Sobriety Checkpoint leads to Forcible Extraction

[level.eleven]

Try it on a traffic stop. Get pulled over for speed and only put your window down 3'. Its not going to work. Its unreasonable. Your window will eventually be busted out and you will lose it court. You can get into the whole what is reasonable to me is may not be reasonable to you but you will lose in court. Jury or judge.

Your precog abilities are being wasted as a patrolman.

 

[dross]

Try it on a traffic stop. Get pulled over for speed and only put your window down 3'. Its not going to work. Its unreasonable. Your window will eventually be busted out and you will lose it court. You can get into the whole what is reasonable to me is may not be reasonable to you but you will lose in court. Jury or judge.

You've been asked a question a couple of times I wish you'd answer. If the law says you have to produce ID for an an infraction, by what justification may you demand ID when someone hasn't committed an infraction?

 

[Libertarian01]

You've been asked a question a couple of times I wish you'd answer. If the law says you have to produce ID for an an infraction, by what justification may you demand ID when someone hasn't committed an infraction?

But Dross,

They think you might have committed an infraction!

Is that not good enough???

Regards,

Doug

 

[88GT]

Try it on a traffic stop. Get pulled over for speed and only put your window down 3'. Its not going to work. Its unreasonable. Your window will eventually be busted out and you will lose it court. You can get into the whole what is reasonable to me is may not be reasonable to you but you will lose in court. Jury or judge.

Why is it not gonna work? Why is 3 INCHES not sufficient? Perhaps because it prevents the officer from reaching into the car with his whole body to disarm someone?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Why is it not gonna work? Why is 3 INCHES not sufficient? Perhaps because it prevents the officer from reaching into the car with his whole body to disarm someone?

It's not going to work because, as a courtesy, I would expect someone to roll their window fully down. If it's a legitimate stop, why not? It's kinda a dik move. It changes the entire tenor of the stop.

 

[jsharmon7]

Guys go looking for trouble and find it. Excellent!

 

[rambone]

in this instance, the mere fact that you are driving a car is PC that you are driving it without a licence.


basically: checkpoints for a licence are constitutional; for sobriety not so much.

Walking around in public is PC that you might be an undocumented alien. Papers, please.

 

[steveh_131]

Cops go looking for trouble and find it. Excellent!

You're welcome.

 

[steveh_131]

It's not going to work because, as a courtesy, I would expect someone to roll their window fully down. If it's a legitimate stop, why not? It's kinda a dik move. It changes the entire tenor of the stop.

As a courtesy, I would expect to be able to drive somewhere without being treated like a criminal.

So much for courtesy.

 

[rjstew317]

the problem with the argument that these checkpoints violate your rights and are impeding upon your freedoms, you would have to assume that you are truly free in the first place. never in the history of this nation, or any other for that matter, have the people been truly free. no matter what you do, you will always have to operate within the parameters of laws that someone else has made for you to follow, and the only way to change that is through "that which we can not talk about here". even then we would likely elect/appoint someone else to make new rules for us again.






that being said, some of you need to step away from the keyboard and go outside. I promise there is no boogeyman waiting outside your door to stomp your brains out.

 

[Expat]

The problem isn't with the police officers, it is with the people who permit these checkpoints, the courts and politicians. If you tell officers to set up checkpoints, they are going to demand to see your ID and see if they need to do a sobriety test based upon your ability to respond and react. They are not going to let the drivers decide if they are going to comply.

 

[steveh_131]

The problem isn't with the police officers, it is with the people who permit these checkpoints, the courts and politicians. If you tell officers to set up checkpoints, they are going to demand to see your ID and see if they need to do a sobriety test based upon your ability to respond and react. They are not going to let the drivers decide if they are going to comply.

Sorry, I'm not buying it.

The police officers certainly have the option of saying "No, I will not do something that I believe tramples the rights of innocent people."

 

[UncleMike]

The problem isn't with the police officers, it is with the people who permit these checkpoints, the courts and politicians. If you tell officers to set up checkpoints, they are going to demand to see your ID and see if they need to do a sobriety test based upon your ability to respond and react. They are not going to let the drivers decide if they are going to comply.

