decide to break the law though because you think a law is immoral. The kid in the OP video knew the 4th amendment and his bill of rights. However, what he did not know is that the USA views the constitution as a living document, and the definition of the 4th amendment has changed over the last 40 years. He can in no way argue this while at a traffic stop as if he disagreed he needs to spend the time and money to get it back in front of the SCOTUS. He should be more knowledgeable of his local laws instead of the Alex Jones version of his constitutional rights.

Edit: The very question raised in the title of this thread is "Is this Legal?". The answer to that question is:

YES! In TN, thanks to their state supreme court, and eventually the Supreme Court of the United States, DUI checkpoints in TN are perfectly Legal. TN also expanded their definition of a Legal Traffic stop to include the following:

1) Reasonable Suspicion
2) Pretext Stops
3) Specific and Articulated Facts from Others
4) Roadblocks or sobriety checkpoints

As you can see from their 4th definition, that means while stopped at a DUI checkpoint you must comply with officers commands. This isn't some DHS immigration checkpoint 50 miles from the border. This is a Legal Traffic Stop as defined by TN law and it has been upheld by the SCOTUS.

This guy was also never searched without consent. Whether the dog was "triggered" manually or not, they were within the right of the law to do everything they did.

Originally posted by Brotherman
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

if anything it makes drunks drive i mean hardcore drunks drive earlier to avoid them read the links and do a little math read a little and draw a conclusion and make a stance this thread is dead I could go on forever about this topic but I did go pretty deep into research more than enough for a college paper just for a thread because i was suspicious lol you dont need to roll a window down all the way if this guy wasnt recording he might have been shackled and beaten and threatened to be electrocuted cause it happened to me once by harrisburg PA cops and i was in a cab something to think about

read the links about your phone you let them have checkpoints now what do you think happens next I could play rag doll all day

edit on 10-7-2013 by Brotherman because: (no reason given)

also my links dont provide evidence to much of anything unless you do the math yourself they claim 49% of all people killed on highways are by either A DUI or B Drugs but claim 1/4th of the 32800 + ppl killed on the highway each year is by cell phones but dont have a number also if you have alcohol in your trunk and the accident happens it is also an alcohol related fatality your numbers are cooked do the research put intellect first and emotions last just because you think does not make it right I really encourage you to actually read and research
Check this out as well If you would rather watch things

edit on 10-7-2013 by Brotherman because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-7-2013 by Brotherman because: (no reason given)

Oh, I have actually SEEN posts on FB talking about where a DUI checkpoint would be set up. I would bet that this is frequent. I have done some reading in the past on the numbers, and it's clear they are manipulated. They do the same with cell phones. If a person has one, and is on it, they assume the accident was caused by the phone, for their statistics. I can completely agree that there can be good reason to record. However, that's only one factor that leads me to believe this person set this up. There may well have been real misbehavior on the part of the police, but he may have been claiming things not true, as well. Something about his video reminded me of one where some actual drug users/dealers were blaming police for their children being present when the cops showed up to bust them.

Originally posted by Helious
The short answer is no, it's not legal. The long answer is that they do it anyway and if you force the issue, your are usually tasered, arrested, battered and go to jail. Perhaps you get off in court but that's after you post bail, pay to get your car out of the impound yard, hire a lawyer and pay all your legal fees, in the meantime, no action, none at all is taken against the officers who falsely arrested you. That's why they do it, because they don't care and there is no consequence for it.

You speak the truth. If you even hint at knowing your rights, they get pissed and think you are talking back. You raise your voice, and bam you are in cuffs or tazered like you said. Its said, we cant even get together anymore.

You cant sti outside of any government instalation or where ever you please, to protest without the government or police sending in shock troops or false agents to incite a riot. You cant be outspoken at pollitical ralleys either.

THEY HAVE FREEDOM OF SPEECH ZONES. That is the most insaine thing I have ever heard of. So now you get sectioned off, to become a nuisance to others. Its horss#it. They abuse thier power, they abuse everyone that stands in thier way, and dont care. We cant do anything to stop any of this. The government should fear us not the other way around. The French have it right.

reply to post by Tylerdurden1


No, he doesn't speak the truth. IT ABSOLUTELY IS LEGAL! How are you people not getting that point? TN Passed state laws to allow it. They also passed definition changes to include DUI roadblocks to be considered a legal traffic stops (In case you don't understand that part, it means you must comply with reasonable requests of an officer while at the stop, this includes rolling your window down). This went to the supreme court of the united states and they said it is allowed constitutionally. So yes, it is absolutely legal and according to the court who determines if something is constitutional or not, they said it is.

Edit: If you don't like it, move to one of the 12 states who have banned DUI checkpoints (as all states should)

Originally posted by raifordko
reply to post by Tylerdurden1

 

No, he doesn't speak the truth. IT ABSOLUTELY IS LEGAL! How are you people not getting that point? TN Passed state laws to allow it. They also passed definition changes to include DUI roadblocks to be considered a legal traffic stops (In case you don't understand that part, it means you must comply with reasonable requests of an officer while at the stop, this includes rolling your window down). This went to the supreme court of the united states and they said it is allowed constitutionally. So yes, it is absolutely legal and according to the court who determines if something is constitutional or not, they said it is.

Edit: If you don't like it, move to one of the 12 states who have banned DUI checkpoints (as all states should)

edit on 15-7-2013 by raifordko because: (no reason given)

I think those checkpoints are a good thing dont get me wrong. When its used for a platform of abusing rights, or harassment, then I have a problem. Im not saying get rid of them, hell if we did that there would probably be a whole lot more dead people. I was just agreeing with the whole tazer thing, and peoples rights getting taken away. I know full well they are leagl they have them here, every 4th of July and most every holliday.

reply to post by Tylerdurden1



I personally think it is an infringement on personal liberty, and allowing checkpoints opened up the ability for those States to eventually create them for any reason they wish. TN is especially dirty for adjusting the definition of a traffic stop to include roadblocks in that it forces the occupant of the vehicle to comply or be arrested. These little gives of personal liberty for overall security are the tip of the iceberg if people continue to vote for congressman, senators and govenors who dont respect the original intent of the constitution.

reply to post by raifordko


I agree with you on that as well. A DUI check point and telling people to get get out of their cars fror a "Random" check are two different things. If its not a DUI check point then they dont need a check point to begin with. That reminds me a hell of a lot like Martial Law.

gastopo at its finest