-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Nice!! Know your rights!
- Thread starter Hardwater
- Start date
Do you understand the dynamic?
He rolled up and put it in park and rolled his window down an inch or so
He deflected the LEOs questions with a question
He did not reply to the question about having a drink.
a) it was a leading question with a potential follow up:
'Sir, if you haven't been having anything tonight do you mind if I ask you to blow into this device'
If you refuse you can take the ride.
If you answer anything the stop is now consensual.
He waited until the right time (a supervisor, since only she can release him)
The supervisor continually scanned his face for alcohol use, eyes, bloodshot, etc. (being a professional)
After she couldn't reply in the negative to his final question, "Am I free to go?" he was able to drive off.
This may not be the outcome of a stop in your state, so do know your laws.
IMO, this puts anyone at risk for illegal search. As we know people searching have planted evidence (it's possible, though improbable). You do not allow a search for this reason alone. But, who knows you may have a spent casing under the mat due to it being in your cuffs when you left the range.
Anyway, that's my 'way too deep' analysis, lol.
He rolled up and put it in park and rolled his window down an inch or so
He deflected the LEOs questions with a question
He did not reply to the question about having a drink.
a) it was a leading question with a potential follow up:
'Sir, if you haven't been having anything tonight do you mind if I ask you to blow into this device'
If you refuse you can take the ride.
If you answer anything the stop is now consensual.
He waited until the right time (a supervisor, since only she can release him)
The supervisor continually scanned his face for alcohol use, eyes, bloodshot, etc. (being a professional)
After she couldn't reply in the negative to his final question, "Am I free to go?" he was able to drive off.
This may not be the outcome of a stop in your state, so do know your laws.
IMO, this puts anyone at risk for illegal search. As we know people searching have planted evidence (it's possible, though improbable). You do not allow a search for this reason alone. But, who knows you may have a spent casing under the mat due to it being in your cuffs when you left the range.
Anyway, that's my 'way too deep' analysis, lol.
SouthernBoy
Regular Member
Way to go! The driver stood up for his Fifth Amendment rights and all worked out as it should... except for the fact that he was stopped in the first place.
Now some might think that this is silly. That if the man had nothing to drink, nothing to hide or worry about, why not just cooperate with the police and everything will come out fine. But where does it stop? Suppose you live in a state that has no protections against being stopped or searched during an emergency or disaster causing heightened statewide alerts? Suppose the police are doing stops to check for weapons and you are carrying some firearms in your car because you live in an area where some people have run amuck? Now YOU are the criminal and YOU are the one in deep do-do. Where does it stop?
Now some might think that this is silly. That if the man had nothing to drink, nothing to hide or worry about, why not just cooperate with the police and everything will come out fine. But where does it stop? Suppose you live in a state that has no protections against being stopped or searched during an emergency or disaster causing heightened statewide alerts? Suppose the police are doing stops to check for weapons and you are carrying some firearms in your car because you live in an area where some people have run amuck? Now YOU are the criminal and YOU are the one in deep do-do. Where does it stop?
09jisaac
Regular Member
I have spent casings in my floorboard. Is that evidence of a crime?
09jisaac
Regular Member
When was the last time you did a drive-by?
I plead the 5th.
I that case, you're free to go.
Yard Sale
Regular Member
The driver is timf343 and you can find him in the Nevada forum here on OCDO.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
+1
I get a little disturbed by the folks who insist on the "if you don't have anything to hide" argument it is irrelevant and has little to do with our fundamental rights. And to me caving enables the officers behavior and may make it harder for the next guy who stands up against unwarranted intrusion.
SouthernBoy
Regular Member
I could not agree more with what you said here. I posted this video on a car enthusiast website yesterday morning, where I am a long standing member, under the title "A lesson in how to handle a DUI stop". I prefaced the post with the following text;
"I'm certain that some of you good folks will disagree with the way this driver handled the situation, but you have to admit that he exercised his Fifth Amendment rights very responsibly. There is a lesson here which can apply to other unwarranted stops.
Oh, and please folks, keep the ranting and arguing out of this thread I am only posting it as a informational item... that is all."
You should see some of the comments in the over 125 responses which have come in. The most outlandish one in my opinion included this sentence;
"F*** your rights if it's for the safety of yourself and others!"
I have had to bite my tongue to keep from stepping in and voicing my stance on this, but I started things out to see what kind of responses these people had. I have seen things in the past on that site which really surprised me, but this one takes the cake.
since9
Campaign Veteran
I agree.
Many people argue DUI checkpoints are the reason for the dramatic reduction in alcohol-related vehicular accidents and deaths over the years. I maintain it's largely due to much greater awareness and educational programs, such as those emphasizing the need for a designated driver.
Regardless, it's a search without a warrant. As such, it violates our Constitution.
Fallschirjmäger
Active member
I wonder, sometimes, where the whole 'if you have nothing to hide ...' might take us.
If you have nothing to hide, just cooperate with Officer Friendly and prove you're not a drunk driver.
If you have nothing to hide, just prove to Officer Friendly where you were last night, he's just looking for a rapist.
If you have nothing to hide, just let Officer Friendly inside to search for the armed robber who's hiding somewhere
If you have nothing to hide, just give Officer Friendly your fingerprints to prove you're not the rapist they're looking for.
With every instance, the burden of proof comes to lay on the shoulder of the citizen instead of needing to be proven by his accuser. What's worse, they're not even making an accusation before they want you to prove you didn't do something.
If you have nothing to hide, just cooperate with Officer Friendly and prove you're not a drunk driver.
If you have nothing to hide, just prove to Officer Friendly where you were last night, he's just looking for a rapist.
If you have nothing to hide, just let Officer Friendly inside to search for the armed robber who's hiding somewhere
If you have nothing to hide, just give Officer Friendly your fingerprints to prove you're not the rapist they're looking for.
With every instance, the burden of proof comes to lay on the shoulder of the citizen instead of needing to be proven by his accuser. What's worse, they're not even making an accusation before they want you to prove you didn't do something.