Sobriety Checkpoint leads to Forcible Extraction

[Keyser Soze]

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.

Bingo you got it....earlier I said the officers acted appropriately for the situation and everyone flipped out it's bad policy not officers. I have the choice if I want to work a check point. Some officers don't.

 

[serpicostraight]

that says 40% of all motor vehicle accidents are alcohol related. I'm pretty sure that's the single largest contributing factor.

that still means 60 percent are not alchohol related. but i dont see anybody on thier soapbox about driving stupid. stupid kills more than alchohol but i guess everybody is ok with that. seems to be a mindset that as long as stupid kills its ok but not alchohol.

 

[88GT]

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

Are you asking permission or making a rhetorical inquiry? My answer will depend on how you respond.

What part of "I personally dislike checkpoints. I do not believe a person who has not commit an infraction should ever be stopped, just in case." is confusing you?

Sorry. But maybe the part where you continually defend them. Perhaps the part where you describe how you automatically assume people need to be checked for impairment when no other indications exists.

3 inches doesn't work. I'd prefer to know if a person committed said infraction due to being impaired. An important part of LE is using one's senses. Very often, people that are intoxicated, smell the part. A window lowered 3 inches, combined with the driving infraction would only lead me to investigate more.


If it's a mechanical violation, the logic still applies. The vast majority of drivers that subscribe to your "3 inch" example do so in an attempt to conceal odor of alcohol or drugs. Though the mantra of "Protect and Serve" isn't, according to the USSC, legally binding, however this is one particular instance where the your right to not lower your windows further than 3 inches, takes a backseat to the ability to ensure the safety of the public by confirming a driver is not impaired.

Looky there. A prime example of why I am confused by your responses. For someone who hate sobriety checkpoints, you sure do seem to want to do them.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I'll never crack your mentality that you have some magic power to enforce safety by infringing on my rights. And you'll never see rights as absolute and superior to "public safety."

A lot of posturing can be avoid by simply being courteous. It's a two way street. If a person in legitimately stopped for speeding, running a stop sign, or what have you, there's no way you can articulate how NOT rolling down a window isn't confrontational; especially when the officer has extended respect intially. And even if is viewed as such, it isn't in my job description to get into a pissing match on the side of the road over a window. My job is to make sure the driver isn't a threat to the public and safe to drive.

Yeah, I can. But you'll never see it as such. You patently refuse to accept that the individual's right supersede all other factors. I reject the collectivist mindset you hold. The individual does not exist for the common good. And neither should the laws.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Are you asking permission or making a rhetorical inquiry? My answer will depend on how you respond.

Sorry. But maybe the part where you continually defend them. Perhaps the part where you describe how you automatically assume people need to be checked for impairment when no other indications exists.

Looky there. A prime example of why I am confused by your responses. For someone who hate sobriety checkpoints, you sure do seem to want to do them.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I'll never crack your mentality that you have some magic power to enforce safety by infringing on my rights. And you'll never see rights as absolute and superior to "public safety."

Yeah, I can. But you'll never see it as such. You patently refuse to accept that the individual's right supersede all other factors. I reject the collectivist mindset you hold. The individual does not exist for the common good. And neither should the laws.

I think you're confused. I haven't defended sobrirty checkpoints one. Find me a post where I have. Further I have never even worked a checkpoint.

Maybe you arent clear that a "traffic stop" is in no way associated with a sobriety checkpoint. I don't know if you're a "selective" reader or what, but my point is well spelled out.

 

[grimor]

that says 40% of all motor vehicle accidents are alcohol related. I'm pretty sure that's the single largest contributing factor.

unfortunately the way that the "alcohol related" statistics are created is if ANY alcohol is present by ANYONE involved. Even if they weren't driving, and even if it was just 1 beer. Helps keep the numbers up and the funding flowing.

 

[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.

To Kutnupe: sobrirty? Have you had too much to drink tonight?

Would you please answer my questions?

 

[Kutnupe14]

To Kutnupe: sobrirty? Have you had too much to drink tonight?

Would you please answer my questions?

Sure:

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?

