Douchehat at DUI checkpoint.

Just as a point of order- It's not a right to remain silent

You can be compelled to speak to the gub-ment in a variety of instances and refusing to do so can get you arrested. This is a border line kinda case- because an answer of "yes" will get you a wet reckless in a lot of places.

 

I like check points, feel like it keeps me safe. Seems like an inappropriate time to "exercise your rights"

My vote: DoucheBag.

 

There is absolutely 100% nothing wrong with what he did. They're inquiring, he's refusing to answer. Obviously he was within the law not to answer or they would have detained him.

That interaction was initiated by law enforcement, and he complied to the extent required. I have friends who are cops and former cops and I would tell that right to their face and they would agree. The guy wasn't confrontational or argumentative - he just wasn't conversational. It's not like the cop started a conversation about how they're out there trying to do good and he'd appreciate it if the guy would just answer the question. He asked what he was supposed to ask and then went to the supervisor when he didn't get an answer.

Ask any good lawyer and they will tell you there is almost no situation where volunteering information to the police will do any good for you. It's all a legal game, and the police know that best of all.

 

There are reasons we have the rights we do and I think this guy from T4R.org says it best.

"When they were asking him the questions, they were closely observing the tracking of his eyes, general demeanor, his speech, and smelling for alcohol, marijuana, etc. to determine if he might be impaired.

They didn't notice anything suspicious in those areas, or he would have been ordered out of his car, to be further checked out.

It's my opinion that him (or anyone) being stopped randomly, and without just probable cause, (observed or reported driving erratically, etc.) is a violation of his Constitutional rights under the 4th Amendment.

I don't have a problem with him making the video. I DO have a problem with the police conducting their fishing expedition, which unconstitutionally detains citizens. The majority of which have nothing to hide.

It all reminds me of the Gestapo, in Nazi Germany..


One of this Countries Founding Fathers, Ben Franklin, is attributed with this quote:

Quote:
In 1755 (Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor, Tue, Nov 11, 1755), Franklin wrote: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Saying "No" could very well be self incriminating if he slurred, stuttered, smelled, or any number of reasons a police officer could decide he witnessed. The cops are the ones acting like jerks for violating the constitution and creating this delay, not the one dude to stand up for his rights. They should stick to their job and what they are allowed to do legally just like everyone else has to.

 

so if you pulled up to a checkpoint, and were completely bombed, but didnt answer the law enforcement, you could continue on your way?

 

How did you possibly get that from what I wrote?

 

In that case based on your behavior, physical presentation, and (likely) smell of alcohol, they have probable cause for detention right there. Well, and you rear ended a patrol car on the way into the checkpoint.

What you say isn't the whole ball game.

Polymerhead is right though even in that situation - talking to the police CANNOT help.

Here's a college lecture on the subject by a law school professor and former police officer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

 

But is it worth it? Who cares if it's (according to you guys) "violating your 4th amendment rights" if it's potentially keeping people off the road that shouldn't be there. Is it that hard to just say "no" and be on your way?

 

"wasnt argumentive" If you sit there, completely still, and dont answer the police, even when trashed, they suspect nothing is wrong by the way you move(or dont move) then they consider everything ok. The only thing he did different is acknowledge them, but no answer. The only difference between that, and sober is if they can smell something..A friend of mine that was in the marines, was drinking, heavily, when he got back. It came to a point where he could drink to the point of complete intoxication, but still be 100% "normal". NO slurring, stumbling, anything erratic. The only thing that would set him off is the smell, and bloodshot eyes.

 

^^^This.

 

I still don't get what you're trying to say.

 

In this case, a DUI checkpoint, it's not a big deal. Just my opinion.



You took it out of context from the rest of my sentence.

 

But he did talk to them to gather names and personnel numbers- Which could have given his drunken state away just as much as saying "No"...So that argument goes out the window. If they developed PC from smell, nystagmus, etc...they could still arrest him no matter what he said or didn't say. So instead- He acts like a jerk, without even saying that he is asserting his 5th Amendment rights. That's a waste of time and making an easy sitution more diffcult for everyone just to post a video on the Internet about what a badass he is about his rights.

Nope- If you ignore them and blow thru the stop- They'll follow you...with lights on. I've even heard stories of folks turning around to avoid going thru a roadblock getting followed and tested. If you stop and don't talk but look like a drunk asshole-They'll give you the FSTs and then have you blow.

 

You really believe that? The Miranda Rights clearly state you have the right to remain silent.

 

He's a cop. I trust him.

 

Like I said, you guys took what I said out of context.


Plus:

I'm sure Jeff will gladly provide proof of this statement if asked.