.... and winds up UNarrested only hours later.
"Warren Redlich, the Florida attorney who pioneered a method of silently asserting constitutional rights at DUI checkpoints, called the “Fair DUI,” has been arrested at a checkpoint in Coral Gables, Florida.
However, the attorney didn’t end up at the Coral Gables DUI checkpoint by chance. Redlich intentionally targeted the municipality after they enacted new policies for DUI stops, threatening to arrest motorists for simply refusing to roll down the window.
“I deliberately went there. It was to make an example out of Coral Gables,” Redlich told CBS 4. “They adopted a policy that was more extreme than anything I had ever seen before.” (end of article quote)
Last edited by BB62; 09-07-2015 at 04:11 PM.
.... and winds up UNarrested only hours later.
Thunderdome. Two men enter. One man leaves.After Redlich’s “Fair DUI” program gained national attention, Coral Gables attorneys took a closer look. “They adopted a policy that was more extreme than anything I had ever seen before,” Redlich claims. Essentially, refuse to open your window at the checkpoint and you can be arrested. Redlich was so upset by the policy he says he tried contacting the city attorney. “You don’t get to charge me with a crime. The legislature said this is the penalty. You don’t get to stack on new penalties.” The penalty he explained, usually, is a non-moving violation. A ticket. In Coral Gables though Redlich spent three hours in handcuffs.
“I am confident I’m right. And I’m confident they are wrong,” Redlich summarizes.
In the end officers decided to release him. He ended up with just a ticket for failing to exhibit a driver’s license. He suspects officers realized they couldn’t arrest him.
Craig Leen, Coral Gables City Attorney, clarified that for CBS4. “He’s wrong.” Leen said. Leen says the officer has discretion. He added Redlich could still be charged with obstruction of justice. Leen called the situation sad. “He’s playing a game. He’s not here for any purpose but to obstruct the DUI checkpoint and that’s wrong,” according to Leen.
The City is considering their options.
DUI checkpoints will be found to be legal as a narrowly defined compelling government interest. Fishing expeditions for the odor of alcoholic beverage, sans any other indicator of impaired/erratic driving, will be found to be improper searches. The display of a driver's license and motor vehicle registration will be found to be sufficient. The City of Coral Gables, and City Attorney Craig Leen, will be butt-hurt.
"He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man
Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.
"No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
Ticketed for "Obstruction of Justice" for refusing to cooperate. It will be interesting to see if the courts make a distinction between not being cooperative and actively resisting, obstructing or opposing.
843.02 Resisting officer without violence to his or her person.—Whoever shall resist, obstruct, or oppose any officer as defined in s. 943.10(1), (2), (3), (6), (7), (8), or (9); member of the Florida Commission on Offender Review or any administrative aide or supervisor employed by the commission; county probation officer; parole and probation supervisor; personnel or representative of the Department of Law Enforcement; or other person legally authorized to execute process in the execution of legal process or in the lawful execution of any legal duty, without offering or doing violence to the person of the officer, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
DG v. State, 661 So. 2d 75 - Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 2nd Dist. 1995
The attorney supplied the police the required information they needed to verify who he is, ownership and proper licensing.If a police officer is not engaged in executing process on a person, is not legally detaining that person, or has not asked the person for assistance with an ongoing emergency that presents a serious threat of imminent harm to person or property, the person's words alone can rarely, if ever, rise to the level of an obstruction. Thus, obstructive conduct rather than offensive words are normally required to support a conviction under this statute.
We need more people like this guy.
I have only seen 2 dui checkpoints in my life and I turned around for both of them.
Both were before I heard of this guy. He also didn't have one of these zip lock bags for ky the last time I looked.
The license is a contract and since he contracted with the state for said license, he is bound by their rules and regulations of said license.. While I personally believe his 4th and 5th Amendments were violated, I also believe that having the contract/license with the state gives the state jurisdiction over him... The caveat however is that he did present the documents required and the last time I checked invoking ones 5th Amendment right to remain silent was not a crime. (obstruction)..
How lame is the District Attorney in that city? Also who pays the tab for all the LEO out there conducting the check point and violating the rights of citizens.
Do we as citizens no longer have a God given right to be LEFT ALONE?
I hope he prevails in Federal court, I see some USC 42 1983 violations going on against him.
Last edited by countryclubjoe; 09-13-2015 at 08:26 AM.
