Sobriety Checkpoint leads to Forcible Extraction

[Rookie]

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

Exactly what facts do you think we're confused about?

I personally don't agree with checkpoints but since they were given the thumbs up 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.

I pointed out that the window WAS rolled down. It obviously wasn't rolled down as far as the officer wanted. Is there a minimum distance that it has to be rolled down? Feel free to cite IC as I am interested in how this pertains to Indiana. Being that the window WAS down enough to communicate, how can the claim of obstruction be valid?


I then asked for IC stating that we had to produce ID on request. Here is what I got...

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

It was pointed out that ID has to be produced for infractions.
Last I checked, DUI checkpoints are nothing more than a fishing expedition. No infractions have been committed, so why do police have the authority to demand ID. I still haven't seen anything proving otherwise.

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.

Now this is where I get confused. We are talking about DUI checkpoints not being stopped for an infraction. So let me see if I understand what you're talking about...


(Rolling up to checkpoint)
Officer: evening. Roll your window down.
Me: it is down. Maybe not as far as you would like, but, the fact is, my window is down enough that we can communicate just fine.
Officer: let me see your ID.
Me: no.
Officer: NOW you're obstructing because you didn't obey my UNLAWFUL order. Let me see your ID.

Being that the officers had no legal reason to demand ID (contempt of cop is still legal), how can you say the officer's actions were legal?

 

[semperfi211]

In Ca. They should have just stated that they are undocumented aliens and they would have been free to go without showing ID.

 

[UncleMike]

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.

Exactly what facts do you think we're confused about?

Keyser Soze, other Officers, and myself have stated that we didn't believe that the checkpoints were a good thing.
I can't speak for KS or the others, but I'm through trying to explain my position on the matter.
If plain English isn't sufficient, then people will just have to be confused.

 

[ElsiePeaRN]

I don't like Sobriety Checkpoints either but until the Courts, or the Legislature, puts a stop to them we're stuck with them.

I'm through trying to explain my position on the matter.

LMAO.
Uncle Mike's position on the legality of demanding ID from a citizen who is not suspected of a crime:

Drunk Drivers: Bad.
Sobriety Checkpoints: Bad.
Police Officers: Good.
"The matter": What they said.

Thanks for your deep thought and eloquent explanation of your position on "the matter." I see no reason why you should address "the matter" raised in this thread any more than you already have.

I was asking Keyser anyway.

 

[Rookie]

Keyser Soze, other Officers, and myself have stated that we didn't believe that the checkpoints were a good thing.
I can't speak for KS or the others, but I'm through trying to explain my position on the matter.
If plain English isn't sufficient, then people will just have to be confused.

Well, that's interesting. Everyone, including you, agree that checkpoints aren't a good thing. There's one FACT that everyone agrees on. I think we've moved past that.

The discussion at hand has to do with why were the officer's actions appropriate? I understand that this happened in California, but quite a few of us are interested in how this would play out in Indiana. I've asked for IC stating that you have to produce ID on request - apparently there isn't any unless you have commited an infraction. Coming up to a DUI checkpoint isn't an infraction, so what right did the officer have to ask for ID? The window was rolled down enough that they communicate effectively. Is there a minimum distance that the window has to be rolled down? I'll answer, "NO."

So, the question still remains. How were the officer's actions legal?

Once again, we've moved past the whole "are checkpoints legal". That's "plain English". Once again, we are asking how the officer's actions were legal. Once again, that's also "plain English".

The only comment you've made to the discussion at hand is the snide remark, "you shouldn't confuse people with facts".

Par for the course, though. Hold officer's feet to the fire and they are through discussing it.

 

[Keyser Soze]

Well, that's interesting. Everyone, including you, agree that checkpoints aren't a good thing. There's one FACT that everyone agrees on. I think we've moved past that.

The discussion at hand has to do with why were the officer's actions appropriate? I understand that this happened in California, but quite a few of us are interested in how this would play out in Indiana. I've asked for IC stating that you have to produce ID on request - apparently there isn't any unless you have commited an infraction. Coming up to a DUI checkpoint isn't an infraction, so what right did the officer have to ask for ID? The window was rolled down enough that they communicate effectively. Is there a minimum distance that the window has to be rolled down? I'll answer, "NO."