Damn!!!
I can't rep you until I spread it around some more.




BTW
DUCK!!
There'll be incoming.

 

[ElsiePeaRN]

It's not going to work because, as a courtesy, I would expect someone to roll their window fully down.

But since when is lack of courtesy to a LEO against the law? Also, the topic of the thread is a checkpoint, not a traffic stop. Regarding the traffic stop, I believe you have full authority to request and I am required to provide my license to you.

[STRIKE]I am still waiting for your explanation on why[/STRIKE] (Sorry, I thought I was responding to Keyser again) I would like to know if you think I am required to provide my license if I have not been committed an infraction. You seem to be saying that opening the window completely is not required by law, but would be considered "contempt of cop." Are you also suggesting that providing ID when asked if no infraction has been committed is not required, but if not provided is also contempt of cop? If so, what are the consequences of such action?

Try it on a traffic stop. Get pulled over for speed and only put your window down 3'. Its not going to work. Its unreasonable. Your window will eventually be busted out and you will lose it court. You can get into the whole what is reasonable to me is may not be reasonable to you but you will lose in court. Jury or judge.

Keyser clearly thinks it is illegal.

 

[Expat]

Sorry, I'm not buying it.

The police officers certainly have the option of saying "No, I will not do something that I believe tramples the rights of innocent people."

If they are following procedures that the courts have ruled as constitutional or avoided rendering an opinion on, you are suggesting they disobey directions from their superiors. Bet that would work out really well for them.

 

[ElsiePeaRN]

The problem isn't with the police officers, it is with the people who permit these checkpoints, the courts and politicians. If you tell officers to set up checkpoints, they are going to demand to see your ID and see if they need to do a sobriety test based upon your ability to respond and react. They are not going to let the drivers decide if they are going to comply.

The state & federal funds were provided for DUI checkpoints. California case law specifies how these are to be carried out. It clearly states that signs of intoxication must first be identified in order to establish probable cause before any further investigation can be done. The case law states they can *talk* to the driver to establish that. Certain police departments added the "License checks" which are not in the guidelines. We could argue whether the individual police officers workiong the stops are at fault for following illegal orders. I could certainly understand taking the path of least resistance to protect one's job, but it certainly is the police department's responsibility to ensure the stops are carried out according to law. They are overstepping their legal limits.

 

[ElsiePeaRN]

that being said, some of you need to step away from the keyboard and go outside. I promise there is no boogeyman waiting outside your door to stomp your brains out.

How very condescending.

 

[Expat]

The state & federal funds were provided for DUI checkpoints. California case law specifies how these are to be carried out. It clearly states that signs of intoxication must first be identified in order to establish probable cause before any further investigation can be done. The case law states they can *talk* to the driver to establish that. Certain police departments added the "License checks" which are not in the guidelines. We could argue whether the individual police officers workiong the stops are at fault for following illegal orders. I could certainly understand taking the path of least resistance to protect one's job, but it certainly is the police department's responsibility to ensure the stops are carried out according to law. They are overstepping their legal limits.

How are the orders illegal if the courts and the legal community agree they are legal. Here is an article from the UNC law school that explains the current state of the law..
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...Fl9PXDupw&sig2=hf0tKU09dljkQy4bcRVP6A&cad=rja

 

[steveh_131]

If they are following procedures that the courts have ruled as constitutional or avoided rendering an opinion on, you are suggesting they disobey directions from their superiors. Bet that would work out really well for them.

You're right, nobody should ever be expected to disobey directions from their superiors when their superiors are in the wrong.

I can't believe anyone would even suggest such a thing. How absurd.

 

[Expat]

You're right, nobody should ever be expected to disobey directions from their superiors when their superiors are in the wrong.

I can't believe anyone would even suggest such a thing. How absurd.

73% of Americans support their use. The SCOTUS says they are legal. So it boils down that we don't like them and there isn't a damned thing we can do about it.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...IHrEc4Ckg&sig2=ejYiP-OWwXS0rhS4rQAQ7Q&cad=rja