Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: DUI checkpoints are cash cows for cities and their crony businessnes

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    idaho
    Posts
    760

    DUI checkpoints are cash cows for cities and their crony businessnes

    I must say that some police and some departments are warming up to being recorded and actually have fun with us.



  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    3,277
    They are having fun due to the fact that they are receiving over time pay for their nazi check points.
    More intrusion on the tax payers...

    Their argument is, if we save one life tonight due to our nazi check point then hey so what if a few law abiding sober citizens are detained and asked to produce documents... " public safety" situation...

    The problem is that some citizen that is sober and on his/her way to their job may have simply left his wallet or insurance card at home, They lay a net to catch the big fish however many small fish get trapped in the net..

    Best course of action clearly is do not drink and drive. When trapped in a dui nazi check point simply be polite and ask for an attorney.

    Onus, thanks for posting..

    Regards

    CCJ
    " I detest hypocrites and their Hypocrisy" I support Liberty for each, for all, and forever".
    Ask yourself, Do you own Yourself?

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    idaho
    Posts
    760
    Interesting side bit.....me and my buddy spoke with the motorcycle cops all night and filmed them pulling over cars that avoided the checkpoint. Not a single car that avoided the checkpoint was drunk or drinking. They simply didn't want to be inconvenienced by the checkpoint.
    The police and many in the public think all opposition to checkpoints is from drunk drivers.
    Its just not true.
    The majority of people don't like being treated as a criminal for just driving down the road.
    We don't like to sit in traffic for 30 minutes and forced to show papers and answer personal questions about our lives to strange men with guns.
    Some of us even disagree that they are constitutional. In fact, 3 very wise and intelligent supreme court justices said they were unconstitutional.
    Many legal scholars believe that if todays court heard Michigan vs Sitz that they would overturn it 5-4.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    3,277
    Quote Originally Posted by onus View Post
    Interesting side bit.....me and my buddy spoke with the motorcycle cops all night and filmed them pulling over cars that avoided the checkpoint. Not a single car that avoided the checkpoint was drunk or drinking. They simply didn't want to be inconvenienced by the checkpoint.
    The police and many in the public think all opposition to checkpoints is from drunk drivers.
    Its just not true.
    The majority of people don't like being treated as a criminal for just driving down the road.
    We don't like to sit in traffic for 30 minutes and forced to show papers and answer personal questions about our lives to strange men with guns.
    Some of us even disagree that they are constitutional. In fact, 3 very wise and intelligent supreme court justices said they were unconstitutional.
    Many legal scholars believe that if todays court heard Michigan vs Sitz that they would overturn it 5-4.
    Indeed.

    Most drunk drivers have no clue that they are in a nazi DUI check point. LOL

    Clearly these nazi check points are more about generating revenue and applying for Federal grants etc, then they are about getting drunks off the streets..

    I would also be curious to the number of bars and restaurants in the general vicinity.. I did see a donut shop there in the background... LOL

    My .02

    CCJ
    " I detest hypocrites and their Hypocrisy" I support Liberty for each, for all, and forever".
    Ask yourself, Do you own Yourself?

  5. #5
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    DUI checkpoints are the new speed traps? I know they still have speed traps... But... I feel like monetization of speed traps has been so openly and publicly opposed perhaps they've moved on to something with a better cover story.
    Advocate freedom please

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    3,277
    In Sitz the justices determined that citizens were only detained for about 25 seconds on average... Not sure how they arrived at that amount of time.

    126 motorist were stopped and only 3 were charged with a dui... Interesting in that the courts also ruled any other violations other then the dui itself would then be a violation of the 4th... The problem is that most folks being detained do not know their rights and the local PD simply take full advantage of the detainees lack thereof.. Interesting that the 5th A was never mentioned. Clearly ordering someone to take a field sobriety test whether they are drunk or sober is a violation of the 5th, unless of course the citizen fails to invoke that right... Hence I say, reserve all your rights under the Constitution at all times when encountering a government official, know your rights and make the revenue police look like the bad guy and remember, Never Drink and Drive..

