Legality of MOTO ONLY "check point" on public highway

[coupt_ed]

BARF LEOs,

What justification is required to pull over only motorcycles, but not other vehicles, which are not committing moving violations?

This is a serious question related to the thread on a moto check point activity last week: *caution* Chp On 92, 03-18-2007 (http://www.bayarearidersforum.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=196945&perpage=15&pagenumber=1)

I searched the expected related key words in his LEO forum and read the forementioned thread twice(which was painful) without finding any pertinent threads or responses from LEOs.

Thank you,
ed


edit: added "CA" to question.

[motorman4life]

Even DUI checkpoints have to follow rules for advanced warning (usually in the newspaper and on radio) as well as specific signage and criteria used for more than a brief contact and assessment.

The reason given for the need to have sobriety checkpoints is the community caretaking role and the danger DUI drivers present to the public.

I think, considering the rate of m/c fatalities in and around the 4-corners and much of rural SMCo., and the dangers presented by pursuits in the area, the CHP could likely justify a rider checkpoint, if they closely modeled it after the case law pertaining to DUI checkpoints that is already being observed and complied with locally.

That said, I don't think what was allegedly going on up there was totally legal and if CHP officers were arbitrarily stopping and detaining riders without any probable cause, then the fruits of a poisonous tree rule would apply to whatever was found and prosecuted.

I have no doubt, based upon the info described, a good lawyer could get any cases tossed out that resulted from those detentions.

[StuntrHuntr]

Hey, I heard an unnamed BARFer wrecked his brand new '07 Honda CBR 600RR on La Honda Road... laid it down in a turn, over the weekend. Or, so I was told.

Maybe he was trying to wear off his chicken strips? :laughing

No injuries (thanks to good gear).. just a bruised ego and fucked up ride. Anyhow, sorry to hear it. I sent a PM to confirm, but no reply yet. I'll let him "out" himself (maybe in the "Crash Analysis" Forum) rather than throw him down here.

[coupt_ed]

Originally posted by motorman4life
Even DUI checkpoints have to follow rules for advanced warning .....

Thank you MM4L. That was informative. I doubt if the specifics of that particular CP will become evident. but a professional viewpoint was needed around this topic.

BTW I did not experience that checkpoint that day.

[silversvs]

I read the thread and from what I gathered, this wasn't a checkpoint in the true meaning of a DUI type checkpoint. It seems several officers decided to work directed enforcement targeting motorcycles. If they were just stopping bikes for visible equipment violations there is no problem. If they were randomly stopping bikes for no reason then there is a problem.

Its hard to form an opinion about legality of what they were doing based off the mentioned thread. Its one sided and full of speculation.

[ALANRIDER7]

Originally posted by silversvs
If they were just stopping bikes for visible equipment violations there is no problem. If they were randomly stopping bikes for no reason then there is a problem.



If you are riding towards them, especially with your high beams on, how then can they say they 'saw' an equipment violation amd wave you over to stop??? When you think about it, most equipment violation tickets would probably be for license plate brackets, pipes and turn signals which are mostly visible from the rear of the bike. It's very hard to say what equipment is/is not on a bike when it's riding towards you.

This sounds like the police are trying to send a message to the canyon tools who shoot for street trophies. :toothless The problem here is that those assholes are pissing on everyone's parade and it affects all of us.

Making you stop simply because you're on a motorcycle is not a good thing. It doesn't sound legal to me. There are, of course, two sides to every story. I'd be curious to hear their justification and reasoning behind it. What is their 'probable cause'????????

A DUI checkpoint is a very different deal. They run them here in Petaluma periodically. I know when they do this because they line up 10 tow trucks in front of my shop. What's really scary is that they never run out of 'customers.' Those tow trucks are constantly on the move for the several hours into the evening. If I'm working late, I'll sometimes take a break and go watch the show. It's really scary to see people who can't even stand up when they exit their vehicles.

[}Dragon{]

Originally posted by silversvs
I If they were just stopping bikes for visible equipment violations there is no problem. If they were randomly stopping bikes for no reason then there is a problem.


What would you say the percentage is of sportbikes with equipment violations? <40%- Really getting PC for a stop on most bikes would NOT be all that difficult.

From reading that thread: It sounds like it was a knee-jerk reaction due to some tool who ran from them.

I'm all for taking unlicensed and uninsured riders off our roads, but if there's no PC for the stop; that's unlawful. :|

[}Dragon{]

Originally posted by ALANRIDER7
If you are riding towards them, especially with your high beams on, how then can they say they 'saw' an equipment violation amd wave you over to stop??? When you think about it, most equipment violation tickets would probably be for license plate brackets, pipes and turn signals which are mostly visible from the rear of the bike. It's very hard to say what equipment is/is not on a bike when it's riding towards you.

