Sobriety Checkpoint leads to Forcible Extraction

[WWIIIDefender]

While I don't like the Sobriety Checkpoints, I hardly believe that DUI is a "victimless" crime.
I have lost friends to drunk drivers.
Their families consider themselves victims.

So DUI is a victimless crime? I'd like to be present when you tell that to anyone who has ever had a friend or family member killed by a drunk driver.

DUI who said anything about a DUI. OOOhhhh did you two already convict him. shame shame

 

[steveh_131]

Logic!!

Ok, then.

When you pull someone over who is intoxicated, who was the victim in that particular crime?

 

[ATF Consumer]

Ok, then.

When you pull someone over who is intoxicated, who was the victim in that particular crime?

It prevented them from creating a victim...just like if we take your guns away!

 

[NYFelon]

don't you understand? Had he not pulled him over he most assuredly WOULD HAVE killed someone. HE SAVED SOMEONE'S LIFE THAT NIGHT.

 

[ATF Consumer]

It is all about control...why must these people in society attempt to control other FREE citizens that have to be accountable for their own actions?

 

[steveh_131]

It is all about control...why must these people in society attempt to control other FREE citizens that have to be accountable for their own actions?

because they selected a vocation that leaves them dealing with the mess of people's irresponsibility.

But they can't ticket dead people. It's much more fun to ticket living people who haven't done anything wrong yet.

 

[NYFelon]

I'm by no means condoning driving while blitzed out of your head.

A coworker of mine years ago was also a volunteer EMT. He responded to a lot of DWI-caused accidents, including one that killed a 15 year old girl. Yes, I understand DWI (that's what it's called here in NY) is a crime, and rightly so. But to blanketly state that because the limit is .08, and some guy blew a point .0802 was was definitely gonna kill someone is nonsense. It's like saying a chef's gonna cut off a finger just because he picked up a knife, or you're definitely gonna get the schittz because you drank the water in Cancun.

They're logical fallacies.

 

[serpicostraight]

Escondido CA.
Precisely what does an incident that occurred thousands of miles from here have to do with Indiana, or Indiana Police Officers, for that matter???
I suggest that everyone who is pissed off about this contact the CA Police authority having jurisdiction over this case and raise seven barrels of owl crap with them.
Indiana Law Enforcement had nothing to do with this case.
BTW.
I don't like Sobriety Checkpoints either but until the Courts, or the Legislature, puts a stop to them we're stuck with them.

do the courts or legislature tell the police they must do checkpoints?

 

[serpicostraight]

Actually drunk driving, or any otherwise impaired driving is in no way a victimless crime. I can show you several grave stones of friends who were put their by drunk drivers. Don't tell me or their families that driving while not sober is victimless.

good point. too bad so far an innocent biker and his family hasnt seen justice. and the way it looks probably never will.

 

[ATF Consumer]

When someone harms another...they should be indebted to the family, not the state. The victim or family of the victim cannot get retribution from the state, that can only come from the one that did the harm/damage. Jail time doesn't provide that.

 

[level.eleven]

Here is one I watched this morning. It was linked in the comments section of an article reporting that 100s of portable breath test results could be thrown out because of a faulty device.

The video is interesting because it sharply demonstrates the guilty until proven innocent aspect of these free travel blockades. Don't play their revenue game, and suddenly "the presence of alcohol" is detected and eyes are "red and watery". They ordered the man out of his car then proceeded to seize it. The cop is hilarious. He immediately assumes the driver had been drinking. "How much have you drank?" "If you don't do the test we are going to assume you are drunk." It's a pretty interesting interaction.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12USZdggGxg[/ame]

 

[E5RANGER375]

since they were in a car i would have just gave them my ID, since they can just make up any reason for a stop anyways. that being said I DO NOT agree with ANY kind of checkpoints by police.

