• 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.

my latest DUI checkpoint experience

n10sive said:
I'm not going to go on the anit-cop side here...but for discussion...

They are already building devices for habitual people so they cannot start their car while drinking. Whenever I see anyone not maintaining lane or speed, I call them in. I stopped a couple who walked, no...staggered, out of a restaurant and attempted to get into a car. If WE don't like drunk drivers, there are things WE can do to be proactive to prevent it without blindly handing over the 4th amendment like the USSC did.

Andy, aren't weigh stations there under commerce law to check bill of ladings and load weights? I don't believe they fall under anything that can be construed as 'individual rights'. It's cheaper to have highway checkpoints for this than to put an officer into every truck terminal, factory or manufacturing plant.
Click to expand...

They've had those devices for years. Why aren't they more common place? Because "we" demand our freedom to start our car even if we are drinking. I remember a kid in high school had one of those on his car (in 1988). He just had osmeon else blow into it for him. Kind of a designated blower.
 
OaklandLion said:
Kim - I quoted Rel's post in my post.

He said "required...."
Click to expand...

Once again. I think you are misreading Rel's comment. He says it is required for them to find PC in order to stop them. He didn;t say they are required to follow the car, wait until they have a reason, and stop them. In other words, they cannot follow the car and stop it because they avoided the checkpoint. They must find a reason to stop the car.
 
n10sive said:
Andy, aren't weigh stations there under commerce law to check bill of ladings and load weights? I don't believe they fall under anything that can be construed as 'individual rights'. It's cheaper to have highway checkpoints for this than to put an officer into every truck terminal, factory or manufacturing plant.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's a key difference, but there are an awful lot of similarities. One could argue it's cheaper to set up checkpoints than to increase the number of cops on the highway.

If you want an example that's more similar, California has agricultural inspection stations at the border and has for as long as I can remember. They stop individuals and sometimes inspect the vehicle for produce.

A lot has been said about the effectiveness or lack thereof of these checkpoints in catching drunk drivers. That's relatively easy to measure. What's less easy is the deterrent value they have. Are more people designating a driver on days like Super Bowl Sunday because they know that the checkpoints will be up? IIRC, the concept of a "designated driver" became popular about the same time as DUI checkpoints appeared.

Anyway, if the OP's acted in protest, he's kind of pissing into the wind, IMO. Right now, the law is what it is. If it is going to be challenged, it's going to have to happen at the USSC again. One guy acting like a perp at a DUI checkpoint in Nevada isn't going to change shit.
 
Rel said:
So, if someone breaks into your vehicle and steals your shit, and I tell the person who I think did the crime, that I have a witness, even when I don't and they confess to the crime, is it still BS?

Cops use deception. Its a tool to do our job.

We solve many crimes with deception, including auto (mc) thefts, hit and runs, assaults, and the raping of children.
Click to expand...

in those cases, you have already established probable cause.
you have determined that
1) a crime occurred
2) that the person you are speaking to had means, motive or opportunity to perform the action
3) investigate and interrogate, within the rules of miranda, to elicit a response

when no crime has actually occurred, and an officer uses a false statement to establish probable cause, he's in the wrong. probable cause must exist before any other steps can be taken.
using search and seizure, or even the threat of such, as a retaliatory action against not liking someone's attitude is an abuse of power.

as for cop bashing-
there are good cops and bad cops. there are good women and bad women,. there are good men and bad men, there are good blacks and hispanics and asians and wherethefuckistanians, and bad ones.
pointing out that one or more are bad does not diminish the worth of the good ones except as the individual allows it to be. brushing bad ones under the rug and only promoting the good ones is setting everyone up for failure.

these guys were in the wrong. in the same night I am sure there were several hundreds, if not thousand, legally operated DUI checkpoints across the US. all these guys would have had to do to keep from being the focus of this discussion was act according to law. they did not.
 
mcarb said:
You pretended you were drunk
Click to expand...

Don't see anywhere in his story that he pretended to be drunk. He didn't feed the "ego trip" about rolling down his window FURTHER than it already was... Which lead the officer to

A: ASSUME that he was drunk/ had something to hide
B: Become irate that "this guy" wouldn't jump through his hurdle (see obstruction comment)

We all know what assumptions do, and the only obstruction was their own doing by misreading the OP's actions.

Would I do the same thing in that situation? No. But have any of the poster's in support of check points done a little dance in their car when they get forced to wait in line at one? "Oh boy, I get to waste time in this line of cars! Gee are we lucky to be so well protected :applause:party" :|
 
mcarb said:
What he is saying is that if the OP avoided the checkpoint, the cops couldn't pull him over unless they had probable cause. But read what you want, you always do.

