Sobriety Checkpoint leads to Forcible Extraction

[Kutnupe14]

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

So much for courtesy.

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?



Keyser clearly thinks it is illegal.

Oh, well, since you expect it, I guess I have to comply.

Sorry. Not good enough. Do you have any logical justification to show that a window opening of 3" actually impedes the traffic stop? Or is correlated to an increase in risk to officer safety? Or is required by law?

Who cares if the guy you stopped is being a dick? If you didn't wear a badge would you--as a human being--consider that justification for returning the favor in kind? Do you mean to tell me that you respond to rudeness with rudeness, sarcasm with sarcasm, malice with malice when you're not wearing a badge? Or do you think your badge gives you license to do so without looking like a complete ass? This tit-for-tat argument LEOs like to use to justify their snarky behavior on traffic stops is childish and petulant. The only people who justify their behavior by saying the other person started it are CHILDREN with no sense how stupid they sound and a lack of maturity to respond any differently. The difference is they don't know any better.

Why? Why is it such a big deal if I don't open the window beyond a point sufficient for the passage of papers? Just one reason. One reason that doesn't have anything to do with how you think you need to be treated a particular way.



That is a horrible argument. Horrible. Tyranny of the majority is hardly justification for anything, let alone legislation. And SCOTUS once ruled in favor of slavery on many levels. Is that really the way you want to justify something?

Lacking courtesy isn't illegal. Keyser made a reference about lowing a window, three inches, during a traffic stop (a sobriety checkpoint isn't a traffic stop). Simply put, if a person lowers there window 3 inches, and I ask them to lower it further, and they don't, then that's their choice. Now, I'm going to ask them to open their door and step out of the car.... which isnt their choice.

I personally dislike checkpoints. I do not believe a person who has not commit an infraction should ever be stopped, just in case. That's my personal opinion. However there's no question the such checkpoints are legal.

 

[88GT]

I love threads that make me think and this one does that

88, you and I are generally in agreement on this, but it occurred to me that since DUI checkpoints have been supported by SCOTUS, whether we agree or not, we do have to have realistic expectations about how they are (legally) carried out. The first step is to assess the driver for signs of intoxication. In order to do this, the window would have to be opened enough for the officer to clearly see your face/eyes/movements, hear your speech and smell your breath when you talk. How low is the minimum that allows that? Subjective I guess, but somewhere between lower than paper-passing height and higher than completely open I guess.

Perhaps. But following the string of posts that culminated with the last one you quoted, this isn't about sobriety checkpoints. This is about traffic stops.

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?

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.

That being said, SCOTUS rulings are not the standard by which actions by LE should be judged. Remember, SCOTUS once ruled that separate but equal was legal. Thanks, but no, I won't be using SCOTUS as the final arbiter of the appropriateness of LE actions.

 

[Rookie]

Delaware vs Prouse actually opened the door for license checkpoints. While I don't agree with it, I have no choice but to avoid the checkpoint or follow the law.

As far as the window being rolled down to comply with the officer's liking, so far we've gotten because I said so and common courtesy. Neither one is a legal obligation. An officer should be able to figure out if a person is impaired without the window being rolled all the way down. There are other signs besides alcohol smell.

 

[ElsiePeaRN]

Why not just make the first step a forced blood test and an anal probe?

It's for the children, right? Submit.

Edit: Please note that I quoted you, but this was not directed towards you personally, but towards the policy-makers.

LOL! Believe me, I do not approve of checkpoints as you can tell, so I know it's not directed at me. I do think though, that when the SCOTUS has made a decision, whether I agree with it or not, I do have to submit unless I can see a way that they can be convinced to reverse their decision. Doesn't mean I like it though.

 

[88GT]

Lacking courtesy isn't illegal. Keyser made a reference about lowing a window, three inches, during a traffic stop (a sobriety checkpoint isn't a traffic stop). Simply put, if a person lowers there window 3 inches, and I ask them to lower it further, and they don't, then that's their choice. Now, I'm going to ask them to open their door and step out of the car.... which isnt their choice.

