DUI Checkpoints

[ET]

I look at this as a means to generate a lot of unnecessary chest beating... there is something in the law called suspicion of evading. If a suspected person used this as a means to evade a check point test. he will wind up in cuffs and down at the police station awaiting his lawyer.. Not arrested, but held with the suspicion of evasion.. if this simple tool was used by a drunk and was successful, then all drunks would use it, and leave my kids at risk to a drunk driver.. That's why suspicion of evasion is in the law.. if a car is stopped, and the cop orders the window to come down , or the occupant exit the car, and the driver refuses. He becomes a suspect of evasion. by his own printed list, he has the right to remain silent, he has the right, not to have his car searched. But the police have the right to impound his car with suspicion of evasion, not allow the driver to drive his car, and take him to the police station where he can meet with his lawyer. The simple answer would be don't drink and drive.. also, thank the officers for trying to make sure the streets where thousands of innocent people have been killed by drunk drivers... Ill take a check point stop and a Breathalyzer test any day , if it makes the roads a safer place even for those idiots who are fighting the very hands of people trying to make it safer for the honest an moral and ethical people of this country,, and also for those sad pathetic chest beaters who cry fowl because the guys who work the streets to make it better for the rest of us, also protect those who cry fowl.. Ideally, one of these drunks who evaded a check point would wind up killing the loved ones of someone in this forum who claim this is an invasion of their rights...

 

[Eidolon]

there is something in the law called suspicion of evading. If a suspected person used this as a means to evade a check point test. he will wind up in cuffs and down at the police station awaiting his lawyer.. Not arrested, but held with the suspicion of evasion.. .

Please cite the relevant statute and case law

 

[Bikenut]

-snip-

Again, we can change the terminology, but we still have to face the fact that our rights aren't simply unlimited. I agree that's an uncomfortable concept to deal with, and it prompts all manner of continuing follow on debates. But it's a truth we can't simply ignore. -snip-

Terminology is extremely important because words have meaning and those meanings can very easily change how things are thought of.

Limiting a right is when laws are passed that make it illegal for someone to exercise that right... such as laws that say felons are not allowed to exercise the right to keep and bear arms.

Laws that hold a person, felon or not, responsible for causing harm as a direct result of exercising the right to bear arms for the purpose of doing harm does not limit the right but merely punishes those who misuse that right to do harm.

Thinking in terms of "limits" opens the mind to accept that there should be limits on rights when the only thing that should ever be is punishment for the harm caused by the misuse of a right.

But when we start thinking that limiting a right is Ok then it won't be long before all rights have been limited by those in charge of setting those limits.....

Wait... isn't that where we already are?

He who controls the message controls those who believe the message. And when that message is repeated often enough it becomes more and more believable.

 

[whodat2710]

I look at this as a means to generate a lot of unnecessary chest beating... there is something in the law called suspicion of evading. If a suspected person used this as a means to evade a check point test. he will wind up in cuffs and down at the police station awaiting his lawyer.. Not arrested, but held with the suspicion of evasion.. if this simple tool was used by a drunk and was successful, then all drunks would use it, and leave my kids at risk to a drunk driver.. That's why suspicion of evasion is in the law.. if a car is stopped, and the cop orders the window to come down , or the occupant exit the car, and the driver refuses. He becomes a suspect of evasion. by his own printed list, he has the right to remain silent, he has the right, not to have his car searched. But the police have the right to impound his car with suspicion of evasion, not allow the driver to drive his car, and take him to the police station where he can meet with his lawyer. The simple answer would be don't drink and drive.. also, thank the officers for trying to make sure the streets where thousands of innocent people have been killed by drunk drivers... Ill take a check point stop and a Breathalyzer test any day , if it makes the roads a safer place even for those idiots who are fighting the very hands of people trying to make it safer for the honest an moral and ethical people of this country,, and also for those sad pathetic chest beaters who cry fowl because the guys who work the streets to make it better for the rest of us, also protect those who cry fowl.. Ideally, one of these drunks who evaded a check point would wind up killing the loved ones of someone in this forum who claim this is an invasion of their rights...

