DUI Check Point Constitutionality.

I think Constitutionalist weirdos like that guy in the video are healthy for our society. I also like to explain to weirdos like that, that in Texas we can arrest for anything other than open container or speeding by instantering them. Most of them stop being dicks about that time.

I had a guy try to tell me he did not want to be detained or answer questions regarding a traffic accident. I explained that he was being lawfully detained pursuant to my investigation and could not speak to the the other party at that time. When I cited him, I explained that since all other witnesses said it was his fault and he did not not deny it (because he refused to speak to me) I had no alternative but to cite him... all evidence pointed to his being at fault. When he tried to refuse to sign the ticket I explained I thought it would be a waste of his time and mine if he did not sign and I had to arrest him... but that I would do it if he refused. He signed the ticket. Nothing wrong with respecting people's rights.

 

I believe the section I highlighted of your post is incorrect.

You might want to post the entire Kansas implied consent law and then re-read it. It is similiar to the California law in one specific way.

Can you guess what it is ? Lol

 

As firm as my feelings are regarding the Constitution and Bill of Rights, I always willing comply with the request/questions with a smile. Even more so, I would also let them search my truck without issue. I don't have a problem with people doing the job they are assigned to do (LEOs). I have a problem with those who are in a position (those in power) to impose their will so much that it conflicts with the freedoms provided for in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I don't really feel the DUI check points are a trampling of my rights (or the random drug testing for that matter, although they had to have a warrant to get a sample of DNA from OJ). At our level, I'm really just debating a point. Further, I do feel that to keep those in power (again not the LEOs) honest we as a society need to remain true to the intent of our founding fathers and force those making the new rules do the same. You know the saying...give them an inch and they take a mile? That's what I want to avoid.

As far as the example you gave regarding the mass murder or abduction...I'd be one of the guys to step up and help find the victim and the perp if I could, so no, I'd be happy to answer the questions.

 

What do you consider a "Constitutionalist weirdo"? And am I correct in thinking that you're a member of law enforcement (as inferred in the text above)?

 

1. A Constitutional Weirdo is... A person who goes out of their way to exercise their Constitutional rights, in a very outspoken manner, for the sole purpose of exercising them, and in as offensive a manner as is legally possible. They are generally not polite, go out of their way to make things difficult, and are abrassive because it is their right to do so. Often, they think they know their rights and laws, when they are quite ignorant of the law. They are good for society just like protesting hippies are good for society or any other extreme group. Sometimes they need to be arrested and shown where the line actually exists. Sometimes officers need to be shown where the line exists.

When dealing with these people you simply follow the letter of the law, do not be rude, explain your position, and give them no slack, as they will give you none. There are many officers who will overstep their boudaries with these types of people and get themselves in trouble. People like that guy in the video are good because it keeps the line establishing civil rights violations vs illegal behavior, by the suspect, well defined.

2. Yes, I am a peace officer.

I would also like to add I am generally polite to everyone... even turds, at the begining of contact. Turds are people too. If someone chooses to not be polite and give me no slack... I see no reason why I should give them slack. For the record I do not believe in DUI/DWI check points. I am a certified intox operator and if I had a specialty in something, you could make a case it is for arresting drunks.

 

I am working on getting qualified immunity for constitutional weirdos, lol

Everyone makes mistakes now and then. Some people go to jail for their mistakes while others get "updated training".

 

True, not every driver can be stopped at any time for the sole purpose of performing a field sobriety test. However, any driver who shows signs of intoxication or anyone stopped for any traffic or other violation can.

The police can't be everywhere and a DUI checkpoint on a road leading from a number of bars is a good place to set up. Just the “grape vine” that such a checkpoint exists probably deters many from driving drunk.

From the 1990 Supreme Court Decision:

During the hour-and-15-minute duration of the checkpoint's operation 126 vehicles passed through the checkpoint. The average delay for each vehicle was approximately 25 seconds. Two drivers were detained for field sobriety testing (another who tried to avoid the checkpoint was stopped, found to be intoxicated, and arrested). ​

A brief stop for a law-abiding citizen hardly constitutes a major hassle for the general populace; the Court agrees:

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.​

 

My issue isnt with the checkpoints because they have been ruled constitutional. My issue is with police officers who dont understand and respect that its a citizens right to remain silent and to not consent to searches or seizures. As is depicted in thousands of videos online, and my own personal experiences, an officer will immediately "secondary" a vehicle if the driver doesnt answer the officers questions. This is illegal and a violation of the constitution.
The video posted on the earlier DUI thread showed how officers did in fact honor and uphold the constutional rights of the motorist who refused to answer questions.
The video I posted of the immigration officials that assaulted the innocent motorist shows how dangerous an officer can be.
I know it offends many officers but they have to follow the law just like citizens do

 

Good points.

Unfortunately you're just going to have these people. I don't look at LEO's in a negative manner. I just look at it as there are plenty of assholes in the world, naturally some of them end up as cops. By in large I'd like to think most aren't out there to harass you and blatantly take away your rights trying to find a reason out of thin air to arrest you. I guess having negative experiences changes ones opinion, luckily any officers I have ever dealt with were always good guys. And not saying it's right or wrong, but looking at the other side of the coin, if I was an LEO and someone didn't want to answer it's almost human nature to question if the person is trying to hide something. You can say that's illegal all you want, doesn't change the fact that the person doing this KNOWS it's going to get the reaction it does when they press the issue. That's my problem with all these video's online regardless of what type of situation it is. I'm sure there very well are ones of a cop just being a douchenozzle, but most I've seen are typically people intentionally pressing the issue in simple situations because they have a camera running.

And not to derail too much but people also love trying to twist videos to make cops seem bad for no reason. I saw one a few weeks ago from Philly with 2 officers trying to take a guy into custody. He resists and they both end up scuffling with the guy into the street. Naturally the video doesn't show what leads up to the man being placed into custody so the filmer can say whatever they want. They fight awhile and the guys buddy jumps in and actually tackles one of the cops(there's also a crowd of at least 20 others there) and finally the other cop had to back off and draw his weapon to get control. Of course the videos caption goes onto to talk about how the police were harassing this man and his friend had to step in and help and then the police drew weapons on high school kids. Nothing to do with the topic here but just an example how half these videos online of "police acting badly" are bullshit that only show part of the picture and people try to spin it to give the cops a bad wrap when they weren't really doing anything wrong.