DUI Check Point Constitutionality.

I'll punch you in da ovaries....

 

Nope- That agent was being a dick. You did the right thing for everyone involved- Not just for yourself. You could have just ignored him and not let him do what he asked without speaking to him or anything. You instead did not allow the dog into your truck but explained why and asked for another agent to get involved. It's a matter of courtesy- Everyone feels they deserve it to the level they deem fit, but many feel they don't have to give it.

And yes- I know being being treated with courtesy is not a right- but if you want to act like a boor all the time- you can expect to be treated like one. You can exercise your rights without being rude-Even the guy in the video with his slip of paper. He at least communicated that he did not consent to any part of the stop. I don't agree with his interpretation of the law...The SC said they are constitutional with the proper controls. I also think he is a bit if an insitigator to know the checkpoint was there and go thru it with the sole purpose to using his paper and trying to cause an incident...but he's allowed to do it.

 

Brunes closed the last thread started by this Sunflower guy...hmmm....it's a conspriracy!!

 

Here's my take on this shit here.........People are going to think their rights exclude them from being asked a few questions about who they are and if they are legal citizens or maybe some random shit to determine whether they are drunk or high. Yes, you have rights but flying them in the face of authority will get you nothing but hassled at that moment, especially when you act like the dipshit in that video who wouldn't even just roll down the window and answer their questions all defiantlike from the get go. WTF would any reasonable person expect the response to be? You sure become suspicious and give them probable cause to take things further acting like that. If you have nothing to hide and aren't under the influence or smuggling people or dope into the country & are a legal citizen then just answer the fucking questions, thank honest acting personnel for making our country a bit safer for law abiding people, making it microscopically more of a hassle for criminals and be on your way. Sure, if the situation is stupid and you have a legitimate non-self induced problem for no reason, that is when you go off all rights having been violated in a court. If you want to minimize any possible suspicion, don't act like a constitution toting troublemaking asswipe right off the bat, drive a regular cab truck with no place to hide anything or anybody & stay the fuck off the road to get high or drink if so inclined. Simple ass shit.

 

Agreed

 

Yeah, I thought that made sense. Although, the reason why I decided to talk back and stating I didn't want the dog in my truck was because of that Pastor dude from the checkpoint thread...

 

Agreed, but also wonder why the officers felt like they needed to engage this guy in his pissing contest.

The one with the dude being tased... damn. Even the nutsiest of civil libertarians advise you not to physically resist. Well, the non-sadistic ones, anyway. Once they ask you to step out of the car, do it. Then shut/lock the door with the remote, if you have one. Continue calmly voicing your refusal to consent, but do not physically resist. If they have to come into the car and get you, it will hurt. A lot. Oh.. wait. That video was on the *other* thread. But it goes for DUI checkpoints too.

 

pissing contest? the dog destroyed a take home box full of chinese one time. I was going to complain, but figured it wasn't worth it and wanted to get home...i just cleaned it, craved the chinese leftovers next day...and that was that...which was why I said screw the dog...because I had the same take home box with chinese this time...there would be no problem if the dog sniffed the outside...and they checked the inside...but again, i wasn't in secondary for suspicious acvitity or random inspection...the girl just has to do her thing in the office while i usually wait outside and watch the officers do their thing...

 

Ok, so it seems that some people out there are trying to interpret their rights the same way some people interpret the Bible to fit their own personal beliefs (extremists) .
If you are pulled over at a DUI stop, answer the questions politely and don't be a dick. So you fumble the words because your nervous....the LEO's see that all the time and it may just take one more question to clear things up. You shouldn't have anything to hide if you are a law abiding citizen anyway.
I'm just guessing that the people whining about the fact that the minor inconvenience of a check stop is unconstitutional, have never been affected by a drunk driver. They have never lost anyone they love due to the carelessness of some ass hat that thinks he is still good to go after pounding a 2-4 of beer. I say give your head a shake... I've never lost anyone to a drunk driver but I have seen many an accident fatal and non that has been the result of a drunk driver and I wouldn't wish that on anyone.
The reason for the check stops is a not just to catch people in the act...but more a reminder that drinking and driving is against the law and that you will be charged if caught by patrol car or check stop.

Everyone here should consider yourselves very lucky to be born into a society that has rights and freedoms...There are many many people around the world that can only dream to have the life that we have and the rights that so many take advantage of and try to exploit for personal gain.
So when a LEO stops you at a check stop, get your panties out of a bunch and realize that this little inconvenience is there to help prevent the loss of life or property of you or your neighbour. So make it as quick and painless and just cooperate....

