4th of July DUI Checkpoint Recorded

[Townhallsavoy]

Curious what you think:



Kid decides to pull out constitutional rights against the cops, and they get pissed.  Search his car for illegal drugs.

[Townhallsavoy]

While the cops are total assholes about it, the kid to me is acting suspiciously.  I think at a DUI checkpoint, if you attempt to hide that you are drunk, they can do a more thorough inspection of you.  Is that correct, attorneys?

[Snaggletiger]

Don't know who I want to punch in the face more.  The cop or the kid.

[Token]

A dont have a problem with checkpoints, but I do have a problem with how checkpoints are conducted some of the time. 

1.  This wasnt a random encounter, this was completely staged by the kid.  Anytime anyone goes out looking for confrontation, from any person, they are likely to find it.  He found it.  If they really wanted to be corrupt assholes, they would have broken that phone and jailed him for disorderly conduct.  Actually, they could have put him in for DUI, said that he refused the breathalyzer test, suspended his license and go word against word in court.  If they were the corrupt assholes that he is driving at. 

2.  If I had a legal reason to stop him, given his behavior, I wouldn't see a problem with calling a drug dog.

3.  He should have researched the aspects of narcotic k-9's before posting this video if he's trying to show they searched illegally. The officer running his hand on the car is not a mechanism to make the dog indicate.  And the dog scratching at the vehicle is not a common indication of narcotics. 

With that said, I've encountered a number of people who purposely do something to be stopped, just to try to get a rise out of me.  If I were on a DUI checkpoint, (which I am not a fan of) I would have simply asked for a license and proof of insurance.  I would have smelled through the small crack in the window, and if I didn't catch a hint of narcotics or alcohol, I would have sent him on his way.  Battles with assholes are to be chosen carefully, that wasn't one worth fighting. 

[Token]

While the cops are total assholes about it, the kid to me is acting suspiciously.  I think at a DUI checkpoint, if you attempt to hide that you are drunk, they can do a more thorough inspection of you.  Is that correct, attorneys?

Reasonable suspicion and probable cause. As long as they can articulate both, they did nothing wrong. 

[Vandy Vol]

While the cops are total assholes about it, the kid to me is acting suspiciously.  I think at a DUI checkpoint, if you attempt to hide that you are drunk, they can do a more thorough inspection of you.  Is that correct, attorneys?

I don't think the kid was acting suspiciously for the most part, but he was being a jackass.

You don't have to roll your window completely down or answer any questions.  The kid's refusal to do either of those is an exercise of his rights, which by itself should not be construed as suspicious activity.  However, just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean that you should do it.  Is rolling his window down further going to violate his rights?  No...like Token said, the kid just wanted to find conflict and try to make a point.

With that being said, when someone asks your age and your response is, "Uhh...(long pause)...I don't have to answer that," followed by a reluctant response of "21," that might be considered suspicious.  It's a DUI checkpoint and the kid hesitated to give his age before finally giving the exact drinking age as a response.  Although this was suspicious, the cop never followed up with any appropriate questions, such as, "Have you been drinking tonight?"  Rather, he got pissed and just wanted to hold the kid up for awhile to teach him a lesson, and maybe even find something with which to arrest him if he got lucky.

The kid was right about what he does and does not have to do, but he went out of his way to be a jackass and try to prove a point.  The cop inappropriately responded and didn't follow proper procedures for a DUI checkpoint.  Both parties were in the wrong on this one.

[JR4AU]

The kid was looking to get treated the way he did.  So, in that respect he's "acting suspicious".  It's kind of sad that knowing you don't have to roll your window down all the way, or follow ALL commands of a LEO is "reasonable suspicion.". 

I could write a lot on all this, but I won't.  Because, bottom line, both sides stepped up to and toed their respective lines, but neither crossed it.  In a court of law, no harm, no foul.  Minimal intrusion on the punk's liberties, which he was seeking, and moderately asshole behavior by the cops.  It's a wash where both sides could have looked cleaner and more polished, but also could have done a shitload worse. 

[Townhallsavoy]

The kid was looking to get treated the way he did.  So, in that respect he's "acting suspicious".  It's kind of sad that knowing you don't have to roll your window down all the way, or follow ALL commands of a LEO is "reasonable suspicion.". 