As stated earlier, people who have been drinking and probably shouldn't be driving have developed their own systems of trying to stay out of trouble. Some think gum works, some smother themselves in perfume, Some turn thurn heads while talking, and some roll their windows down 3 inches. Such actions arent typical for the vast majority of drivers. If something is odd or doesnt make sense, officers are trained to investigate further. That investigation includes having a driver exit their vehicle.

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.

Other than the USSC's ruling, there is absolutely no legal justification. I don't agree with Sobriety Checkpoints. However, that said the side of the law rests with law enforcement. I would advised people to comply, and challenge it later. But hey, if you don't want to, that's on the individual.

 

[Rookie]

I think I understand. Correct me if I'm wrong.

In both situations, the window issue...

The first situation you have probable cause because their actions are out of the ordinary.

The second, because, right or wrong, that particular issue (window) hasn't been addressed.

I won't be the test subject...

 

[MACHINEGUN]

This stuff is funny.. like you can't just turn around and drive another way!

 

[Chase515]

I will fess up! As much as I dislike the police, I was pulled over for dui in 2003. I went to a bar had a few drinks and was headed to another bar when I was pulled over. I was above the leagal limit and carted off to jail. I have been on the sober driving rampage ever since. The prosecutor offered me the deferal program because I hadnt been in trouble before. I happily paid the 1100$ and took the required classes and stayed off the police radar for two years which was required. Couple years after that I applied for truck driving school and they came back and told me my driving record showed a dui but no charge? It seriouly limited which companys would hire me. I do not fault the cop for pulling me over, he was doing his job. Pretty sure that is why I havnt gotten a job with the power company as a lineman. I also have a degree in electronics technology. Everytime I hear about a death from a drunk driver I cringe because It could have been me.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Why is 3 INCHES not sufficient?

Dang, I figured it would be a man who asked that question.

Shall we legislate against driving while old? Driving while sleepy?

Actually NJ has made any tiredness related accident involving an injury a felony. And I posted a couple of studies on a different thread a while back that shows that drowsy driving is as bad if not worse than drunk driving. How many people here that oppose drinking and driving have drove tired.

Here is an Australian study that shows that being awake for 17hrs is comparable to a BAC of .05 after 24 hrs it goes up to a BAC of .08, 28 hrs = .10
Connecticut Drowsy Driving - SafeMotorist.com

Should we have sleepiness checkpoints? Sir I need you to get out of the car and put your head on this pillow to see if you fall asleep.

that says 40% of all motor vehicle accidents are alcohol related. I'm pretty sure that's the single largest contributing factor.

Actually that statistic is false, about 40% of fatalities are alcohol related, 10% of accidents are alcohol related, and under 3% of accidents involve an intoxicated driver.
Alcohol Consumption and Traffic Crashes

 

[Timjoebillybob]

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.

Yes SCOTUS has ruled that an officer can order a person to exit a vehicle(or stay in one for that matter), but that was under officer safety. Not for the purpose of investigations or to gather evidence. I view it similar to the recent IN case where the officer opened a locked glove box under officer safety. Do you think the ruling would of been the same if the officer stated that she unlocked and opened the glove box to check for illegal items?

If it's a mechanical violation, the logic still applies. The vast majority of drivers that subscribe to your "3 inch" example do so in an attempt to conceal odor of alcohol or drugs. Though the mantra of "Protect and Serve" isn't, according to the USSC, legally binding, however this is one particular instance where the your right to not lower your windows further than 3 inches, takes a backseat to the ability to ensure the safety of the public by confirming a driver is not impaired.

A lot of posturing can be avoid by simply being courteous. It's a two way street. If a person in legitimately stopped for speeding, running a stop sign, or what have you, there's no way you can articulate how NOT rolling down a window isn't confrontational; especially when the officer has extended respect intially.

Kutnupe, please do not take this the wrong way. I think from most of your postings on here that you are a good cop. And I'm not trying to bash you, just to get you to see another point of view.

Asking a person to step out of a vehicle to check for signs of a crime is IMO the same as asking a person to open their glove box so they can do a "plain view" search. Both allow the officer to check for violations of the law.
I'd say it falls under the right guaranteed under the 5th amendment against self incrimination.