This sounds like the police are trying to send a message to the canyon tools who shoot for street trophies. :toothless The problem here is that those assholes are pissing on everyone's parade and it affects all of us.

Making you stop simply because you're on a motorcycle is not a good thing. It doesn't sound legal to me. There are, of course, two sides to every story. I'd be curious to hear their justification and reasoning behind it. What is their 'probable cause'????????

A DUI checkpoint is a very different deal. They run them here in Petaluma periodically. I know when they do this because they line up 10 tow trucks in front of my shop. What's really scary is that they never run out of 'customers.' Those tow trucks are constantly on the move for the several hours into the evening. If I'm working late, I'll sometimes take a break and go watch the show. It's really scary to see people who can't even stand up when they exit their vehicles.

Alan- It's simple; they put a spotter in an unmarked car a block before, and say "red bike: no plates" and radio up ahead: Then it's perfectly legal. An other Officer is establishing probable cause for a stop (and from reading that thread it did sound like a few people on bikes just went thru w/o a detention.)

[ALANRIDER7]

That reminds me of the story about the Florida Highway Patrol putting up a sign on Route 95 North that said "BE PREPARED TO STOP- DRUG TRAFFICKING INSPECTION CHECKPOINT AHEAD."

They would then watch and go after the cars that turned around. :toothless

I believe they had to stop that practice because it was deemed illegal.

[Mortifer]

Originally posted by ALANRIDER7
This sounds like the police are trying to send a message to the canyon tools who shoot for street trophies. :toothless The problem here is that those assholes are pissing on everyone's parade and it affects all of us.


:thumbup


(are the trophies mailed or do I have to go pick it up?):|


:laughing

[boney]

Its one sided and full of speculation.

HERE? On BARF?

Say it ain't so!;)

[ALANRIDER7]

Originally posted by }Dragon{
Alan- It's simple; they put a spotter in an unmarked car a block before, and say "red bike: no plates" and radio up ahead: Then it's perfectly legal. An other Officer is establishing probable cause for a stop (and from reading that thread it did sound like a few people on bikes just went thru w/o a detention.)

In the original thread, it sounded like they were pulling over all motorcycles.

[silversvs]

Originally posted by ALANRIDER7
In the original thread, it sounded like they were pulling over all motorcycles.

Several folks posted that they went through without getting stopped.

Somone posted that there was one officer who was ahead/behind the point officer and was calling in violations as they passed which would allow an officer to see the no plates, pipes, etc.

[}Dragon{]

Originally posted by Mortifer
:thumbup


(are the trophies mailed or do I have to go pick it up?):|


:laughing

I've been holding Alan's trophy for him :toothless :laughing

http://www.bayarearidersforum.com/forums/images/threads/000/197/122/3035824-shortbus.jpg

[ALANRIDER7]

Hold this:

:mag

[Burner]

Originally posted by ALANRIDER7
That reminds me of the story about the Florida Highway Patrol putting up a sign on Route 95 North that said "BE PREPARED TO STOP- DRUG TRAFFICKING INSPECTION CHECKPOINT AHEAD."

They would then watch and go after the cars that turned around. :toothless

I believe they had to stop that practice because it was deemed illegal.
Haha yeah i think i remember reading that case in a class. Unconstitutional because setting up check points is only legal if it relates to vehicular laws and as long as they aren't arbitrarily stopping vehicles. Drug trafficking doesn't relate to vehicle safety; therefore, checkpoint is a 4th amend. violation.

[saizai]

IIRC one of the requirements for a DUI checkpoint is that there be a clear avenue of escape once you see it, so that you can avoid the checkpoint.

Was there one on this? Dunno the area but most hilly/twisty moto roads don't have much in the way of parallel side streets on which to get around a checkpoint. And I don't think saying "well you could turn around" is good enough.

[saizai]

Originally posted by Burner
Haha yeah i think i remember reading that case in a class. Unconstitutional because setting up check points is only legal if it relates to vehicular laws and as long as they aren't arbitrarily stopping vehicles. Drug trafficking doesn't relate to vehicle safety; therefore, checkpoint is a 4th amend. violation.

Also, refusing or avoiding a search is never itself justifiable cause to conduct search.

So if someone sees the sign, deliberately takes action to avoid the expected search, and is pulled over BECAUSE they avoided it, that's not okay.

[mnb]

Originally posted by Burner
Haha yeah i think i remember reading that case in a class. Unconstitutional because setting up check points is only legal if it relates to vehicular laws and as long as they aren't arbitrarily stopping vehicles. Drug trafficking doesn't relate to vehicle safety; therefore, checkpoint is a 4th amend. violation.

I'd have turned around just to avoid the delay...