I could write a lot on all this, but I won't.  Because, bottom line, both sides stepped up to and toed their respective lines, but neither crossed it.  In a court of law, no harm, no foul.  Minimal intrusion on the punk's liberties, which he was seeking, and moderately asshole behavior by the cops.  It's a wash where both sides could have looked cleaner and more polished, but also could have done a shitload worse.

60,000+ views on a Reddit thread that has the cops being chastised. 

I do feel the cops were a bit out of line in treating the kid this way, and it is a representation of how some police can and will attempt to showcase that they have power over lawful civilians any chance they get.  But after viewing it again, it really looks like a typical ultra-left wing documentary where a person is baited into doing something that looks bad.

[Token]

I personally believe that DUI checkpoints should be tossed anyway.  I am no advocate of drunk driving, but too many people are jailed on DUI when they were probably no harm to drive.  People who are irresponsible and drink to the point df not being able to walk should never be behind the wheel. But there is a line, and it gets fuzzy, when it comes to the legal limit.  If you are driving down the road and cant keep it between the lines, then I have no problem with someone being jailed at .08.  But how can the officer really know if you are in a line of cars that are barely rolling when you approach?  He can't. But if he smells alcohol you are going to be questioned heavily. 

There is also the problem I have of officers making DUIs a yearly contest. You show me a guy who makes 100 DUI arrest in a year, and I'll show you a dick who could have let 70 go without the person risking an accident from being impaired. There is a lot wrong with that law.

[chityeah]

Sitting a bar getting mellow now. Got a hell of story to tell that occurred 8 weeks ago...Fuck the Police!

[WiregrassTiger]

I don't think the kid was acting suspiciously for the most part, but he was being a jackass.

You don't have to roll your window completely down or answer any questions.  The kid's refusal to do either of those is an exercise of his rights, which by itself should not be construed as suspicious activity.  However, just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean that you should do it.  Is rolling his window down further going to violate his rights?  No...like Token said, the kid just wanted to find conflict and try to make a point.

With that being said, when someone asks your age and your response is, "Uhh...(long pause)...I don't have to answer that," followed by a reluctant response of "21," that might be considered suspicious.  It's a DUI checkpoint and the kid hesitated to give his age before finally giving the exact drinking age as a response.  Although this was suspicious, the cop never followed up with any appropriate questions, such as, "Have you been drinking tonight?"  Rather, he got pissed and just wanted to hold the kid up for awhile to teach him a lesson, and maybe even find something with which to arrest him if he got lucky.

The kid was right about what he does and does not have to do, but he went out of his way to be a jackass and try to prove a point.  The cop inappropriately responded and didn't follow proper procedures for a DUI checkpoint.  Both parties were in the wrong on this one.

this and I know the kid may be a smarty pants punk but he still has constitutional rights. And I hate violations of constitutional right like DUI checkpoints and NSA eavesdropping. I hate them a lot and think they endanger all of our rights. But it's not the officers fault for doing his job. The problem starts way over his head.

[JR4AU]

60,000+ views on a Reddit thread that has the cops being chastised. 

I do feel the cops were a bit out of line in treating the kid this way, and it is a representation of how some police can and will attempt to showcase that they have power over lawful civilians any chance they get.  But after viewing it again, it really looks like a typical ultra-left wing documentary where a person is baited into doing something that looks bad.

Internet cop bashing?  Shocking!

You can argue about checkpoints, and their validity in a "free society" all you want.  (I know that's not YOUR point...Token and I share similar opinions on these things...I personally take the stance: "those that would trade their liberties for the sake of security, deserve neither".  I hate checkpoints of any sort, but understand that most 'law abiding citizens' believe that if they take drunks off the road, they're worth the minor intrusion).  But, the bottom line is, as the law stands now, the cops acted lawfully, though maybe you could argue they "manufactured" reasonable suspicion with the dog.  And, as I said, the law takes a "no harm, no foul" position.  He wasn't arrested, and no property seized, so, he may not like what happened, but there's no legal remedy for it.  Hell, all a cop has to do is say he smelled the odor of burned marijuana, or the odor of alcoholic beverage, and he's got reasonable suspicion to search a vehicle.  They don't have to go through all the hooplah of having a dog fake a hit.  IF they ever get caught manufacturing hits with the dog, that dog, and cop are ruined in court for their career, and thousands of dollars in training are pissed away.  That's not to suggest it's not done though, just sayin'. 