Is refusing a search when the officer has extended respect initially being confrontational? When is being confrontational grounds for a search?

As stated earlier, people who have been drinking and probably shouldn't be driving have developed their own systems of trying to stay out of trouble. Some think gum works, some smother themselves in perfume, Some turn thurn heads while talking, and some roll their windows down 3 inches. Such actions arent typical for the vast majority of drivers. If something is odd or doesnt make sense, officers are trained to investigate further. That investigation includes having a driver exit their vehicle.

And people who keep drugs in their glove box keep their registrations in the counsel or above the visor. In my experience most people keep their registration in the glove box, keeping it anywhere else is odd. Does that give an officer cause to investigate further, including searching the glove box?

 

[Denny347]

that still means 60 percent are not alchohol related. but i dont see anybody on thier soapbox about driving stupid. stupid kills more than alchohol but i guess everybody is ok with that. seems to be a mindset that as long as stupid kills its ok but not alchohol.

Alcohol Impaired Driving Statistics


Total Fatalities / Fatality Rates

250,000 people have died in alcohol related accidents in the past 10 years.
Presently 25,000 people are killed each year in alcohol related accidents.
500 people are killed each week in alcohol related accidents.
71 people are killed each day in alcohol related accidents.
One American life is lost every 20 minutes in alcohol related auto crashes.
It is estimated that one out of every two Americans will be involved in an alcohol related accident in his or her lifetime.
In 1994, New Hampshire had 119 total highway fatalities, 42 were alcohol related (or 35.3% of the total). New Hampshire leads the nation with one of the lowest percentages of alcohol related fatalities.

Cause of Death
Alcohol related crashes are the leading cause of death for young Americans, between the ages of 16 and 24 years old.
For all Americans between 5 and 35 years of age, motor vehicle accidents are the number one cause of death. Over 50% of these accidents are caused by alcohol impaired drivers.

Recent Alcohol-Involvement
Over 50% of all fatal highway crashes involving two or more cars are alcohol related.
Over 65% of all fatal single car crashes are alcohol related.
Over 36% percent of all adult pedestrian accidents are alcohol related.
80% of all fatal alcohol related auto crashes occur between 8 pm and 8 am.
36% of all adult pedestrian accidents involve an intoxicated pedestrian.

Injury Crashes / Collisions
Every year, 708,000 persons are injured in alcohol related crashes; 74, 000 of those people suffer serious injuries.
About 2,000 people are hurt each day in alcohol related accidents.
Two million alcohol impaired driving collisions occur each year.
Arrest / Characteristics of Alcohol Impaired Drivers
Of every 200 to 2,000 alcohol impaired drivers on the road, only one is arrested. Therefore, the probability of getting caught is slim. Of those who are caught, very few receive a serious penalty.
The average alcohol impaired driver arrested on the highway has a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .20%, double the level for presumed intoxication in most states; that is 14 drinks of 86% proof liquor (or 14 beers) in 4 hours for a 180 lb. man.
Between 7 pm and 3 am on weekends, 10% of all drivers are legally impaired, in some parts of the country.Most Americans drink alcohol. Over 80% admit to driving after drinking.
Relatively few problem drinkers, about 7% of the driving population, account for over 66% of all alcohol related fatal accidents.
When drinkers are at the presumed level of intoxication, the risk of causing an accident is six times greater than for non-drinking drivers.
DUI Statistics

 

[Rookie]

The one thing that jumped out at me...

"Of those who are caught, very few recieve a serious penalty."

 

[steveh_131]

No one is suggesting LE take the approach of, "Oh, drunk as all messerschmidt tonight, huh Randy? Have ya hit anybuddy yet? Nah? Okay, go on home then. Drive safe."

Actually, this is exactly what I'm suggesting. Except that the LE shouldn't have been bothering Randy at all unless he had harmed someone or something.

You can argue with me all you want but the fact is that driving drunk is irresponsible, dangerous, and avoidable. Arguing pro-drunk driving is one of the stupidist things I have ever heard, Pelosi speeches included.

