• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

DUI Checkpoint

msethhunter said:
Had a long winded reply for a few of the LEO's in this thread, but it's beating a dead horse.

I would rather be arrested than produce my license in a warrantless, no PC search. And only because I refuse to have my 4th amendments rights trampled on.

In short, our government has been oversteeping it's bounds for a long time. And the "sheeple" have come to accept it. Pandora's box has been opened, and it's to late to shut it now.
Click to expand...

Yes, refuse to show your license at the next checkpoint and let us know how it works out for you.
 
I think it says on your license "must present to LEO upon request" or words to that effect. You could refuse, but then they can make PC with anything if they think you have something to hide. I've seen a few vids of clean cut white guys getting away with it, and some brown kids..not. (Not a bash)
 
msethhunter said:
Had a long winded reply for a few of the LEO's in this thread, but it's beating a dead horse.

I would rather be arrested than produce my license in a warrantless, no PC search. And only because I refuse to have my 4th amendments rights trampled on.

In short, our government has been oversteeping it's bounds for a long time. And the "sheeple" have come to accept it. Pandora's box has been opened, and it's to late to shut it now.
Click to expand...

2Stroke would be happy to provide you with "legal advice". :laughing

And you'd most likely just get a ticket unless you handled it like he did.
 
Last edited:
eddiet204 said:
Yes, refuse to show your license at the next checkpoint and let us know how it works out for you.
Click to expand...

bojangle said:
2Stroke would be happy to provide you with "legal advice". :laughing

And you'd most likely just get a ticket unless you okay it like he did.
Click to expand...


What law would I be breaking if I refused to show you my ID at a checkpoint like this?

P.S. I'm not baiting. I really want to knw what the ramifications would be. Because from what I have looked at, a DUI checkpoint is perfectly legal. But there are no laws in the books I can find that relate to License checkpoints.
 
Last edited:
msethhunter said:
What law would I be breaking if I refused to show you my ID at a checkpoint like this?

P.S. I'm not baiting. I really want to knw what the ramifications would be. Because from what I have looked at, a DUI checkpoint is perfectly legal. But there are no laws in the books I can find that relate to License checkpoints.
Click to expand...

CPC 148.**(a) (1) Every person who willfully resists, delays, or obstructs any public officer, peace officer, or an emergency medical technician, as defined in Division 2.5 (commencing with Section 1797) of the Health and Safety Code, in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her office or employment, when no other punishment is prescribed, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

CVC 12951.**(a) The licensee shall have the valid driver's license issued to him or her in his or her immediate possession at all times when driving a motor vehicle upon a highway.
(b) The driver of a motor vehicle shall present his or her license for examination upon demand of a peace officer enforcing the provisions of this code.

CVC 2800.**(a) It is unlawful to willfully fail or refuse to comply with a lawful order, signal, or direction of a peace officer, as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 of the Penal Code, when that peace officer is in uniform and is performing duties pursuant to any of the provisions of this code, or to refuse to submit to a lawful inspection pursuant to this code.

CVC 2814.2.** (a) A driver of a motor vehicle shall stop and submit to a sobriety checkpoint inspection conducted by a law enforcement agency when signs and displays are posted requiring that stop.
(b) Notwithstanding Section 14602.6 or 14607.6, a peace officer or any other authorized person shall not cause the impoundment of a vehicle at a sobriety checkpoint if the driver's only offense is a violation of Section 12500.

CVC 12500.**(a) A person may not drive a motor vehicle upon a highway, unless the person then holds a valid driver's license issued under this code, except those persons who are expressly exempted under this code.

Some applicable sections.
 
Last edited:
bojangle said:
CPC 148.**(a) (1) Every person who willfully resists, delays, or obstructs any public officer, peace officer, or an emergency medical technician, as defined in Division 2.5 (commencing with Section 1797) of the Health and Safety Code, in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her office or employment, when no other punishment is prescribed, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

CVC 12951.**(a) The licensee shall have the valid driver's license issued to him or her in his or her immediate possession at all times when driving a motor vehicle upon a highway.
(b) The driver of a motor vehicle shall present his or her license for examination upon demand of a peace officer enforcing the provisions of this code.

CVC 2800.**(a) It is unlawful to willfully fail or refuse to comply with a lawful order, signal, or direction of a peace officer, as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 of the Penal Code, when that peace officer is in uniform and is performing duties pursuant to any of the provisions of this code, or to refuse to submit to a lawful inspection pursuant to this code.

CVC 2814.2.** (a) A driver of a motor vehicle shall stop and submit to a sobriety checkpoint inspection conducted by a law enforcement agency when signs and displays are posted requiring that stop.
(b) Notwithstanding Section 14602.6 or 14607.6, a peace officer or any other authorized person shall not cause the impoundment of a vehicle at a sobriety checkpoint if the driver's only offense is a violation of Section 12500.

