Sobriety Checkpoint leads to Forcible Extraction

[NYFelon]

As an out of stater, anyone have anymore info on this Biscard situation? I'm sure I could google it, but just a few critical details would help. It sounds suspiciously like a case we had here in NY 2 years ago. A drunk cop ran over and killed a girl after having left a party. He refused a breathalyzer test, was taken (uncuffed) into custody, and a blood test was not administered until (if I remember right) 9 hours later. By that time of course, he was alcohol free. There was also an IA investigation into a ocver-up, and I believe there were 2 other convictions.

The cop who killed the girl was fired, sentenced to 90 days in jail, and 5 years probation. What if that were a regular citizen?

 

[ElsiePeaRN]

The more I read of this thread, the more frustrated I get, so I need to vent.

Both the SCOTUS in - Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz and Court of Appeals of Indiana in Cleer v State - http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/06211002mpb.pdf have stated that sobriety checkpoints are acceptable. Regardless of what we feel about sobriety checkpoints, it seems that point is settled.

As is the nature of government, they have begun the push to the next step. I can imagine their thinking: "If these checkpoints now allow us to do something the law would not ordinarily allow us to do, namely to stop someone and question them just to see if they are doing something wrong, now we'll try and use these stops to screen IDs as well! Now, we can't normally do that, but these checkpoints seem to have had pixie dust sprinkled on them by the SCOTUS so we'll probably get away with it!"

If this is allowed to proceed unchallenged while we sheeple simply accept it because it is "to protect us," then this combined with The Real ID Act will in no time lead to American citizens being stopped on the street to have our "papers" checked under any circumstances. It will be argued that this is simply the price we pay for our freedom. Nonsense!

I am amazed that there are those on THIS forum would support such an abuse of power by allowing the issue to be obfuscated by a disingenuous association with preventing drunk driving. We need to see this clearly as the abuse it is and not allow this association to put us off the scent of government abuse of power.

 

[Keyser Soze]

In regard to Bisard's technicality. Is it SOP to track down drivers in stationary vehicles who are involved in chain reaction accidents hours after the fact and give them a breathalyzer tests? Somebody knew he was drunk and they were looking for a scapegoat.

I dont know their department SOPs so I cant say. In a typical OWI you have three hours for certified testing . No one suspected he was intoxicated. Over 50 people testified and none observed any signs of intoxication. To my understanding he drank daily and was a functioning alcoholic. The blood drawl is standard procedure for any fatality or accident resulting in bodily injury citizen or officer. I have no doubt that the blood that was taken was a valid sample and well over the .08 limit. Protocol was not followed and the evidence cant not be used in court. Obviously its your job to effectivly follow protocol and all procedure for a successful prosecution. Most people think a successful OWI prosecution is as easy as any other misdemeanor arrest. Not the case. Done correctly your looking at three hours paper work. I believe Bishard was intoxicated but I dont support a conspiracy cover up theory.

It would have been just as easy to say bishard was really upset about the accident. He started tossing down shots after the fact. But anyway? what does that have to do with this thread?

 

[Keyser Soze]

You and others seem to be missing the primary point here that they set up this checkpoint specifically to check licenses/ID in addition to screening for DUI. Do you all actually support this practice? Are roadblocks for ID checks acceptable to you simply because they also include DUI screenings? There is no statute in California law that allows for stopping someone for ID checks if they are not suspected of a crime. Period.

I stated in a previous post I do not support any type of check point. Like someone already said check points are for war zones. Ive passed on 1,000s of dollars of taskforce pay due to the fact I don't agree with checkpoints.

I am just saying since check points are considered acceptable these officers wont be getting into any trouble. Outside of the checkpoint itself they acted appropriately.

 

[Rookie]

Do I get a case of ammo because you quoted Indiana law on a California case?

Edited to add-- besides, even the Indiana code states it must be for an infraction:

IC 34-28-5-3.5
Refusal to identify self
Sec. 3.5. A person who knowingly or intentionally refuses to provide either the person's:
(1) name, address, and date of birth; or
(2) driver's license, if in the person's possession;
to a law enforcement officer who has stopped the person for an infraction or ordinance violation commits a Class C misdemeanor.


Driving down a road where police have set up a checkpoint is not an infraction.

I asked for IC to see if a request would pertain to Indiana residents. I knew the IC stated didn't refer to obstruction (which he quoted as the reason). I'm still waiting for IC stating we need to show ID on request.

 

[Rookie]

I am just saying since check points are considered acceptable these officers wont be getting into any trouble. Outside of the checkpoint itself they acted appropriately.

How did they act appropriately? Is California a stop and identify state? From what I've read, they aren't. So, what was the driver guilty of?

 

[ElsiePeaRN]

I am just saying since check points are considered acceptable these officers wont be getting into any trouble. Outside of the checkpoint itself they acted appropriately.

While I agree they won't get in trouble, I am disagreeing that they acted appropriately. Many Californians are in disagreement as well. In a previous post, I pointed out that in California, the operation of these checkpoints are specifically governed by th California Supreme Court decision Ingersoll v Palmer. It set the standard for how they must be carried out. It specifies eight requirments. #7 follows:

7) Length and Nature of Detention:

Each motorist stopped should be detained only long enough for the officer to question the driver briefly and to look for signs of intoxication, such as alcohol on the breath, slurred speech, and glassy or bloodshot eyes. 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 roadside sobriety test. At that point, further investigation must be based on probable cause, and general principles of detention and arrest would apply.