Yeah, that sounds familiar..."Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
You are another one commenting on an article and video that didn't bother to watch it.

 

[Fallschirmjäger]

I think you guys are al arguing about trees and not noticing the forest. The main purpose of DUI check points is to get Americans used to going through check points or have you not noticed that more and more of them are popping up?

"Dangerous DUI" is but the reason du jure.
Tomorrow it will be something else that's "Too dangerous to ignore", my bet is something terrorism related. Oh, wait...FourthAmendment.com

 

[whodat2710]

Again, we can change the terminology, but we still have to face the fact that our rights aren't simply unlimited. I agree that's an uncomfortable concept to deal with, and it prompts all manner of continuing follow on debates. But it's a truth we can't simply ignore.

Which is the point of this article and all other forms of holding government accountable to our rights. Since no one can read the damn article, here's the gist of it. For me, in SC, I place the following in a plastic bag or page protector, along with my DL, POI and Registration. Anything the cop could ask for. ET, that is not evading, it is availing the cop with the opportunity to uphold the law in an unlawful situation - and providing statutes that support it. They even say that if the cop is an a$$ and tells you to roll your window down anyway, do it. HOWEVER, in the video, in which the officer knew he was being filmed, he chose to uphold the law.
Link Removed

South Carolina Code 56-1-190. A licensee shall have his license in his immediate possession at all times when operating a motor vehicle and shall display it upon demand of an officer or agent of either the Department of Motor Vehicles or the Department of Public Safety or a law enforcement officer of the State.

South Carolina Code 56-3-1250. The department, upon registering and licensing a vehicle, shall issue to the owner of the vehicle a registration card containing upon the face of the card the date issued, the name and address of the owner, including the county in which the owner resides, the registration and license number assigned to the vehicle, and that other description of the vehicle as may be determined by the department. The registration card must be delivered to the owner. Every registration card must at all times be carried by the person driving or in control of the vehicle, who shall display it upon demand of a police officer or any other person authorized by law to examine registration cards.

South Carolina Code 56-7-35. Uniform traffic ticket for speeding or disregarding traffic control device; incident to and contemporaneous with traffic stop; delivery; use of photographic evidence; exception for toll collection violation

Which is why there is one for different states on the site, or you could look up statutes for you state and make your own. The bag is placed on a string and dangled outside the closed window, arranged so the cop can see front and back of each document, and the bag can be retrieved after being waved through.

 

[Rhino]

I look at this as a means to generate a lot of unnecessary chest beating... there is something in the law called suspicion of evading. If a suspected person used this as a means to evade a check point test. he will wind up in cuffs and down at the police station awaiting his lawyer.. Not arrested, but held with the suspicion of evasion.. if this simple tool was used by a drunk and was successful, then all drunks would use it, and leave my kids at risk to a drunk driver.. That's why suspicion of evasion is in the law.. if a car is stopped, and the cop orders the window to come down , or the occupant exit the car, and the driver refuses. He becomes a suspect of evasion. by his own printed list, he has the right to remain silent, he has the right, not to have his car searched. But the police have the right to impound his car with suspicion of evasion, not allow the driver to drive his car, and take him to the police station where he can meet with his lawyer.

None of that is true. Suspicion of evasion is when you're suspected of activities such as leading police on a high speed chase or a foot pursuit. Bypassing or turning around at a checkpoint doesn't qualify, and it is not grounds for arrest. At checkpoints deemed 'no refusal', drivers cannot refuse alcohol tests when probable caused is established, and the officers in attendance are advised that overt action taken to avoid the checkpoint constitutes reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS), which allows them to execute a traffic stop. The constitutionality of both those actions are in question here and in many other places, though currently the courts have deemed them legal. However, the police cannot require you to exit your car without probable cause, even if RAS was used to affect a traffic stop, nor can they impound your car. Those actions would both constitute seizures, and be 4th amendment violations as has been discussed here.
.