CVC 12500.**(a) A person may not drive a motor vehicle upon a highway, unless the person then holds a valid driver's license issued under this code, except those persons who are expressly exempted under this code.

Some applicable sections.
Click to expand...

I was gonna respond to the post, but I'm not up on modern case law.:thumbup You covered what I was gonna post.
 
bojangle said:
CPC 148.**(a) (1) Every person who willfully resists, delays, or obstructs any public officer, peace officer, or an emergency medical technician, as defined in Division 2.5 (commencing with Section 1797) of the Health and Safety Code, in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her office or employment, when no other punishment is prescribed, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

CVC 12951.**(a) The licensee shall have the valid driver's license issued to him or her in his or her immediate possession at all times when driving a motor vehicle upon a highway.
(b) The driver of a motor vehicle shall present his or her license for examination upon demand of a peace officer enforcing the provisions of this code.

CVC 2800.**(a) It is unlawful to willfully fail or refuse to comply with a lawful order, signal, or direction of a peace officer, as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 of the Penal Code, when that peace officer is in uniform and is performing duties pursuant to any of the provisions of this code, or to refuse to submit to a lawful inspection pursuant to this code.

CVC 2814.2.** (a) A driver of a motor vehicle shall stop and submit to a sobriety checkpoint inspection conducted by a law enforcement agency when signs and displays are posted requiring that stop.
(b) Notwithstanding Section 14602.6 or 14607.6, a peace officer or any other authorized person shall not cause the impoundment of a vehicle at a sobriety checkpoint if the driver's only offense is a violation of Section 12500.

CVC 12500.**(a) A person may not drive a motor vehicle upon a highway, unless the person then holds a valid driver's license issued under this code, except those persons who are expressly exempted under this code.

Some applicable sections.
Click to expand...

You didn't answer my question, just posted what I would be charged with if I did refuse. So, I'll ask again. What law am I breaking, or suspected of breaking that requires me to show you my ID?
 
All of those above, if you refuse to cooperate at a DUI / license check point.
 
You would be in violation of 148(a)(1) PC and would be subject to arrest.
 
msethhunter said:
You didn't answer my question, just posted what I would be charged with if I did refuse. So, I'll ask again. What law am I breaking, or suspected of breaking that requires me to show you my ID?
Click to expand...

At a DUI checkpoint, you are lawfully detained. If you refuse to identify yourself or refuse to show a driver license (which you are required to carry while operating a vehicle), then you are delaying the officer's investigation and/or failing to comply with a lawful order.
 
Antarius said:
All of those above, if you refuse to cooperate at a DUI / license check point.
Click to expand...

eddiet204 said:
You would be in violation of 148(a)(1) PC and would be subject to arrest.
Click to expand...

Nick said:
At a DUI checkpoint, you are lawfully detained. If you refuse to identify yourself or refuse to show a driver license (which you are required to carry while operating a vehicle), then you are delaying the officer's investigation and/or failing to comply with a lawful order.
Click to expand...


And there lies the rub with the whole "show me your papers." In Michigan Vs. Stitz, the SCOTUS ruled a sobriety checkpoint was leagal. I will consent to it, even though I don't agree with it. In a "Terry Stop" (Terry vs Ohio)you MUST have resonable suspicion that is “specific and articulable” to detain me any further and ask for my ID at a DUI checkpoint. There is nothing in the SCOTUS ruling that says you can and should ask for my ID. California recently added (within the last few years) DUI/Drivers License to the DUI checkpoint, and it has met fierce opposition, to the point that the law was ammended to specifically exclude 12500 from it. There are certian circumstances where they can tow and impound your vehicle, but Escondido stopped the license checks because the ACLU got involved and threatened to sue. The reason it stopped, is because of Terry vs Ohio, as there is no resonable suspicion of a crime being commited by simply driving down the road. Given enough time, and a few people who are legally within their 4th amendment rights to refuse to ID themselves for simply driving their car, I feel the drivers license check will make it to the SCOTUS and be required to be removed from the checkpoints. But it will never happen until someone speaks up about not providing their ID. Just because your boss asked you to check my ID, doesn't mean I have to provide it if I am within my rights not to. Just because you have a badge doesn't mean that you are always right, and I am always wrong. Having been married to a parralegal who's boss specalized in civil rights before he realized that the money was in bankruptcy educated me a llittle on exactly how much I have to comply with a LEO, and exactly what is a "lawful order." And asking for my ID at a DUI checkpoint according to Michigan vs Stitz and Terry vs Ohio is NOT a lawful order, because I haven't been suspected of any crime.

"Yeah, see how that works out for you." Thanks, I will. It's how change happens. This country has a history of law enforcement agencies over stepping it's bounds. And unfortunately, it usually has to go all the way to the top for things to change and keep them within the scope of our constitution.

Edit to add: One thing I'd like to add from the SCOTUS ruling on how a DUI checkpoint MUST be conducted.

Police operating sobriety roadblocks should detain each motorist only long enough for the officer to question the driver briefly and to look for signs of intoxication, such as alcohol on the breath, slurred speech, and glassy or bloodshot eyes. If the driver does not display signs of impairment, he or she should be permitted to drive on without further delay. If the officer does observe signs of impairment, the driver may be directed to a separate area for a field sobriety test. At that point, further investigation must be based on probable cause, and general principles of detention and arrest would apply.
Click to expand...

For these specific guidelines, Ingersoll vs Palmer is where they come from. And asking for my ID is NOT part of that ruling. So, asking for my ID makes the roadblock illegal. Those guidelines are very specific. The SCOTUS also ruled that a stop to detect ordinary criminal activity to be unconstitutional. Checking for my DL would fall into the scope of that. You, by checking me for my DL as a part of a DUI checkpoint are violating that.
 
Last edited:
summitdog said:
I love the check points. Great for business.

Does anyone know how many cars were towed and how many people cited to DUI's at the SJPD checkpoint last Friday on Saratoga Ave?

Scotty
Click to expand...

IIRC (could have been another city) out of 1000 or so cars they nabbed 0 drunk drivers.
 
msethhunter said:
You didn't answer my question, just posted what I would be charged with if I did refuse. So, I'll ask again. What law am I breaking, or suspected of breaking that requires me to show you my ID?
Click to expand...

Antarius said:
All of those above, if you refuse to cooperate at a DUI / license check point.
Click to expand...

I didn't answer your question about what law(s) you'd be breaking by refusing to show your ID by posting the law(s) you'd be breaking for refusing to show your ID?
 
msethhunter said:
And there lies the rub with the whole "show me your papers." In Michigan Vs. Stitz, the SCOTUS ruled a sobriety checkpoint was leagal. I will consent to it, even though I don't agree with it. In a "Terry Stop" (Terry vs Ohio)you MUST have resonable suspicion that is “specific and articulable” to detain me any further and ask for my ID at a DUI checkpoint. There is nothing in the SCOTUS ruling that says you can and should ask for my ID. California recently added (within the last few years) DUI/Drivers License to the DUI checkpoint, and it has met fierce opposition, to the point that the law was ammended to specifically exclude 12500 from it. There are certian circumstances where they can tow and impound your vehicle, but Escondido stopped the license checks because the ACLU got involved and threatened to sue. The reason it stopped, is because of Terry vs Ohio, as there is no resonable suspicion of a crime being commited by simply driving down the road. Given enough time, and a few people who are legally within their 4th amendment rights to refuse to ID themselves for simply driving their car, I feel the drivers license check will make it to the SCOTUS and be required to be removed from the checkpoints. But it will never happen until someone speaks up about not providing their ID. Just because your boss asked you to check my ID, doesn't mean I have to provide it if I am within my rights not to. Just because you have a badge doesn't mean that you are always right, and I am always wrong. Having been married to a parralegal who's boss specalized in civil rights before he realized that the money was in bankruptcy educated me a llittle on exactly how much I have to comply with a LEO, and exactly what is a "lawful order." And asking for my ID at a DUI checkpoint according to Michigan vs Stitz and Terry vs Ohio is NOT a lawful order, because I haven't been suspected of any crime.

"Yeah, see how that works out for you." Thanks, I will. It's how change happens. This country has a history of law enforcement agencies over stepping it's bounds. And unfortunately, it usually has to go all the way to the top for things to change and keep them within the scope of our constitution.

Edit to add: One thing I'd like to add from the SCOTUS ruling on how a DUI checkpoint MUST be conducted.



For these specific guidelines, Ingersoll vs Palmer is where they come from. And asking for my ID is NOT part of that ruling. So, asking for my ID makes the roadblock illegal. Those guidelines are very specific. The SCOTUS also ruled that a stop to detect ordinary criminal activity to be unconstitutional. Checking for my DL would fall into the scope of that. You, by checking me for my DL as a part of a DUI checkpoint are violating that.
Click to expand...

