If you have watched the DUI Checkpoint viral video...2 Points..

[busterbrown]

These cops and all who are like them around the country (paramilitary tactics) are a gift to us from Al-Qaeda and 911. Because of the bravery of N.Y. Cops and Fireman police now feel they have a right to define our rights and freedoms. At a local level you can watch a Mayor cower in the presence of his
Police Chief as an example..

The other point is the fact that I admire this kid, but in fact I am sure he is one who has embraced the whole Libertarian agenda.I have witness many times young college age kids go out on a limb to defend Ron Paul and Lydon Larouche, a conversation I will not have now..(.Cops suck and Govt. employs cops therefore govt. is responsible)

Its strange that I can be so grateful for his determination and bravery and at the same time be so suspicious of his agenda.. I may be wrong and I will apologize if I am.. But Libertarians with their
State Rights Bullshit and Ayn Rand Objectivism Crap are also on my watch list.

[arcane1]

1. It reminded me of that video "Never Get Busted Again" all the way down to the false alerts

I wouldn't be surprised if he's seen that vid. Then again, if he had, he would've just rolled his window down to avoid suspicion. He basically sent a message to the cops that he doesn't want them getting a whiff of the inside of his car, IMO.

[WovenGems]

2. New Rule

If you are principle in the video you are not allowed to post a reply to the video.

[arcane1]

3. So you say on your 420th post

I'm not really sure what you're saying

[TDale313]

5. ...

Huh, what?

[TDale313]

4. He wasn't trying to avoid a confrontation.

Of course he could have just rolled the window down, even though he didn't have to. He was trying to (and did) push these cops buttons and highlight potential for police abuse at DUI checkpoints. He started taping it knowing he was going to legally decline to comply with anything he didn't legally have to.

[arcane1]

6. Agreed.

The cop searching his car, mocking his claims of innocence and knowledge of the Constitution, said it all.

[busterbrown]

7. Libertarian Tactics...

The college kids are brazen... They were all over are streets during the elections.. They are loud and willing to confront anyone who disagrees... Lyndon Larouche is their man. But they gladly will attach themselves to Rand Paul....

[Hippo_Tron]

23. Yea, they recommend rolling your window down all the way if asked to do so

I can see possibly refusing if your car absolutely wreaks of weed, on the off chance the officer doesn't lie and claimed he smelled it or doesn't actually smell it when he subsequently tells you to step out of the car.

The new Flex Your Rights videos do a better job distinguishing between when you really should assert your rights and where there's some leeway to not assert them in order to make your life easier. For example, there's very little added benefit from refusing to tell a cop where you're headed when he pulls you over, even though technically you're allowed to do that.

[CreekDog]

24. If the window isn't down, the cop can't say he smelled alcohol or drugs

at least not convincingly.

and probably cause isn't "he didn't roll his winda down, musta been up to somethin'..."

that's why one does that.

also if one has a disability, i strongly recommend not giving any reason for them to try a field sobriety test on you. if you are unsteady you may regret it.

[Billy Pilgrim]

8. This video is fantastic.

I thank the person who filmed it and I hope that authoritarian stooge cop was fired.

Before anyone argues against Libertarianism, keep in mind it was born out of this type of experience. It is merely a rejection of authoritarianism, and it is consistent with Progressive values.

[busterbrown]

10. Including State’s Right’s issues.

Hardly. Objectivism. Ann Rand....Not in my book are they consistent with progressive values..

[damnedifIknow]

9. Standing up for your rights

is a beautiful thing to behold since very few actually do. Good for this 21 year old.

[JayhawkSD]

11. About DUI checkpoints.

I have seen many films of officers abusing their authority. It happens far too often and there is no excuse for it. If this is such a case at all, it is only marginally so. It appears to be a young man who set out to piss off a police officer and succeeded.

When the filmer says that he is not legally required to produce ID he is mistaken; if he is driving a car he is required to provide proof that he is properly licensed to do so. If you look at the license agreement, it almost certainly says that the license must be carried at all times while operating a motor vehicle and produced upon demand.