[JR4AU]

I personally believe that DUI checkpoints should be tossed anyway.  I am no advocate of drunk driving, but too many people are jailed on DUI when they were probably no harm to drive.  People who are irresponsible and drink to the point df not being able to walk should never be behind the wheel. But there is a line, and it gets fuzzy, when it comes to the legal limit.  If you are driving down the road and cant keep it between the lines, then I have no problem with someone being jailed at .08.  But how can the officer really know if you are in a line of cars that are barely rolling when you approach?  He can't. But if he smells alcohol you are going to be questioned heavily. 

There is also the problem I have of officers making DUIs a yearly contest. You show me a guy who makes 100 DUI arrest in a year, and I'll show you a dick who could have let 70 go without the person risking an accident from being impaired. There is a lot wrong with that law.

What he said!

[AUownsU]

That ain't shit. Atleast compared to this guy's run in with cops.

http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/05/nevada-family-says-police-occupation-vio

You don't often hear about lawsuits based on the Third Amendment, the one that says "no soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war but in a manner to be prescribed by law." That usually overlooked provision is cited in a federal lawsuit recently filed by Anthony Mitchell and his parents, Michael and Linda Mitchell—an oddity for which we can thank the Henderson, Nevada, police department. The Mitchells, who live in separate houses near each other in the Las Vegas suburb, were forcibly evicted from their homes on July 10, 2011, by police officers responding to a domestic violence report involving one of their neighbors. Here is how it all started, according to the complaint:
 

At 10:45 a.m. defendant Officer Christopher Worley (HPD) contacted plaintiff Anthony Mitchell via his telephone. Worley told plaintiff that police needed to occupy his home in order to gain a "tactical advantage" against the occupant of the neighboring house. Anthony Mitchell told the officer that he did not want to become involved and that he did not want police to enter his residence. Although Worley continued to insist that plaintiff should leave his residence, plaintiff clearly explained that he did not intend to leave his home or to allow police to occupy his home. Worley then ended the phone call.
 
The cops did not take no for an answer:
 

[Henderson police officers] banged forcefully on the door and loudly commanded Anthony Mitchell to open the door to his residence. Surprised and perturbed, plaintiff Anthony Mitchell immediately called his mother (plaintiff Linda Mitchell) on the phone, exclaiming to her that the police were beating on his front door.
 
Seconds later, officers, including Officer Rockwell, smashed open plaintiff Anthony Mitchell's front door with a metal ram as plaintiff stood in his living room. As plaintiff Anthony Mitchell stood in shock, the officers aimed their weapons at Anthony Mitchell and shouted obscenities at him and ordered him to lie down on the floor. Fearing for his life, plaintiff Anthony Mitchell dropped his phone and prostrated himself onto the floor of his living room, covering his face and hands.
 
Addressing plaintiff as "asshole," officers, including Officer Snyder, shouted conflicting orders at Anthony Mitchell, commanding him to both shut off his phone, which was on the floor in front of his head, and simultaneously commanding him to 'crawl' toward the officers. Confused and terrified, plaintiff Anthony Mitchell remained curled on the floor of his living room, with his hands over his face, and made no movement.
 
Although plaintiff Anthony Mitchell was lying motionless on the ground and posed no threat, officers, including Officer David Cawthorn, then fired multiple "pepperball" rounds at plaintiff as he lay defenseless on the floor of his living room. Anthony Mitchell was struck at least three times by shots fired from close range, injuring him and causing him severe pain.
 
The cops pepperballed Mitchell's dog for good measure, even though she was "cowering in the corner when officers smashed through the front door." They charged Mitchell with...wait for it..."obstructing an officer." His father, Michael, faced the same charge after he tried to leave a police command center to which he was lured under false pretenses while the police took over his house as well. The two men were jailed for nine hours before making bail, and the charges ultimately were dismissed with prejudice. The lawsuit argues that police filed the unjustified charges "to provide cover for defendants' wrongful actions, to frustrate and impede plaintiffs' ability to seek relief for those actions, and to further intimidate and retaliate against plaintiffs." In addition to Third and Fourth Amendment violations tied to the warrantless occupation of their homes, the Mitchells say the police are guilty of assault and battery, conspiracy, defamation, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, negligence, and infliction of emotional distress.