So, the question still remains. How were the officer's actions legal?

Once again, we've moved past the whole "are checkpoints legal". That's "plain English". Once again, we are asking how the officer's actions were legal. Once again, that's also "plain English".

The only comment you've made to the discussion at hand is the snide remark, "you shouldn't confuse people with facts".

Par for the course, though. Hold officer's feet to the fire and they are through discussing it.

For the last time its obvious they were looking for a confrontation. They intentionally barley cracked the window which prevented the officer from conduction a proper brief investigative detention to check for impaired driving. The second the driver refused to put the window down he was preventing the officer from doing his job...obstructing. Letter of the law he could have been pulled and arrested right then. He pleads with the driver. Driver refuses lawful commands and you see what happened. I'm done here.

 

[superjoe76]

Whoa, deja vu [STRIKE]all over again[/STRIKE]. I was just watching this from a different source. The comments here are certainly better than the ones there, I can tell you. Lots of jackbootery at the other place, (to be expected, I guess. All the commenters were cops).

FTFY

 

[Rookie]

For the last time its obvious they were looking for a confrontation.

I agree. It might not be smart, but it's not illegal.

They intentionally barley cracked the window which prevented the officer from conduction a proper brief investigative detention to check for impaired driving. The second the driver refused to put the window down he was preventing the officer from doing his job...obstructing.

Once again, he had the window rolled down, just not to the officer's liking. Feel free to show me ANYWHERE that states you have to have your window rolled down a certain distance or to the officer's liking. Since you can't, refusing to cater to an officer is not illegal.

Letter of the law he could have been pulled and arrested right then.

Letter of whose law? You still have failed to prove that he did anything but refuse an officer's request. You haven't proven that the officer had the legal right to request it. Show me anything that proves your point, and you'll have my apology.

He pleads with the driver. Driver refuses lawful commands and you see what happened.

I see exactly what happened. Contempt of cop, guilty as charged. Feel free to prove otherwise.

I'm done here.

Of course you're done. Once again, you have failed to back up any statement with any proof besides, "because I said so."

Like I said, Par for the course.

 

[long coat]

For the last time its obvious they were looking for a confrontation. They intentionally barley cracked the window which prevented the officer from conduction a proper brief investigative detention to check for impaired driving. The second the driver refused to put the window down he was preventing the officer from doing his job...obstructing. Letter of the law he could have been pulled and arrested right then. He pleads with the driver. Driver refuses lawful commands and you see what happened. I'm done here.

Please site IC about how far the window has to come down.

 

[Libertarian01]

To All,

The concern that I have over the enforcement of DUI (In Indiana it is OWI) is that it is criminalizing risk. This is consistent with the growth of the Nanny State.

Baring the annoyance factor should it be illegal for me to set off a lone firecracker in my backyard? I live in the city.

What about an M80?

A quarter stick of dynamite?

Half stick of dynamite?

Ten (10) sticks of dynamite?

Ten (10) pounds of C4?

A thermonuclear weapon?

I am quite certain that most rational/reasonable people will have some limit before the thermonuclear weapon. Where that limit lies is based on our own tolerance of risk.

A person has a glass of wine with dinner an hour ago. Should they be allowed to drive?

What about a glass of beer?

Two (2) beers?

A couple of shots of whiskey?

A bottle of good Single Malt Scotch half an hour ago?

Again, each of us will have a different answer on what we think is OK and what is not.

The fact is that driving impaired is NOT a guarantee of damage to a person or property. We have no idea how many thousands of lives have been saved by blind luck. Yet at the same time the consumption of alcohol does increase the probability of damage to a person or property.

My hand still hurts from being smashed by a woman who blew .07 three (3) years ago.

Would I have been worse off had she blown .08? What about .04?

Heck, what if she just wasn't paying attention and smashed me anyway? From my personal point of view in my case I really don't care what the cause of her hitting me was. The fact is she hit me, totaled my car and broke my hand.