The simple answer would be don't drink and drive.. also, thank the officers for trying to make sure the streets where thousands of innocent people have been killed by drunk drivers... Ill take a check point stop and a Breathalyzer test any day , if it makes the roads a safer place even for those idiots who are fighting the very hands of people trying to make it safer for the honest an moral and ethical people of this country,, and also for those sad pathetic chest beaters who cry fowl because the guys who work the streets to make it better for the rest of us, also protect those who cry fowl.. Ideally, one of these drunks who evaded a check point would wind up killing the loved ones of someone in this forum who claim this is an invasion of their rights...

I know you say that with the intent to be magnanimous and with the desire to contribute in helping to solve a very horrible problem our society is faced with. I've had a family member killed by a drunk driver, so I'm well aware of the cost they cause us to endure. But you must also understand that not everyone is willing to give up their rights so easily. They're not unwilling because they don't care about our drunk driving problems. They're unwilling because our rights are a very precious thing, more precious than most people realize, and they know that rights lost are almost never regained. They also question the effectiveness of the checkpoints. Even if you agree that they're effective to some degree, is that degree justification enough to abridge our precious, God given rights? Even if you don't agree with the people who ask that question, you have to at least acknowledge that this is a very valid question to ask. Even though you may not agree with them, they're very much on your side, because it's your rights they're trying to protect too. So by all means, be generous and submit to the checkpoints gracefully if you wish. Just don't assume that everyone should feel the same way you do, and don't assume they don't care about drunk drivers if they don't agree. They're concerned about very important things too, things that even more lives could hinge on in the long run.

 

[Rhino]

Terminology is extremely important because words have meaning and those meanings can very easily change how things are thought of.

Limiting a right is when laws are passed that make it illegal for someone to exercise that right... such as laws that say felons are not allowed to exercise the right to keep and bear arms.

Laws that hold a person, felon or not, responsible for causing harm as a direct result of exercising the right to bear arms for the purpose of doing harm does not limit the right but merely punishes those who misuse that right to do harm.

Thinking in terms of "limits" opens the mind to accept that there should be limits on rights when the only thing that should ever be is punishment for the harm caused by the misuse of a right.

But when we start thinking that limiting a right is Ok then it won't be long before all rights have been limited by those in charge of setting those limits.....

Wait... isn't that where we already are?

He who controls the message controls those who believe the message. And when that message is repeated often enough it becomes more and more believable.

Like I said earlier, it doesn't really matter what term you want to use. You can choose whichever one you want. It was only the concept I was trying to convey. We can't simply do whatever we want with our rights, whenever we want, and to any extent we want, without sometimes harming others, and without sometimes incurring societal and/or legal penalties. You can apply whatever terminology you feel is best to define that concept. It wasn't my intention to bog anything down in terminology.

 

[Rhino]

Which is the point of this article and all other forms of holding government accountable to our rights. Since no one can read the damn article, here's the gist of it. For me, in SC, I place the following in a plastic bag or page protector, along with my DL, POI and Registration. Anything the cop could ask for. ET, that is not evading, it is availing the cop with the opportunity to uphold the law in an unlawful situation - and providing statutes that support it. They even say that if the cop is an a$$ and tells you to roll your window down anyway, do it. HOWEVER, in the video, in which the officer knew he was being filmed, he chose to uphold the law.

Yeah, I thought the sign thing was pretty cool. Most of the cops I know here would probably get a real kick out of it. We had someone go through one of the checkpoints one night who was very irate about it, and he made many of the arguments seen here. The deputies laughed and explained that he could refuse everything except to show his license, because he was required to do that. After going through the checkpoint, the guy parked his car, sat on the side of the road with a nasty look on his face and proceeded to video the activity for a while. The deputies thought it was funny. One said he wished more people were like him. When I asked why, he said "Because people who go to the trouble to know the law almost never break it. We like people who don't break the law." I gave him a Gatorade and some crackers, and we talked about the Constitution a bit. He was a lot calmer when he left.