 

[Glockapoppadopolis]

I once heard a comedian talk about DUI in a very relevant way. He pointed out the distinct similarity of drunk drivers to geriatrics who can't see, can't hear, can't remember where they were going or how they got where they are. Why is one legal and the other illegal? Also, when we all take our driver's test we don't have to do them without our glasses our any other devices we use to survive day to day, why not be able to take a driver's test at your normal level of intoxication. Drink enough to feel like your at your limit of being able to drive and if you pass the test have that level be posted on your liscence. Like I said this is a comics point of view but maybe he's not too far off.

 

[level.eleven]

Escondido CA.
Precisely what does an incident that occurred thousands of miles from here have to do with Indiana, or Indiana Police Officers, for that matter???
I suggest that everyone who is pissed off about this contact the CA Police authority having jurisdiction over this case and raise seven barrels of owl crap with them.
Indiana Law Enforcement had nothing to do with this case.
BTW.
I don't like Sobriety Checkpoints either but until the Courts, or the Legislature, puts a stop to them we're stuck with them.

This is why it matters.

We examine claims under the Indiana Constitution separately from those based on federal constitutional counterparts.  Ajabu v. State, 693 N.E.2d 921 (Ind.1998);  see also Price v. State, 622 N.E.2d 954 (Ind.1993).   Nonetheless, both the U.S. Supreme Court and this Court have addressed the Fourth Amendment's applicability to sobriety checkpoints, and a review of federal holdings may inform our state analysis.

 

[Glockapoppadopolis]

Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere, right? Doesn't somebody here have that quote in their signature. You can't turn a blind eye to injustice just because it didn't happen to you.

 

[NYFelon]

Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere, right? Doesn't somebody here have that quote in their signature. You can't turn a blind eye to injustice just because it didn't happen to you.

would rep...but on lockdown.

 

[serpicostraight]

would rep...but on lockdown.

i got him for you

 

[NYFelon]

gracias

 

[88GT]

Escondido CA.
Precisely what does an incident that occurred thousands of miles from here have to do with Indiana, or Indiana Police Officers, for that matter???

Only the fact that it involves law enforcement. But given the systemic trampling of the rights of citizens by LE agencies across this county, that's sufficient relevance for me to sit up and take notice. Sure, it's California today. Can you guarantee it won't be Munice, Evansville, or Columbus tomorrow?

[devils advocate] What about the 100,000s of people who drive while legally intoxicated everyday that don't kill someone? Wouldn't that technically be a victimless crime?[/devils advocate]

Ok, then.

When you pull someone over who is intoxicated, who was the victim in that particular crime?

Waiting for answers to these questions.

 

[ElsiePeaRN]

California, I believe. Escondido.

Yes, indeed. My old stomping grounds. Also known as "Mexicondido" to some It is in inland San Diego County. I have turned to avoid that checkpoint on several occasions (sober, of course, just in a hurry )

Does California have a "you must show ID statute if the po-po ask for it"?

No. Except if you are being arrested.

Last year, SoCal (not sure if it's statewide) made an effort to increase the # and scope of DUI checkpoints. They started adding driver's license checks to the checkpoints around that that time.

A California Supreme Court decision, Ingersoll v Palmer, specified requirements for how sobriety checkpoints are to be carried out. In general, Ingersoll v Palmer states that police operating sobriety roadblocks can detain drivers only long enough for the officer to question the driver briefly and to look for signs of intoxication.. If the driver does not display signs of impairment, he or she 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 a field sobriety test. At that point, further investigation must be based on probable cause, and general principles of detention and arrest would apply. The CA statutes provide a requirement to provide ID at the time of arrest when asked.

California does not have a "stop-and-identify" statute. Although many are unhappy about these driver's license checks, it has not been challenged. It appears our friends in the video were prepared to do that. They were arrested because of another statute in the Penal Code Section 148:

148. (a) (1) Every person who willfully resists, delays, or obstructs any public officer, peace officer, or an emergency medical technician...in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her office or employment, when no other punishment is prescribed, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

There is much discussion about whether providing ID when asked can be "read into" section 148. The California OAG has said it cannot be read into it. It hasn't been tested with case law yet, as far as I know. Maybe our Escondido friends would like to be the first!