    My .02

    Regards.

    CCJ
    Last edited by countryclubjoe; 04-13-2014 at 11:38 PM.
    " I detest hypocrites and their Hypocrisy" I support Liberty for each, for all, and forever".
    Ask yourself, Do you own Yourself?

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    idaho
    Posts
    760
    At this checkpoint over 3,000 cars were stopped and only 3 arrests for DUI (not convictions).

    The real reason for these checkpoints is the tow fees, impound fees and fines and overtime for officers.

    Previous checkpoints in this city have brought in an average of $55,000 for the city, not including overtime pay for officers.

  8. #8
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    I don't get it - I thought that in order to pull someone over that has "avoided" a checkpoint they had to have committed a real traffic violation in the process of avoiding the checkpoint.

    What is the probable cause for the stop? Avoiding a checkpoint of course is not probable cause that the person is drunk driving, or committing any other crime.

    Why love Hawthorn police? **** any agency which conducts these sort of checkpoints...
    Advocate freedom please

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    idaho
    Posts
    760
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    I don't get it - I thought that in order to pull someone over that has "avoided" a checkpoint they had to have committed a real traffic violation in the process of avoiding the checkpoint.

    What is the probable cause for the stop? Avoiding a checkpoint of course is not probable cause that the person is drunk driving, or committing any other crime.
    If you watch the video you can see the cars do in fact commit traffic violations. They would often go pass the parking lot and then reverse, come back and then pull into the lot. Sometimes they would make turns from two lanes over.

    I watched and filmed the stops and the cars did commit violations of CA vehicle code.

    In fairness to the police, the drivers were not cited if they had a valid DL and showed no signs of intoxication.

  10. #10
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by onus View Post
    If you watch the video you can see the cars do in fact commit traffic violations. They would often go pass the parking lot and then reverse, come back and then pull into the lot. Sometimes they would make turns from two lanes over.

    I watched and filmed the stops and the cars did commit violations of CA vehicle code.

    In fairness to the police, the drivers were not cited if they had a valid DL and showed no signs of intoxication.
    I believe I saw a vehicle turn into the parking lot without passing it and reversing, and by turning from the proper lane. The police officer watched the vehicle to determine whether the vehicle was going to one of the businesses there, or just going out the other side of the lot. As soon as he realized they were going out the other side of the lot, he went to go pull them over. They committed no traffic violation, they only avoided the checkpoint.
    Advocate freedom please

  11. #11
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    What law makes it unlawful to avoid a checkpoint?
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  12. #12
    Regular Member OC Freedom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    ADA County, ID
    Posts
    605
    Just one more of the many reasons I live in Idaho, DUI checkpoints are verboten.

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    What law makes it unlawful to avoid a checkpoint?
    As mentioned, there isn't one.

    But there are so many traffic laws, they need only watch you for a few minutes before finding a "legitimate" reason to stop and detain you. In many cases of avoiding the checkpoint, someone will do an illegal u-turn, cross too many lanes, or use a parking lot to avoid traffic control.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Burton, Michigan
    Posts
    3,361
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    I believe I saw a vehicle turn into the parking lot without passing it and reversing, and by turning from the proper lane. The police officer watched the vehicle to determine whether the vehicle was going to one of the businesses there, or just going out the other side of the lot. As soon as he realized they were going out the other side of the lot, he went to go pull them over. They committed no traffic violation, they only avoided the checkpoint.
    In the video at 00:37 you can see a no right turn sign attached to a barricade just before the entrance to the parking lot. In Cali, police placing such a temporary sign makes it a traffic violation (RAS) by simply turning into the parking lot?

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by OC Freedom View Post
    Just one more of the many reasons I live in Idaho, DUI checkpoints are verboten.
    They are illegal in NV, too, so they do them anyway but call them "administrative roadblocks" in all official paperwork. But they still call it a DUI checkpoint, brazenly, in open conversation, and they routinely violate state laws on how they must be signed and set up in order to eliminate the possibility of people avoiding them.