Several courts, including appellate courts, have ruled that DUI checkpoints are legal, and that they may check for drivers license and insurance at these checkpoints. In fact, checkpoints merely for the purpose of verifying license and insurance are legal.

The confrontational tone was set entirely by the filmer. The officer greeted him in a friendly manner and the manner in which he asked that the window be rolled down was not unreasonable. Refusing to do so was unreasonable. What does the guy gain by refusing to roll down the window other than to assert that he "cannot be ordered around" by the officer? From then on the filmer refuses to answer any question, and only challenges and dares the officer to arrest him. When told to produce id, which is a lawful request, he refuses.

These officers are working a long shift, performing their least favorite task, so when they get a guy who wants to be confrontational they oblige him. I did not hear him being "yelled at" or "bossed around" or see any of his "rights being taken away," nor did I hear officer Ross hear him say that his "constitutional rights did not matter at checkpoints." He admitted that it was "all because of my window," which was an unreasonable refusal to cooperate on his part.

[Billy Pilgrim]

12. How about when the cop tried to open his door?

And how about when the cop manipulated the dog into signalling "illegal drugs?"

Are those ok with you too?

[zipplewrath]

13. I know what you mean

The refusal to provide ID was problematic. The USSC has ruled pretty clearly that the cops can pretty much demand ID whenever they choose.

However, about the time he actually got out of the car, and produced ID, it should have pretty much been over. Presumably there was no smell of alcohol or other drugs. Nothing in his behavior, at that point, suggested anything other than a libertarian on a snit. He doesn't really have to answer questions at all. He can limit the amount he rolls down his window, as long as it isn't so tinted as to prevent the officer from seeing inside. IF the officer really was "at the end of a long shift, performing their least favorite task" they should have let him go. Instead they decided to engage in a length search of a car for no real reason, and have their dog scratch up his car.

I do object to the point of view you seem to be suggesting that somehow cops should be forgiven their excesses, and we should all be held to a standard that says cops shouldn't have to tolerate ours. I think you have that backwards. And to be honest, I know more than one cop that agrees with me. It's a citizens right to be a pain in the ass. It's a cops challenge to work with that. It can work to the citizens disadvantage, but it is not the cops job, nor right, to make sure that it does.

[JayhawkSD]

16. It is no one's right to be a pain in the ass.

You treat me with disrespect and contumely, do not expect love and kisses in return.

[zipplewrath]

20. And it's not the cops authority to punish idiots

We don't give police powers so they can punish people who are idiots. Once it is clear that the asshole isn't committing crimes, they should tell the idiot to move on, not invent reasons to harrass them to "teach them a lesson".

[JayhawkSD]

15. Window does not need to be tinted to obstruct vision

When the window is rolled up to that degree, at night, with the officer looking in with a flashlight, he cannot see into the car at all clearly. Granted, the kid had his hands on the wheel, but he may also have had a firearm in his lap. The officer is at risk when he cannot see clearly into the car, and asking the kid to roll it down was not unreasonable. The kid started the conflict when he refused a reasonable request by a police officer who was doing his lawful job.

"How about when the cop tried to open his door?
And how about when the cop manipulated the dog into signalling "illegal drugs?"
Are those ok with you too?"

Opening the door? Sure, I'm fine with that. Manipulating the dog? That's the kid's claim, but do you know that's how dog searches work? In fact, it is not. Why do you automatically believe an arrogant kid who's picking a fight with a cop?

The fact that the kid had the camera running and aimed as it was says that he was primed for a fight and that he intended to create conflict. There was no other reason for recording. He got what he wanted. When someone deliberately plays macho chicken games with a policeman who is doing his job, I have no sympathy when he gets the short end of that stick.

Did the police go a bit beyond what was necessary to punish this spoiled brat for obstructing them in the performance of their duty? Yes, but I have no problem with that. The did not harm him in any way, never offered or threatened violence, they merely caused him inconvenience.