We all have a different tolerance of risk. There will always come a point where the vast majority of us agree that some erosion of liberty is acceptable for the common good. The danger is drawing that line too low on the side of liberty in the name of safety.

Regards,

Doug

 

[ElsiePeaRN]

Of course you're done. Once again, you have failed to back up any statement with any proof besides, "because I said so."

Like I said, Par for the course.

+1 If there was anything to support his position, he certainly would have offered it rather than declare the argument not worth any more of his time. The only facts presented here prove our position. But let's not confuse them with facts

 

[96firephoenix]

driving is a privilege, not a right. as a privilege, the gov't can regulate it as they see fit. They see fit to regulate it by making laws against driving without a licence and while intoxicated.

in this instance, the mere fact that you are driving a car is PC that you are driving it without a licence. The same goes for if you are OC and an officer asks to see your LTCH (except that is a right, not a privilege and should not be regulated - diff't arguement)

without PC (driving erratically etc) they can not subject you to a sobriety test legally.

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

 

[Rookie]

Feel free to back up any of your statements with factual evidence.

 

[ElsiePeaRN]

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

I'd love to know on what you base this opinion.

without PC (driving erratically etc) they can not subject you to a sobriety test legally.

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

SCOTUS appears to disagree with you, so who do I believe? You or SCOTUS? Hmmmmm...

 

[Rookie]

I have an answer to one of my questions. Based on what I've found, the individual in the OP isn't going to win. The answer isn't "because I said so."

 

[Timjoebillybob]

driving is a privilege, not a right. as a privilege, the gov't can regulate it as they see fit. They see fit to regulate it by making laws against driving without a licence and while intoxicated.

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

without PC (driving erratically etc) they can not subject you to a sobriety test legally.

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

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'd love to know on what you base this opinion.

SCOTUS appears to disagree with you, so who do I believe? You or SCOTUS? Hmmmmm...

I agree.

 

[whocares]

OK, like twenty seconds into this I knew the kids were screwed. They F###ed up big time AS SOON AS YHEY THOUGHT A COP WOULD BE ACCOUNTABLE TO PROPER PROCEDURES AND MANDATED PROTOCOL. There has been some straight idiotism "my word" in this thread.

The guys were 100% legit in their experiment went south. He never refused to give a sobriety test. He refused to produce his papers as Rambone so appropriately says. The point was simply that at a sobriety checkpoint the only.thing checked should be sobriety. He verbally asked for the testing equipment. It should have been slipped through his window and when sobriety was proven the driver freed to go on. Cops can attitude anything to death and I was not at all surprised by the bully ass gang bangin bacon boys except that they asked him to cover his face. They usually would give eachother five for blinding some "punk kid".

ALSO THE DRUNK DRIVING A VICTIMLESS CRIME, DUDE COME ON, REALLY? CHECK YOUR BLOOD SUGAR. I MEAN IF A GUN KILLS SOMEONE IT IS OBVIOUSLY NOT VICTIMLESS, HENCE THE DEAD..... BARE WITH ME.... DING DING VICTIM! YOU HAVE CONFUSED THE WORD VICTIMLESS SOMEWHERE DOWN THE ROAD. IF MY ACTIONS IN ANY WAY AFFECT ANOTHER PERSON, WHETHER GOOD OR BAD THEY HAVE BECOME VICTIM TO MY ACTION. IF I GET PLASTERED, LIKE NO ABCs DRUNK AND WRECK INTO A TRAILOR, uhm, AND KILL PEOPLE ARE THEY NOT MY VICTIM?

IF AN INDIVIDUAL LACKS ALL SENSE OF REASON WHY TRY TO EXPLAIN AT ALL

 

[mrjarrell]

FTFY

*sigh* Culturally ignorant newbs. You are suffering from a serious case of fail.

 

[Expat]

*sigh* Culturally ignorant newbs. You are suffering from a serious case of fail.

Yeah, that was really weird.

 

[Keyser Soze]

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.