It is only at the time that the driver fails the sobriety test (edited-- or maybe when they first identify signs of intoxication) that California law requires the driver to provide ID. They must have probable cause to request ID. This is in keeping with California code (and it appies also to Indiana Code) that ID must be provided when you have been stopped for an infraction.

I appreciate that you do not approve of the roadblocks, but I maintain that you have been missing the point regarding the demand for the driver's license.

 

[ElsiePeaRN]

I asked for IC to see if a request would pertain to Indiana residents. I knew the IC stated didn't refer to obstruction (which he quoted as the reason). I'm still waiting for IC stating we need to show ID on request.

You do not. Unless you have been stopped for an infraction as stated above.

 

[Rookie]

You do not. Unless you have been stopped for an infraction as stated above.

I know.

 

[Keyser Soze]

California deemed a brief detention was lawful. Office asked the driver to put his window down. Driver refused. Changes from brief detention to misdemeanor. He asked for identification after the fact. I'm sure the officer asked him to put the window down to check for impairment. Otherwise what would be the purpose?
Penal Code Section 148 Resisting Delaying or Obstructing Officer

California penal code.
Resisting, Delaying, or Obstructing Officer

148. (a) (1) Every person who willfully resists, delays, or obstructs any public officer, peace officer, or an emergency medical technician, as defined in Division 2.5 (commencing with Section 1797) of the Health and Safety Code, 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.

 

[Keyser Soze]

As an out of stater, anyone have anymore info on this Biscard situation? I'm sure I could google it, but just a few critical details would help. It sounds suspiciously like a case we had here in NY 2 years ago. A drunk cop ran over and killed a girl after having left a party. He refused a breathalyzer test, was taken (uncuffed) into custody, and a blood test was not administered until (if I remember right) 9 hours later. By that time of course, he was alcohol free. There was also an IA investigation into a ocver-up, and I believe there were 2 other convictions.

The cop who killed the girl was fired, sentenced to 90 days in jail, and 5 years probation. What if that were a regular citizen?

Regular citizen would keep their job. Probably get 90 days credit for time served remainder suspended. Probation, impact panel..yada yada. If you have deep enough pockets you can probably skate on the charges all together.

 

[Keyser Soze]

I asked for IC to see if a request would pertain to Indiana residents. I knew the IC stated didn't refer to obstruction (which he quoted as the reason). I'm still waiting for IC stating we need to show ID on request.

He he talking about a misdemeanor obstruction. In indiana if your being stopped you have committed some type of infraction and are required to identify yourself. There is no IC that states you are to produce identification whenever requested. No one ever said there was.

 

[ElsiePeaRN]

He asked for identification after the fact..

I am already aware of why they arrested him and posted that very code earlier in the thread.

What you refuse to acknowledge is that the stop was set up in order to request ID. They request ID of everyone that is selected to stop. Signs of intoxication or not. It is a dual License and DUI check. This is what they were calling attention to.

Now, if you will simply acknowledge this KEY fact and respond appropriately as to whether you support setting up checkpoints for licenses maybe we can get somewhere.

 

[public servant]

He's still an innocent man.

FIFY

For now at least...just like everyone else.

 

[Keyser Soze]

I am already aware of why they arrested him and posted that very code earlier in the thread.

What you refuse to acknowledge is that the stop was set up in order to request ID. They request ID of everyone that is selected to stop. Signs of intoxication or not. It is a dual License and DUI check. This is what they were calling attention to.

Now, if you will simply acknowledge this KEY fact and respond appropriately as to whether you support setting up checkpoints for licenses maybe we can get somewhere.

LOL I already stated I do not support any type of checkpoint.

 

[ElsiePeaRN]

LOL I already stated I do not support any type of checkpoint.

I am confused about why you continue to provide arguments that appear to be trying to excuse them then.

 

[UncleMike]

LOL I already stated I do not support any type of checkpoint.

You really shouldn't' confuse people with the facts.
It just makes the argument last longer.

 

[ElsiePeaRN]

the officers did nothing wrong. Reason being; As soon as they failed to roll down the window as requested they began obstructing, which is a crime and a reason for the officer to request ID.

Wrong.

34-28-5-3.5
there ya go some dispute on whether the driver and passenger need to show identification. Driver for certain.

Wrong.

Outside of the checkpoint itself they acted appropriately.

Wrong.

He asked for identification after the fact.

Misleading as the purpose of the stop is to ask for identification.

There is no IC that states you are to produce identification whenever requested. No one ever said there was.

In the quote above you seem to be sayign that the driver "for certain" needs to show ID when asked.

You have my brain all twisted up. You do not like the stops, but defend all of the activity occurring at one?

 

[ElsiePeaRN]

You really shouldn't' confuse people with the facts.
It just makes the argument last longer.

Uncle Mike, I believe (of course) that my argument has been very consistent and focused on the facts. I am confused that Keyser is stating he disapproves of the stops yet all of his other statements are opinions in the defense of the officers' actions.

He quotes a law as fact but then appears to interpret it to mean something it does not say. I am really trying to understand because his argument is just not making sense to me.

If he IS saying the officers' actions are acceptable then yes, we are arguing that point. I am confused, but not by the facts. I am confused by the inconsistency I perceive in his argument. Most people wouldn't consider me either stupid or close-minded, and I'm asking for clarification.

 

[nate1865]

At a sobriety checkpoint, they are assuming you're guilty until you prove your innocence with a breathalyzer.

We do it all the time now - it's part of our culture. Somebody gets arrested for this or that on the news, we assume they're guilty until proven innocent in a court of law - just listen how people talk and think about it.