 

[ET]

Although every state in the United States, as well as some local jurisdictions, has its own laws concerning “driving under the influence” (DUI) of alcohol and or drugs, these same diversely autonomous states do have nearly the same penalties as one or more consequences for refusing the field sobriety test(s). As nearly all people, experts and those with experience stated, refusing to take a breathalyzer test or other chemical tests is an automatic loss of license. In each of these states there exists a requirement that a person applying for a license knowingly, or unknowingly by default, accepts when that person signs the application for a license. This requirement is called the “Implied Consent” statement. In this statement every driver applicant signifies by signature that he or she will submit to a breathalyzer test or other chemical test if legally stopped for suspicion of DUI. The statement also states that the applicant understands and acknowledges the fact that refusing to take this test, breathalyzer or chemical, has the automatic penalty of loss of license and likely points on the refuser’s driver’s license. The length of penalty and number of points differs in some states, but usually this loss of license is for a minimum of one year and the number of points is usually two. Another automatic condition that one must understand is that this refusal is also posted on one’s driver’s record for a state mandated number of years, typically five. Then the real legal difficulties begin. While the accused believes that the breath or chemical tests are giving evidence against one’s self, as a driver application the person agreed to it. Another consequence that individuals often do not know is that this loss of license is a civil law situation with the Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV), not the criminal case. Even if the accused had all of the changes dropped, and unless the case presented and the ruling of the court is that the police had no worthwhile legal reason to stop the person in the first place, the now exonerated accused still loses the license, still has the insurance points, and still has the situation on the driving record. Here is where the consequences begin to have the ripple effect on the driver and beyond the driver, on dependents and others. Many people require a license to do their jobs, earn a livelihood. Their families and other dependents and others who rely on this person can be and often are adversely affected by the driver’s loss of license. Yes, a person can often regain some temporary use of a license, but, the person is now forced back into the courts. All of this takes time, money, effort, puts stress and strain on an already tough situation.

Law Dictionary: Consequences for Refusing the Field Sobriety Test(s)

 

[whodat2710]

Although every state in the United States, as well as some local jurisdictions, has its own laws concerning “driving under the influence” (DUI) of alcohol and or drugs, these same diversely autonomous states do have nearly the same penalties as one or more consequences for refusing the field sobriety test(s). As nearly all people, experts and those with experience stated, refusing to take a breathalyzer test or other chemical tests is an automatic loss of license. In each of these states there exists a requirement that a person applying for a license knowingly, or unknowingly by default, accepts when that person signs the application for a license. This requirement is called the “Implied Consent” statement. In this statement every driver applicant signifies by signature that he or she will submit to a breathalyzer test or other chemical test if legally stopped for suspicion of DUI.

OK, lets tackle this part. No one is talking about drunk driving. A "DUI Checkpoint" is barely about DUI's. It is about fishing for evidence in the hopes that you might catch a drunk. For everyone else that has to go through the checkpoint, taking or refusing a breathalyzer will not even be a consideration. How many of the people that go though a checkpoint are "legally stopped for suspicion of DUI"? NONE!!! Everyone is stopped, and even a drunk is not stopped for suspicion of DUI. They are stopped because they were driving. Period.

The statement also states... blah, blah,,,

Again, this is about lawful free Americans either submitting to unconstitutional searches or not. Period. You should change your handle to "tangent" because you seem to always go off on one to try and derail a discussion.

 

[Firefighterchen]

Ideally, one of these drunks who evaded a check point would wind up killing the loved ones of someone in this forum who claim this is an invasion of their rights...

N R A, ET, JimTh, Bill....all the same...wanting others to lose their loved ones and compromising rights away. Pathetic.

Sent from my D6616 using USA Carry mobile app

 

[Bikenut]

Originally posted by ET
-snip- Ill take a check point stop and a Breathalyzer test any day , if it makes the roads a safer place -snip-

You do realize that is the same attitude (and emotional argument) of the anti gunner who's mantra is...

"I'll take strict gun control any day if it saves just one child."

In short... just like the anti gunner.... you are ignoring rights while espousing that other people should submit to being controlled in a way you consider reasonable and acceptable because you agree with the reason they are being controlled.