[WovenGems]

17. The dog

The kid was right. Any trainer will tell you that.

[JayhawkSD]

18. Then why are thousands of drug cases not being overturned? n/t

[WovenGems]

19. Do you know

dog training? Did you watch the video. The dog smelled nothing, his nose hit where the cop tapped his finger. Try with your dog and you'll get the same response. If the car had been hot the dog wouldn't have been paying attention to the handler as much as it was. You get an "F" for question asking.

[JayhawkSD]

21. You didn't answer my question.

Why are defense attorneys not raising this and getting drug convictions overturned by the tousands?

[WovenGems]

27. simple

If drugs are found the way the dog was used isn't a question.

[JayhawkSD]

28. You have to be kidding.

It absolutely would be an illegal search, drugs found or not. The only thing that made the drug search legal was that the dog's actions from outside the car gave the officer "probable cause" to suspect that there were drugs in the car and permitted him to search the car for those drugs. If, in fact, the dog's actions were not indicative of the presence of drugs but were only a trained response to the prompts of the handler, then there was no "probable cause" to search the car. A moderately competent attorney would jump on that like a duck on a june bug and the search would be thrown out in a heartbeat.

You get an F- for legal knowledge.

[WovenGems]

29. How

The attorney would have to be psychic to know the cops BSed about the dogs reaction. In this case there was visible evidence of police misconduct.

[JayhawkSD]

30. Sometimes one has to admit to just being wrong.

If the attorney even knew that the prompting of a false positive was possible he could get the search declared illegal and the case thrown out. He would not have to prove that the handler did prompt the dog to react, he would merely have to prove that the handler could prompt the dog to react.

This illustration of a handler prompting a dog to give a false positive would be the basis to get thousands and thousands of drug convictions thrown out. If this film has emerged, it is not even remotely possible that it has been going on and never caught before this.

If there was a grade below F you would receive it for legal knowledge.

[Psephos]

36. Hopefully you will do that soon.

I'm not holding my breath.

[arcane1]

31. It is not the job of the police to punish anyone. Punishment belongs only to a jury of your peers...

in a court of law.


On edit: to even suggest that punishment is what police officers are supposed to do, means you get an F minus-minus in Basic Remedial Legal Knowledge 101.

[CreekDog]

25. you created your own video in your head

the version playing in your head isn't the actual video, but the version in your head does support your conclusions.

how nice for you.

[Yavin4]

14. If that kid were African American, he'd be dead.

It's not all that brave to challenge cops on the side of the highway when you're a well spoken White kid.

[Hippo_Tron]

22. Probably not dead, but quite possibly physically abused and/or be spending a night in jail

I talked to some black kids who lived near a white suburban neighborhood who told me they were routinely stopped and asked for ID just for walking around that neighborhood. I asked them why they didn't refuse to comply. They said that even if they weren't doing anything illegal, the cops would arrest them and take them down to the station. They would be let go the next day and not actually charged with anything, but there was no recourse for the wrongful arrest. Non-compliance simply was not worth the hassle.

[Riftaxe]

26. While i do not admire the guy,

and i suspect he could have made his points without coming across like such a sociopath, he does have good points.

He probably is a sociopath, but it does not change what is in the video, and i hope the PD does the proper thing and educates and adjusts accordingly.

[arcane1]

32. Maybe not sociopathic, but at least petulant.

He was obviously trying to make a point, and not just minding his own business while his phone happened to be accidentally recording him. But he does do a decent job of showing how blurry the line has become between police and civilians.

[Riftaxe]

33. agreed 100%

lord, seeking out a new thing to whinge about just means he is a bit silly.

[Kennah]

35. Definitely came from the Libertarians

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/11/dui-viral-video-sheriff-speaks/2509881/

Still doesn't change that we're in the police state. I fail to see how the full dashboard video changes anything.