" What is done unto anyone may be done unto everyone" John Lilburne
It is a license dispensed by the state.The requisite elements that must be established to demonstrate the formation of a legally binding contract are (1) offer; (2) acceptance; (3) consideration; (4) mutuality of obligation; (5) competency and capacity; and, in certain circumstances, (6) a written instrument. http://contracts.uslegal.com/elements-of-a-contract/
If TRUMP 2016 loses then I will shrug off my WHITE MAN'S BURDEN and leave the world to the Dindus and Done Nuffins. Read and understand Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged as a prescription for the future. TRUMP 2016
BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 4th. edition:
My bold.LICENSE. Certificate or the document itself which gives permission. Aldrich v. City of Syracuse, 236 N.Y.S. 614, 617, 134 Misc. 698. Permission or authority. Independent School Dist., Class A, No. 1, Cassia County v. Pfost, 51 Idaho 240, 4 P.2d 893, 897; Monsour v. City of Shreveport, 194 La. 625, 194 So. 569, 571; Platt v. Bender, La.App., 178 , So. 678, 682.
License to operate motor vehicle is mere privilege, and not a contract or property right. Garford Trucking v. Hoffman, 114 N.J.L. 522, 177 A., 882, 887; Blashfield, Cyc. of Automobile Law and Prac., Perm. Ed., § 580.
Contracts under duress are .........?
By who's authority did it become a privilege granted by the state?
I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.
U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
"Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)
During his detention by Coral Gables police, Redlich spent over three hours in handcuffs. In a telling move, police released him. He ended up with just a ticket for failing to exhibit a driver’s license, an obviously bogus charge, as the ID was displayed in the clear bag he presented to police.
Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger
Florida Statute 322.15 requires that the driver shall "... present or submit (his license) upon the demand of a law enforcement officer...". A license held up on the far side of a window would not, I submit, be deemed to have been either submitted nor presented. The license is the property of the State of Florida and they make the rules, just like a credit card company does with its products.
Additionally, there's another thing that bothers me,...
... while 318.22(2) says an officer 'must certify must certify by electronic, electronic facsimile, or written signature that the citation was delivered to the person cited', sub-section (3) states that 'Any person who willfully refuses to accept and sign a summons as provided in subsection (2) commits a misdemeanor of the second degree.'
IF Mr. Redlich were to be issued a citation, then refusing to sign would seem to be a violation of the law.
All that said, I think Mr Redlich is doing the right thing, suspicionless stops may be "constitutional" but they are Constitutional.
I look forward to seeing what happens when cops are presented with the upcoming 'digital proof of driver's license', will there even be a need for an open window?
Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 09-13-2015 at 09:14 PM.
I was only quoting the article in order to counter the other poster's statement of the arrest.A license held up on the far side of a window would not, I submit, be deemed to have been either submitted nor presented.
The two arguments I've heard are as follows:
1) The wording of 322.15(1) was changed last year and replaced the word "display" with "present or submit" to accommodate the electronic DL change further in that subsection. It's obvious that the legislature does not intend to require folks to hand over their phone to a LEO in this situation. 1
2)Another argument is that the legislature failed to make a similar change in subsection 2, which contain the penal provisions. So apparently it's only unlawful to fail to display the DL.
1 Some may think that there is now a conflict between subsections 1 & 2 and if so the Rule of Lenity would require a court to rule in the defendant's favor. Especially considering the legislature's stated purpose for making the change - to allow for electronic proof of DL. Nothing states the intent of the change was intended to change the longstanding provision of displaying the DL to now requiring one to physically hand over the DL.
As to your other point, 318.14(2):amending s. 322.15, F.S.; authorizing a digital proof of driver license to be accepted in lieu of a physical driver license;
Only applies to (as stated) 316.1001(2), 316.0083, 318.19 ( short list of statutes wherein the LEO can select a mandatory hearing), or criminal violations in 316. None of those are applicable.Except as provided in ss. 316.1001(2) and 316.0083, any person cited for a violation requiring a mandatory hearing listed in s. 318.19 or any other criminal traffic violation listed in chapter 316 must sign and accept a citation indicating a promise to appear.
As was stated in the video (or another one on the same subject), many of the LEO seemed professional, however there were several that appeared to be constrained in their obvious hostility only by the presence of several cameras.
Last edited by notalawyer; 09-13-2015 at 11:59 PM.