[WiregrassTiger]

That ain't shoot. Atleast compared to this guy's run in with cops.

http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/05/nevada-family-says-police-occupation-vio

You don't often hear about lawsuits based on the Third Amendment, the one that says "no soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war but in a manner to be prescribed by law." That usually overlooked provision is cited in a federal lawsuit recently filed by Anthony Mitchell and his parents, Michael and Linda Mitchell—an oddity for which we can thank the Henderson, Nevada, police department. The Mitchells, who live in separate houses near each other in the Las Vegas suburb, were forcibly evicted from their homes on July 10, 2011, by police officers responding to a domestic violence report involving one of their neighbors. Here is how it all started, according to the complaint:
 

At 10:45 a.m. defendant Officer Christopher Worley (HPD) contacted plaintiff Anthony Mitchell via his telephone. Worley told plaintiff that police needed to occupy his home in order to gain a "tactical advantage" against the occupant of the neighboring house. Anthony Mitchell told the officer that he did not want to become involved and that he did not want police to enter his residence. Although Worley continued to insist that plaintiff should leave his residence, plaintiff clearly explained that he did not intend to leave his home or to allow police to occupy his home. Worley then ended the phone call.
 
The cops did not take no for an answer:
 

[Henderson police officers] banged forcefully on the door and loudly commanded Anthony Mitchell to open the door to his residence. Surprised and perturbed, plaintiff Anthony Mitchell immediately called his mother (plaintiff Linda Mitchell) on the phone, exclaiming to her that the police were beating on his front door.
 
Seconds later, officers, including Officer Rockwell, smashed open plaintiff Anthony Mitchell's front door with a metal ram as plaintiff stood in his living room. As plaintiff Anthony Mitchell stood in shock, the officers aimed their weapons at Anthony Mitchell and shouted obscenities at him and ordered him to lie down on the floor. Fearing for his life, plaintiff Anthony Mitchell dropped his phone and prostrated himself onto the floor of his living room, covering his face and hands.
 
Addressing plaintiff as "asshole," officers, including Officer Snyder, shouted conflicting orders at Anthony Mitchell, commanding him to both shut off his phone, which was on the floor in front of his head, and simultaneously commanding him to 'crawl' toward the officers. Confused and terrified, plaintiff Anthony Mitchell remained curled on the floor of his living room, with his hands over his face, and made no movement.
 
Although plaintiff Anthony Mitchell was lying motionless on the ground and posed no threat, officers, including Officer David Cawthorn, then fired multiple "pepperball" rounds at plaintiff as he lay defenseless on the floor of his living room. Anthony Mitchell was struck at least three times by shots fired from close range, injuring him and causing him severe pain.
 
The cops pepperballed Mitchell's dog for good measure, even though she was "cowering in the corner when officers smashed through the front door." They charged Mitchell with...wait for it..."obstructing an officer." His father, Michael, faced the same charge after he tried to leave a police command center to which he was lured under false pretenses while the police took over his house as well. The two men were jailed for nine hours before making bail, and the charges ultimately were dismissed with prejudice. The lawsuit argues that police filed the unjustified charges "to provide cover for defendants' wrongful actions, to frustrate and impede plaintiffs' ability to seek relief for those actions, and to further intimidate and retaliate against plaintiffs." In addition to Third and Fourth Amendment violations tied to the warrantless occupation of their homes, the Mitchells say the police are guilty of assault and battery, conspiracy, defamation, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, negligence, and infliction of emotional distress.

You know, it wouldn't surprise me if this is all true but I hope it's not.

[Tiger Wench]

Holy schnikes. I hope that SOB has his badge ripped off his shirt and shoved up his ass.

You know, for every cop that becomes a cop to protect and serve, there is one who became a cop because he has Napoleon syndrome or Barney Fife syndrome, or Cartman "respect my authorita" syndrome, or is just a plain asshole who wants a badge to give his assholeness legitimacy. I despise people like that, and most good cops do too.