    Because of this, what very few actual drunks who get caught in them are quickly contacted by lawyers and get off. The state and the lawyer get money. Guess why the lawyers don't tell the LEOs they are violating the law?
    Last edited by MAC702; 04-14-2014 at 12:03 PM.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  16. #16
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by SpringerXDacp View Post
    In the video at 00:37 you can see a no right turn sign attached to a barricade just before the entrance to the parking lot. In Cali, police placing such a temporary sign makes it a traffic violation (RAS) by simply turning into the parking lot?
    I was under the impression that they had requirements (a mention of requirements is made belowabove) such as to essentially offer a way to turn away from the checkpoint and avoid it - this was the only way for it to be "constitutional"

    I could be mistaken

    But, if I'm not mistaken, I'm not surprised to hear that many police are in violation of the court-mandated requirements either ignorantly or intentionally.
    Last edited by stealthyeliminator; 04-14-2014 at 07:16 PM.
    Advocate freedom please

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by SpringerXDacp View Post
    In the video at 00:37 you can see a no right turn sign attached to a barricade just before the entrance to the parking lot. In Cali, police placing such a temporary sign makes it a traffic violation (RAS) by simply turning into the parking lot?
    I don't think attached to a barricade meets the requirements of the MUTCD..

    If No Right Turn (R3-1) signs (see Figure 2B-4) are used, at least one should be placed either over the
    roadway or at a right-hand corner of the intersection.

    ,,,,,,,,,,,,http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r...1r2edition.pdf

    I would ignore no turn signs on barricades.

  18. #18
    Regular Member rightwinglibertarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    881
    Easy enough to deal with these.

    "Am I being detained officer?*

    if no, drive off. If you get a yes require a specific, lawful reason. Of course chances are it won't be easy as in the linked video but it will work if you stand your ground

    http://youtu.be/yEjmfKJvMP4?t=2m11s

    Actually I would have driven off as soon as she had said not being detained and cut out the rest of that nonsense
    "Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

    "Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"

    Conservative Broadcast || Google Plus profile

  19. #19
    Regular Member OC Freedom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    ADA County, ID
    Posts
    605
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    They are illegal in NV, too, so they do them anyway but call them "administrative roadblocks" in all official paperwork. But they still call it a DUI checkpoint, brazenly, in open conversation, and they routinely violate state laws on how they must be signed and set up in order to eliminate the possibility of people avoiding them.

    Because of this, what very few actual drunks who get caught in them are quickly contacted by lawyers and get off. The state and the lawyer get money. Guess why the lawyers don't tell the LEOs they are violating the law?

    I am not surprised. I have not heard of any DUI checkpoints (under a different name) or any other type of checkpoint happening in Idaho and I hope it stays that way.

  20. #20
    Regular Member DocWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,968
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    As mentioned, there isn't one.

    But there are so many traffic laws, they need only watch you for a few minutes before finding a "legitimate" reason to stop and detain you. In many cases of avoiding the checkpoint, someone will do an illegal u-turn, cross too many lanes, or use a parking lot to avoid traffic control.
    Or they will just make it up...."I seen you weaving" or "your tire touched the line"....ect.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Northern Nevada, ,
    Posts
    721
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    I was under the impression that they had requirements (a mention of requirements is made belowabove) such as to essentially offer a way to turn away from the checkpoint and avoid it - this was the only way for it to be "constitutional"

    I could be mistaken
    In California, yes, and the guidelines are laid out in the decision Ingersoll v. Palmer. In Nevada, no.

    But, if I'm not mistaken, I'm not surprised to hear that many police are in violation of the court-mandated requirements either ignorantly or intentionally.
    In my case the cop who organizes the grant funding testified he set up the roadblock properly, without specifics. Then I got the cop car dash cam video which shows the roadblock wasn't set up legally. In the retrial, the same cop again testified he set up the roadblock properly, despite video evidence to contrary.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •