DUI checkpoints are not consensual contacts. You are required to show your DL to a peace officer upon request per the CVC. It's not that hard to figure out unless you have Oppositional Defiance Disorder. Do yourself and your family a favor and comply with the officer's directions when you are told to exit your car because you are arrested for obstructing, delaying, resisting a peace officer. It won't go your way if you do otherwise.
I'm going to post this one last time. It's the rules
you must follow in the process of determining if I am drunk in a DUI checkpoint. It says
nothing about detaining me to determine if I am a licensed driver. The rules for it are strict, and doing anything other than what is in the guidelines is over stepping the legality of the checkpoint.
They are guidelines that
you must follow in order to protect
my 4th amendment rights.
Police conducting sobriety checkpoints should detain each motorist only long enough for the officer to question the driver briefly and to look for signs of intoxication including alcohol on the breath, bloodshot eyes or slurred speech. If the driver does not show any symptoms of intoxication, the driver 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 field sobriety tests to be conducted. At that point in the checkpoint, the further investigation must be based on probable cause, and general policies of detention and arrest would still apply.
Show me where that says you are to ask for my DL. It specifically prohibits doing anything other than checking for my sobriety. Once I am on to secondary, yeah, go ahead. But in the initial stop, no, you are not to be asking for my DL. And this is straight from the California Supreme Court. How much more clear can it be? Or are you above the Supreme Court of California? A "Driver License Checkpoint" is not legal. It's as close to "Papers Please" as it gets, and tramples all over the fourth amendment. Combining checkpoints
So, in essence, you are operating outside of a Supreme Court decision, unless you send the driver off to secondary.
It's all up there, in the Supreme Courts decision. Seems pretty clear to me. While I might be being "detained" for a DUI checkpoint, attaching the "Drivers License" checkpoint to it, no matter how you slice it, IS a violation of my 4th amendment. The Supreme Courts, both US and CA have deemed that it is only for a sobriety check, and
nothing else.
This is like talking to a wall. Read the case law, on the laws you are sworn to uphold, so you have a better understand of exactly what it is you are doing. Or rather, doing wrong. Also, read the guidelines you are supposed to follow when you are done reading the case law. Because I doubt that you have. It sure seems that way. And, this is why the SCOTUS and SCOCA exists. Because local judges and municipalities do get it wrong from time to time. So they are the "checks and balances" that sort these things out. They have done that here. And probably will again soon. All it's going to take is one ACLU attorney to pass through a checkpoint and feel violated for it to happen, or a friend of one, or someone with enough money to fight it to the end.
Yes, I am accusing you of operating outside the guidelines set forth by the California Supreme Court for conducting a proper DUI checkpoint. And I also am accusing you of violating the 4th amendment when you ask to see someones DL in a DUI checkpoint. And I say that because it goes against the guidelines set forth by the agency that makes the final rulings on the scope and intent of the laws that govern this state. Bring in every peanal code you want, every CVC code you want. Throw them all out there. Because in the end, the only opnion that matters is the one that the Supreme Court has. And well, on this, they have already spoken. See the quote and bolded above.