I personally dislike checkpoints. I do not believe a person who has not commit an infraction should ever be stopped, just in case. That's my personal opinion. However there's no question the such checkpoints are legal.

And yet you said yourself that 3" wouldn't work, knowing it was just a traffic stop. Please explain why.

Also, are you referring to a traffic stop or a sobriety checkpoint when you make the bolded comment above.

Why do you continually defend the practice if you're opposed to unwarranted stops?

 

[rjstew317]

Your logic sucks. There's just no other way of saying it. A decrease in the fatalities from drunk driving is NOT evidence that drunk driving is a crime with a victim. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me who the victim is when Joe the Drunk climbs into his car and drives? Just the act of driving drunk. No collision, no property damage, just a man driving down the road. Who is the victim from that awful crime.

who's the victim if i go out into my front yard and just start popping off rounds? maybe nobody, but that doesn't make it any less dangerous for my neighbors.

 

[NYFelon]

yet you have not pointed out who the victim is. you have only specified that there could be a victim.

 

[88GT]

who's the victim if i go out into my front yard and just start popping off rounds? maybe nobody, but that doesn't make it any less dangerous for my neighbors.

So what?

Dangerous does not define criminality.

 

[ElsiePeaRN]

Perhaps. But following the string of posts that culminated with the last one you quoted, this isn't about sobriety checkpoints. This is about traffic stops.

Yes, I see your point about the thread direction. But I would think that assessing the driver would be an expected part of a traffic stop as well. I'm more accepting of it in a traffic stop when the driver has been observed doing something wrong (swerving, not signaling, speeding, etc.) I think an assessment of the driver during a traffic stop would be indicated and acceptable.

Thanks, but no, I won't be using SCOTUS as the final arbiter of the appropriateness of LE actions.

Not appropriateness maybe, but for better or worse, they are the final word on legality unless / until they reverse a decision.

 

[steveh_131]

who's the victim if i go out into my front yard and just start popping off rounds? maybe nobody, but that doesn't make it any less dangerous for my neighbors.

And if you injure one or damage their property, you should certainly be prosecuted.

What is your point?

In fact, I would say that it qualifies as trespassing in a lot of ways as well.

 

[rjstew317]

So what?

Dangerous does not define criminality.

so i can come to your house and start shooting in your front yard, where your children play?

 

[Rookie]

Two different types of stops.

Pulled over for infraction. You walk up and my window is down three inches. You ask me to roll it down, I refuse, and you ask me to step out. I believe you are legally entitled to ask me to step out, but I'm curious where the justification comes from. Could you please explain?

DUI checkpoint, which is SUPPOSED to be minimally intrusive. You ask me to roll my window down further than three inches, and I refuse. Now what? I'm not trying to be difficult, but I really want to know what your legal justification is for asking and if you have the legal right to force compliance.

 

[steveh_131]

so i can come to your house and start shooting in your front yard, where your children play?

Trespassing, property damage.

In the real world, you would also probably receive a bullet for your troubles.

 

[rjstew317]

Trespassing, property damage.

In the real world, you would also probably receive a bullet for your troubles.

ok, the street in front of the house, it's public property

 

[steveh_131]

ok, the street in front of the house, it's public property

It's still property damage.

 

[rjstew317]

It's still property damage.

how? didn't say I was aiming at anything. based on the logic I'm hearing here, I should only be prosecuted if in fact one of the bullets hits someone or their property

 

[steveh_131]

how? didn't say I was aiming at anything. based on the logic I'm hearing here, I should only be prosecuted if in fact one of the bullets hits someone or their property

It has to land on something, doesn't it? Laws of physics and all.

 

[rjstew317]

after all, if I don't hit anything it's a victimless crime

 

[steveh_131]

after all, if I don't hit anything it's a victimless crime

Oh, so you're using magic bullets that hit nothing. Gotcha.

You win this argument.

 

[rjstew317]

It has to land on something, doesn't it? Laws of physics and all.

could hit a tree on public land (paid for by my taxes)