[RolnCode3]

Originally posted by Burner
Haha yeah i think i remember reading that case in a class. Unconstitutional because setting up check points is only legal if it relates to vehicular laws and as long as they aren't arbitrarily stopping vehicles. Drug trafficking doesn't relate to vehicle safety; therefore, checkpoint is a 4th amend. violation.
OK. So an officer says he's going to search your car, even though he doesn't have probable cause. But he doesn't search. How has he violated your 4th amendment right? There was NO actual search or seizure.

I'd have to read the decision regarding that one.

We've talked about putting a sign out that says "Drug and Warrant checkpoint ahead" at choke points (such as pedestrian bridges) where lots of transients move about. Haven't done it though. Figure we'd just pick off the ones that read that and turn around...once we find PC to stop them.

Originally posted by saizai
Also, refusing or avoiding a search is never itself justifiable cause to conduct search.

So if someone sees the sign, deliberately takes action to avoid the expected search, and is pulled over BECAUSE they avoided it, that's not okay.
It could be viewed as 'consciousness of guilt', and once independent PC is found for a stop, it would be legal. The move to avoid the checkpoint could be brought up in any criminal proceedings later on (based on whatever is found after the *legal* stop).

[saizai]

Originally posted by RolnCode3
OK. So an officer says he's going to search your car, even though he doesn't have probable cause. But he doesn't search. How has he violated your 4th amendment right? There was NO actual search or seizure.

Suppose I'm walking down the street minding my own business. An officer walks up to me and says he's going to arrest me, but does not take out the cuffs. Have my rights been violated?

It could be viewed as 'consciousness of guilt', and once independent PC is found for a stop, it would be legal. The move to avoid the checkpoint could be brought up in any criminal proceedings later on (based on whatever is found after the *legal* stop).

I don't remember any law that uses that phrase. Cite please?

FWIW I was only talking about PC - avoiding a search is not PC for making a stop or a search. I'm unclear from what you said whether you read that as being something else.

And if it's inadmissable as PC, why is it admissable as anything else? If I avoid a search then that's my inalienable right. You can certainly bring up whatever else you have to show that you think I'm a drug trafficker, but not that.

[RolnCode3]

Originally posted by saizai
Suppose I'm walking down the street minding my own business. An officer walks up to me and says he's going to arrest me, but does not take out the cuffs. Have my rights been violated?
Only if he actually prevents you from continuing on your way. If he walks alongside you and says that, but does not prevent you from continuing on your way, there's been no search or seizure.

I can walk around all day asking everyone I meet "Do you have any warrants for your arrest? Are you on probation? Can I search you?". Until I stop one of them, there's no seizure.

Originally posted by saizai
And if it's inadmissable as PC, why is it admissable as anything else? If I avoid a search then that's my inalienable right. You can certainly bring up whatever else you have to show that you think I'm a drug trafficker, but not that.
My only point is:

You see DUI checkpoint. You turn around. Officer stops you for taillamp out, no license plate, whatever. You're drunk. We arrest you for DUI. We say we saw you turn around when you observed the DUI checkpoint. Consciousness of guilt = offender knew or believed they were committing a criminal act, and their behavior reflects that.

That's all. I am fully aware that not consenting to a search doesn't give PC, nor would avoiding a checkpoint equal PC.

[saizai]

RC3 - You changed the example. Earlier you were saying if you say you WILL search (or in my example, you WILL arrest). Now you're just asking permission or random questions. I have no problem with the latter (so long as you're not following someone around doing so or otherwise making a de facto arrest or detention or other infringement of their liberty). I have a problem with the former because it is effectively a command that I am obliged to obey and therefore infringes on my freedom to go about my business; the latter I can blow off with no consequence.

Re. checkpoint - if you have a valid (different) reason to stop and that is your reason for starting it, then fine. If you are targeting people based on their having initially done something that is perfectly legal, then not. So if you regularly tail people for doing something legal (like avoiding a checkpoint), then that's not okay any more than racial profiling is.

As for arrest itself - if you have an actual DUI based on evidence gathered after a valid PC stop, great. If you are saying that you can arrest me for DUI because I avoided a checkpoint, you singled me out to get tailed because of that perfectly legal behavior, found something unrelated like a broken taillamp, stop me, and then - just because of my earlier action in avoiding the checkpoint - arrest me for DUI... then I have a major problem with that.

If you stop someone because you happen to notice their taillight is out, and in the process of interviewing them discover PC that they're drunk, confirm it with a breathalyzer or FST, and then arrest for DUI, awesome and good job.

See the diff?

P.S. You can't even call avoiding a search "consciousness of guilt", because it might actually be "desire to uphold the constitution". :x

[ZXTOM]

What he said ^^^^^


The day in question...... They were there profiling and just being asshole's... big ego and holding a gruge cause some OTHER guy ran and got away....

When I was flagged down..

I immediately asked what the problem was and the officer walked closer took a minute to look my bike over and THEN told me why I was stopped...