Saying that I am "pro-drunk driving" is like calling a 2A supporter "pro-shooting people".

I am "pro-freedom".

I don't believe that some arbitrary number like .08 is a legitimate way to gauge a person's driving ability. Someone way above .08 could be driving safely while someone way above the age of 80 is driving unsafely.

I don't believe that we need a nanny state to tell us when we are or aren't behaving responsibly if there are no consequences that affect anyone but ourselves.

I don't believe that people should go to jail based on what could have happened.

I also don't believe any of you will get this. This freedom isn't important to you, so why fight for it? Frankly, it's not important to me either. I never drive if I've had more than one beer.

But one of these days they will ban something that is important to you. And they'll ask the police to enforce it. And you may speak up. You'll be called a whiny crybaby by the JBT's. You'll be told that it's for your own safety and for the good of the public. You'll be informed that it's legal, and therefore the police have no choice but to enforce it. And you'll be regaled with all sorts of statistics showing a correlation between whatever is banned and the safety of babies. And it won't matter, you will submit and lose freedom after freedom.

And maybe then you will get it. It will probably be too late.

 

[Expat]

I am old enough to remember when all men knew they were better drivers after a few drinks than completely sober. Of course it wasn't true but everyone said it and were confident in their ability to drive drunk. The laws, enforcement and social stigmatization has made a huge difference whether you or I like it or not.

 

[steveh_131]

I am old enough to remember when all men knew they were better drivers after a few drinks than completely sober. Of course it wasn't true but everyone said it and were confident in their ability to drive drunk. The laws, enforcement and social stigmatization has made a huge difference whether you or I like it or not.

Whoosh.

 

[E5RANGER375]

You might want to check into case law on that. I'll give you one.
FindLaw | Cases and Codes

LEO can not stop you just to check your license/registration without reasonable suspicion. For instance they run the plate on the car and it comes back that the owners license is suspended, the driver of the vehicle matches the owners description. That would be valid.

There is a SCOTUS decision, that states DUI checkpoints are okay with certain restrictions, one of which they must be random, eg stop every so many cars or every car etc. They can't just pick and choose which cars they want to stop.



I agree.

I have no faith that scotus makes appropriate decisions. that place needs to be cleaned out too just like congress.

 

[rjstew317]

Actually, this is exactly what I'm suggesting. Except that the LE shouldn't have been bothering Randy at all unless he had harmed someone or something.



Saying that I am "pro-drunk driving" is like calling a 2A supporter "pro-shooting people".

I am "pro-freedom".

I don't believe that some arbitrary number like .08 is a legitimate way to gauge a person's driving ability. Someone way above .08 could be driving safely while someone way above the age of 80 is driving unsafely.

I don't believe that we need a nanny state to tell us when we are or aren't behaving responsibly if there are no consequences that affect anyone but ourselves.

I don't believe that people should go to jail based on what could have happened.

I also don't believe any of you will get this. This freedom isn't important to you, so why fight for it? Frankly, it's not important to me either. I never drive if I've had more than one beer.

But one of these days they will ban something that is important to you. And they'll ask the police to enforce it. And you may speak up. You'll be called a whiny crybaby by the JBT's. You'll be told that it's for your own safety and for the good of the public. You'll be informed that it's legal, and therefore the police have no choice but to enforce it. And you'll be regaled with all sorts of statistics showing a correlation between whatever is banned and the safety of babies. And it won't matter, you will submit and lose freedom after freedom.

And maybe then you will get it. It will probably be too late.

So I'm a JBT because I don't think that you should be able to conduct yourself in public with reckless abandon and complete disregard for other citizens? What you advocate for is anarchy, not freedom. FAIL

 

[steveh_131]

So I'm a JBT because I don't think that you should be able to conduct yourself in public with reckless abandon and complete disregard for other citizens? What you advocate for is anarchy, not freedom. FAIL

I never said that you, personally, are a JBT. That was directed towards any cop who calls people crybabies for not respecting their authority.

Do you know the definition of anarchy? You should look it up, because it is certainly not what I am advocating.