 

Whoa! Sorry. The pissing contest comment was regarding some videos posted in another thread of a guy at DUI and immigration checkpoints asserting his right in a borish manner. Must have clicked the wrong thread? And I think an earlier reference was made in this thread to one of those videos, maybe? Not even sure now. And also with several similar-themed threads running last night/ this morning things started blending all together. THAT guy in the video started a pissing contest.

The story about being pulled off for questioning/dog sniffing because of gf's identity theft issue was totally legit. had nothing to do with my comment. Totally on me, all apologies!

EDIT: This entire post is full of fail. I'm just waiting for my negative rep to flow in.

 

We have different RIGHTS than you in Canada.

 

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is pretty close to the US "Bill of Rights." About the only real difference is the 2nd Amendment.

 

Op I told you your other post was going to get locked

 

^^^

^^^^Exactly! The right to bare arms is the only one I can think of.. but I'm not that educated on the differences and similarities of the American Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I do know that the Canadian population is a little more liberal or "Communist" than the American Population. Personally, I think the health and well being of the population as a whole is better than looking out for yourself and no one else. So if you have to be inconvenienced by a police check stop I think it is for the greater good of the people. Let the LEO's ask their questions and you'll be on your way shortly.

 

Rights must be exercised or atrophy will set in...

 

And the government must always be made aware that citizens dont fear them and wont coware to them.

Unfortunately most of the responses in this thread indicate otherwise.

 

IMPLIED CONSENT TO ALCOHOL TEST

1. Kansas law (K.S.A. 8-1001) requires a driver to submit to and complete one
or more test of breath, blood or urine to determine if the driver is under the
influence of alcohol or drugs or both.
2. The opportunity to consent to or refuse a test is not a constitutional right.
3. There is no constitutional right to consult an attorney regarding whether to
submit to testing.
4. A refusal to submit to and complete any test requested by a law enforcement
officer will result in a driver license suspension of 1 year.​

If you read most states' driver's regulations you will probably find that it is implied that the police can stop you and check you for driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol at any time. If you wish to perform certain actions in our society it is incumbent on you to perform them in such a way as to not endanger other citizens. This applies to the practice of medicine, wiring of a house, or driving of a car – you have to be licensed and must abide by the rules if you want to legally do these things. Remember the old saying, “Your rights end where my nose begins.” If your actions negatively affect me specifically or society as a whole then you don't have the right to perform them. That people should not have the right to drive drunk is a no-brainer. In fact, long before there were automobiles there were laws about driving horse-drawn vehicles too fast and while drunk.

 

This is absoltely not true in California and I assume its not true in Kansas either.
In California, most police and citizens wrongly believe that when they received their drivers license that they automatically consented to being checked for DUI and that refusal to submit to a field sobriety or breathelyszer test means they are guilty.

THIS IS NOT TRUE

First off, in all states in America police need reasonable suspicion that you have violated state DUI laws to stop and detain you.

In California you DO NOT have to submit to any field sobriety tests NOR a breathalyzer and that does NOT mean you are guilty. Under the law, you only have to submitt to those tests IF and WHEN you have been arrested for DUI.

The police in California almost always lie to motorists and almost every motorist in California doesnt know the law and they trust the officer who is lying to them.

1.California’s “Implied Consent” DUI Law

California DUI law, like that of most other states, contains an "implied consent" rule. This law states that if you drive a car in California, and are lawfully arrested for a California DUI, you are deemed to have given consent to the chemical testing of your:

• blood,
  
• breath, or
  
• urine (only in cases where you are suspected of driving under the influence of drugs).

Simply put, this means that you must submit to a chemical test to determine the alcohol and/or drug content in your body after you have been lawfully arrested for a California DUI.
“After” is the operative word. The hand-held Preliminary Alcohol Screening (PAS) test that may be offered at the side of the road before you get arrested is not mandatory under this law. The PAS test is considered a field sobriety test (FST)…and FSTs are just tools to help the officer decide whether to arrest you for DUI.
This means that submitting to the PAS and then refusing to submit to a subsequent chemical test after your arrest will be considered a refusal.
Although the PAS test is optional for adults, it is mandatory for those under 21. If you are under 21 and suspected of DUI, you are also deemed to have given consent to the PAS and an additional blood, breath, or (where applicable) a urine test.