He paused to the question cause he did not know the answer yet....

All he came up with was "your plate is immpossible to read"... which in fact, it is perfectly readable, seriously.....

[RolnCode3]

Originally posted by saizai
RC3 - You changed the example. Earlier you were saying if you say you WILL search (or in my example, you WILL arrest). Now you're just asking permission or random questions. They were supposed to be two seperate situations. "WILL" would have to be said in a way that does not require the person to stop. Poor choice of words. It has to be done so that an objective observer would feel the person was free to continue on their way. That's the requirement.

Asking permission all day is a seperate issue...but related.

Originally posted by saizai
P.S. You can't even call avoiding a search "consciousness of guilt", because it might actually be "desire to uphold the constitution". :x
I can call it whatever I want. It's up to a jury to agree or disagree.

[saizai]

Originally posted by RolnCode3
They were supposed to be two seperate situations. "WILL" would have to be said in a way that does not require the person to stop. Poor choice of words. It has to be done so that an objective observer would feel the person was free to continue on their way. That's the requirement.

Asking permission all day is a seperate issue...but related.

How do you, as a cop, tell me "I will search you" in a way that makes me not feel like I have just been required to stop and comply?

You can say "do you mind if I search you?", "do you have any convictions?", etc, to which I can respond "blow off". But when you say what "will" happen, that will automatically make me think that you intend to enforce that outcome, which is effectively a false arrest because I will be justifiably afraid that you intend to use force to make me comply if I choose to ignore you and walk away.

If you have a better-worded example of how you can say that so that I "feel ... free to continue on [my] way", I'd like to hear it.

I can call it whatever I want. It's up to a jury to agree or disagree.

Please show me a law or case law ruling that includes that phrase in a way that includes the situation we're talking about, as a valid piece of evidence towards PC or conviction.

I'm not saying it doesn't exist... but I don't know it.

And I'm always happy to be edumacated out of my ignorance. :)

[silversvs]

Saizai is back

[saizai]

Love ya too. :)

[}Dragon{]

Originally posted by RolnCode3
"Drug and Warrant checkpoint ahead" at choke points

Uhhhhhhm. I worked at a jail... and we had ALL the correct legal signs up.

Random vehicle inspections.

Take a guess how many arrests I had while just working the gate (especially when 14601 was a "may take".)

I did more paper and 180 forms than working patrol.

These were visitors BTW :|

[}Dragon{]

Originally posted by silversvs
Saizai is back

I'm hoping he can tell us how to do CPR better in that other thread!

Hi Saizai!:wave

[Burner]

Originally posted by RolnCode3
OK. So an officer says he's going to search your car, even though he doesn't have probable cause. But he doesn't search. How has he violated your 4th amendment right? There was NO actual search or seizure.

I'd have to read the decision regarding that one.

We've talked about putting a sign out that says "Drug and Warrant checkpoint ahead" at choke points (such as pedestrian bridges) where lots of transients move about. Haven't done it though. Figure we'd just pick off the ones that read that and turn around...once we find PC to stop them.
I don't really remember the facts of the case; it's been a few years. I could be wrong on the reasoning behind it, but I just remember that it was ruled unconstitutional.

Just look at it this way. An officer needs PC to pull someone over, and being pulled over is the same as being detained. Therefore, check points would be illegal because they are detaining people without PC. BUT a special exception is made for DUI check points because they relate to safety on the roads, which is a serious matter, or something along those lines. Setting up a check point for drug trafficking has nothing to do with safety on the road and so it's illegal, just as a check point to check for weapons, etc. would be as well.

Keep in mind that an arrest is a form of seizure under the 4th amend., but I'm not sure about detaining.

[RolnCode3]

Originally posted by Burner
Keep in mind that an arrest is a form of seizure under the 4th amend., but I'm not sure about detaining.
It absolutely is. I guess it could be extrapolated that a giant sign that says "Unlawful checkpoint ahead" will prevent people from continuing in the manner they were planning, and thus is a seizure...although I would still heartily disagree. Oh well...no further reason to speculate without more info.

[Burner]

Ok, I think the case I read was not something from FL. It was City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, where the USSC ruled that actual drug checkpoints are unconstitutional. But that doesn't mean that police cannot put up signs saying there are checkpoints even when there aren't any, and then watching for people to flee and pull them over once they break a law. These "fake" checkpoints are being done today and are legal. Maybe what alanrider was referring to in FL was a fake checkpoint, I don't know.

[silversvs]

If its not a checkpoint then its not a checkpoint. As MM4L stated early on, DUI, drivers license, and seatbelt checkpoints are allowed if they are put together in a a specific manner with a specific operation order (no escape route is necessary). Everything in the thread that started this one, dictates that the officers were not operating a checkpoint, but were doing some selective directed enforcement.