The OP was acting like a twat and could have avoided the whole situation without acting that way. You pretended you were drunk and were uncooperative. What did you expect?
Click to expand...

He's in Nevada, that state has decided that all that's required to obey the SCOTUS ruling and therefore the Constitution is to set up signage a certain distance from the checkpoint.

Then what they do is set it up in a place that doesn't allow for LEGALLY avoiding the checkpoint. No exits between signage and checkpoint, no way to do a U-turn, etc.

I don't know where you get the idea that he pretended he was drunk. Drunks like to try to talk their way out of it, ask any cop.
 
drewler said:
So how would all of you suggest we deal with the HUGE number of people that regularly and continually break the laws and kill people?
There would not be DUI checkpoints if thousands of people were not killed or injured by drunk drivers every year. The stiffer fines and sentences are not working as a deterrent.
What else could be used as a more effective tool to prevent it?
A bar cop? Station one at each alcohol service place? Show your ID for every drink?
These tools are used because people refuse to follow the law in the first place.
Click to expand...

As I see it, and I could easily be VERY wrong, the issue around ALL driving problems in the US (including DUI) is the absurd ease with which we grant driving privileges. Everyone can drive. The ability to adequate control a large moving mass of metal is NOT a concern in allowing someone to drive. There are so many drivers we can not adequately police it.

Check points and stops are a way the police are trying to deal with the fact that there are too may drivers. People treat driving like a RIGHT and it isn't. Unfortunately, stopping everyone trying to find a violater is an infringement on our rights. It should not be tolerated.

mcarb said:
The OP was acting like a twat and could have avoided the whole situation without acting that way. You pretended you were drunk and were uncooperative. What did you expect?
Click to expand...

As described, the OP was exercising his rights as an American citizen. He did not pretend to be drunk nor was he actively uncooperative. He is well within his rights to refuse to speak. This is a right that has been continually upheld. He should reasonably expect to have his rights respected. They were not.

The cops were just trying to do their job. I understand that. The OP probably understands this as well. However, their job is to enforce laws and stop those violating the law. Their job is NOT to cook up excuses to fuck with someone who is simply exercising their rights.

Freedom is almost never lost all at once. It is degraded and impinged and lost in little stages over time.
 
DUI checkpoints, Licence & Registration checkpoints, as well as the Homeland Security checkpoints that are secondary and off the border all are an affront to our freedom.
 
Kim said:
why not just lower your window and be done with it? sounds like you were asking to get hassled IMO.
Click to expand...

Standing up for your rights has a long history of causing you inconvenience.

A long video, but worth watching:

[youtube]6wXkI4t7nuc[/youtube]

Rel said:
You guys are all 100% right...

Cops are bad. DUI checkpoints are bad.

Do what you want, I'm done.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry you feel this way, Rel. I'm sure I'm not the only one here who finds your input valuable.

Anti-Hero said:
This topic is conflicting for me in a number of ways.
Click to expand...

As do I - it is tempting to give up a small measure of your rights for a good cause. Getting drunks off the road is certainly one.
 
Ant said:
Just curious, what sort of preventive measures would you guys like LEO's to use in order to catch drunk drivers before they kill someone?
Click to expand...

Read the story again. They knew OP wasn't drunk when they pulled him out of the car.

So what's really going on?
 
2strokeYardSale said:
Hmmm, OK try this... If some strangers said, "Show us your tits!" would you disrobe for them?
Click to expand...

I don't see how you could possibly even think that's related to an officer asking you to lower your window. Not even close.


While I will say I understand your frustration, I'm also on the other side of it too seeing a obstinate and irate driver that, if they had truly nothing to hide, would've just rolled down their window and probably been on your way within 15 seconds if not less. Instead, you chose to fight what's been considered completely legal by all the courts for quite some time based on your principal. Honestly, that cop that said he smelled alcohol on your breath is a complete waste of a badge period. That's assuming your version of the story is true and I'm not insinuating it isn't. We're obviously only going to hear your side of it, though.

Personally, I consider DUI checkpoints a minor nuisance and just do what the officer asks so I can be on my way. It's really not a big damn deal. The most I've ever be asked to show was my license which I'm required to present when operating a motor vehicle anyway.


Why did you follow any of the officer's directions at all? If you were so vehemently against the DUI checkpoint and wouldn't lower your window, why stop? Why not just blow through it? After all it's the principal of the thing, right? :dunno
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top