 

[BC1]

Yesterday, going to watch football at a friend's house I hit an inspection checkpoint. It was 18 degrees. No one checks inspections on a Saturday afternoon at 18 degrees. Here's how it went.
.
LE: "Hi sir, how are you tonight?"
Me: nods OK.
LE: "Can I ask you a question?"
Me: "Wasn't that a question?"
LE: Laughs, "Can I ask you where you're coming from tonight?"
Me: "that-a-way." Pointing behind me.
LE: "Yes I know, but where exactly?"
Me: "I'm not obligated to say officer."
LE: "No need to worry about..."
Me: Cut him off... "I'm sorry officer. Am I free to go or am I being detained?"
LE: "Well we're checking inspections and tires..."
Me: "My inspection and tires OK?"
LE: "Yes."
Me: "Then I'm free to go?"
LE: "Yes."

 

[whodat2710]

Yesterday, going to watch football at a friend's house I hit an inspection checkpoint. It was 18 degrees. No one checks inspections on a Saturday afternoon at 18 degrees. Here's how it went.
.
LE: "Hi sir, how are you tonight?"
Me: nods OK.
LE: "Can I ask you a question?"
Me: "Wasn't that a question?"
LE: Laughs, "Can I ask you where you're coming from tonight?"
Me: "that-a-way." Pointing behind me.
LE: "Yes I know, but where exactly?"
Me: "I'm not obligated to say officer."
LE: "No need to worry about..."
Me: Cut him off... "I'm sorry officer. Am I free to go or am I being detained?"
LE: "Well we're checking inspections and tires..."
Me: "My inspection and tires OK?"
LE: "Yes."
Me: "Then I'm free to go?"
LE: "Yes."

And if you had hit the same checkpoint with the baggie hanging outside your window, the 18 degree temperatures would have stayed on the outside. I am assuming you saw the checkpoint in time to stop, hang the baggie out your window and roll the window back up?

 

[FNWylde]

And if you had hit the same checkpoint with the baggie hanging outside your window, the 18 degree temperatures would have stayed on the outside. I am assuming you saw the checkpoint in time to stop, hang the baggie out your window and roll the window back up?

Thanks, I got a good chuckle out of that. Link Removed

 

[Rhino]

Yesterday, going to watch football at a friend's house I hit an inspection checkpoint. It was 18 degrees. No one checks inspections on a Saturday afternoon at 18 degrees.

They were looking for people from Pittsburgh.
.

Here's how it went...

Had LE here describe one to me like that.
.
LE: "Where are you coming from?"
Driver: [points back] "That way."
LE: "Where you heading?"
Driver: [points forward] "That way."
LE: "Okay. Have a nice night."
.
He actually liked it because it made things easier. Most of the officers don't like the checkpoints any more than most of the people here do. They like if they're getting overtime for it, but that's the money. It isn't the activity of manning the checkpoint that they like. Some of the folks on my rescue squad like doing them, myself included. It gets you out of the same ole, same ole, day to day activities, and it often provides some really good free entertainment. We don't do the actual stops. We provide lighting, canteen support, and often end up directing traffic in the diversion areas, which is where they send the cars that have vehicle/license violations. Vehicle violations are actually where the overwhelming majority of the activity is involved at these checkpoints, at least in this area anyway. Most of it's burned out light bulbs.

 

[BC1]

And if you had hit the same checkpoint with the baggie hanging outside your window, the 18 degree temperatures would have stayed on the outside. I am assuming you saw the checkpoint in time to stop, hang the baggie out your window and roll the window back up?

I think they were looking for DUI's. No one does an inspection check in 18 degree weather.
.
Here's a good idea... create a license, insurance and registration card holder that's affixed to the rear window. There you go occifer.

 

[whodat2710]

I couldn't even say the alphabet backwards if I was sober...

 

[Firefighterchen]

I couldn't even say the alphabet backwards if I was sober...

Man says the ABC Backwards in 15secods: http://youtu.be/xnO95yM-eSk

I'm not a dancer...I'm just drunk...OHHHHHHH

Sent from my D6616 using USA Carry mobile app