At a DUI checkpoint, simply driving through is a lawful detention. Terry v. Ohio and reasonable suspicion does not apply, IMO because it deals more with investigative stops. You're not suspected of any criminal activity prior to boarding an airplane, but you are required to show ID.
 
msethhunter said:
And there lies the rub with the whole "show me your papers." In Michigan Vs. Stitz, the SCOTUS ruled a sobriety checkpoint was leagal. I will consent to it, even though I don't agree with it. In a "Terry Stop" (Terry vs Ohio)you MUST have resonable suspicion that is “specific and articulable” to detain me any further and ask for my ID at a DUI checkpoint. There is nothing in the SCOTUS ruling that says you can and should ask for my ID. California recently added (within the last few years) DUI/Drivers License to the DUI checkpoint, and it has met fierce opposition, to the point that the law was ammended to specifically exclude 12500 from it. There are certian circumstances where they can tow and impound your vehicle, but Escondido stopped the license checks because the ACLU got involved and threatened to sue. The reason it stopped, is because of Terry vs Ohio, as there is no resonable suspicion of a crime being commited by simply driving down the road. Given enough time, and a few people who are legally within their 4th amendment rights to refuse to ID themselves for simply driving their car, I feel the drivers license check will make it to the SCOTUS and be required to be removed from the checkpoints. But it will never happen until someone speaks up about not providing their ID. Just because your boss asked you to check my ID, doesn't mean I have to provide it if I am within my rights not to. Just because you have a badge doesn't mean that you are always right, and I am always wrong. Having been married to a parralegal who's boss specalized in civil rights before he realized that the money was in bankruptcy educated me a llittle on exactly how much I have to comply with a LEO, and exactly what is a "lawful order." And asking for my ID at a DUI checkpoint according to Michigan vs Stitz and Terry vs Ohio is NOT a lawful order, because I haven't been suspected of any crime.

"Yeah, see how that works out for you." Thanks, I will. It's how change happens. This country has a history of law enforcement agencies over stepping it's bounds. And unfortunately, it usually has to go all the way to the top for things to change and keep them within the scope of our constitution.

Edit to add: One thing I'd like to add from the SCOTUS ruling on how a DUI checkpoint MUST be conducted.



For these specific guidelines, Ingersoll vs Palmer is where they come from. And asking for my ID is NOT part of that ruling. So, asking for my ID makes the roadblock illegal. Those guidelines are very specific. The SCOTUS also ruled that a stop to detect ordinary criminal activity to be unconstitutional. Checking for my DL would fall into the scope of that. You, by checking me for my DL as a part of a DUI checkpoint are violating that.
Click to expand...


You wouldn't be the first to refuse to show your driver's license at a DUI checkpoint. I have arrested someone for doing just that. Arrested and convicted of 148 PC. Took his driver's license and booked it as evidence and towed his car. All perfectly legal and totally unnecessary.
 
bojangle said:
I didn't answer your question about what law(s) you'd be breaking by refusing to show your ID by posting the law(s) you'd be breaking for refusing to show your ID?
Click to expand...

No, because it's outside the scope of a DUI checkpoint, and you have no PC to ask me simply because I consented to drive through a checkpoint(see below)as per Ingersoll vs Palmer. The rules are VERY clear on what can and can not be done at a checkpoint. There is a reason why border patrol agents aren't asking for my ID when I drive through a immigration checkpoint that is within the limit of mileage from the border. It's because they can't. They aren't allowed to, and in order to ask for it, they have to find PC firss. So I ask again, where is you PC to ask me for my ID, simply because I drove through a DUI checkpoint? What makes it legal asking for me to ID myself? What is your PC?

From the ruling with detailed guidelines.

Minimizing the average time each motorist is detained is critical both to reducing the intrusiveness of the stop on the individual driver and to maintaining safety by avoiding traffic tie-ups. As occurred in the Burlingame and CHP checkpoints, each motorist stopped should be detained only long enough for the officer to question the driver briefly and to look for signs of intoxication, such as alcohol on the breath, slurred speech, and glassy or bloodshot eyes. If the driver does not display signs of impairment, he or she should be permitted to drive on without further delay. If the officer does observe symptoms of impairment, the driver may be directed to a separate area for a roadside sobriety test. At that point, further investigation would of course be based on probable cause, and general principles of detention and arrest would apply.
Click to expand...

See bolded. Where does that say "Oh, and stop to see if they have a valid drivers license too." Like I said, it's outside of the scope of a DUI checkpoint. Can a LEO just willy nilly pull someone over and ask them "Hey, I just stopped you to see if you have a license?" No, because operating on a "hunch" is not PC. So where is the PC to check me for my license? Which will bring you to the argument of "Well, well well, the DUI checkpoint is legal." And you would be correct, only because the SCOTUS says so. But the SCOCA says that you asking me for my ID is outside the scope of a DUI chcekpoint, as refrenced in Ingersoll vs Palmer which sets forth the guidelines for what you are allowed to do in a random checkpoint. Thing is, there is so much case law out there describing what you can and can't do at a random checkpoint, that this is clearly a violation of ones rights. You have to have PC to pull someone over, which is why DUI checkpoints are supposed to have a way out before you get into one. That makes it "consentual." So, check me for being drunk, follow the guidelines as set forth by a Supreme Court ruling, and let me be on my way. Seems simple, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top