Attorney who suggested the "Zip Lock" solution for DUI checkpoints is arrested (FL)

Fallschirmjäger said:

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.

Click to expand...

notalawyer said:

Actually no.
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.

Click to expand...

Are you so sure?
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?

BB62 said:

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/dui-checkpoint/

"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)

Click to expand...

I like this guy. Apart from the fact he was arrested. I really do wish I was in a real live situation. It would be a real life test of every hardline no nonsense stance I have. I hope he does indeed file a federal lawsuit

He was arrested, then "un-arrested".
https://youtu.be/68TlLCbswNw

Fallschirmjäger said:

Are you so sure?
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?

Click to expand...

A license held up on the far side of a window would not, I submit, be deemed to have been either submitted nor presented.

Click to expand...

I was only quoting the article in order to counter the other poster's statement of the arrest.

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. [SUP]1[/SUP]

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.

[SUP]1[/SUP] 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.

amending s. 322.15, F.S.; authorizing a digital proof of driver license to be accepted in lieu of a physical driver license;

Click to expand...

As to your other point, 318.14(2):

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

A citizen does not need a license to travel in his/her automobile unless said citizen is conducting commerce..

I will cite the case law later today...

If we all simply stopped surrendering our rights for privileges, there would be no DUI check points or quit possibly even no IRS... Most citizens fill out a form 1040 unbeknown to said citizen that they are waiving their right to incriminate themselves... Think, think, think... What you sign and what you contract therewith lends jurisdiction to the G....

No license, no contract, no CONTACT= LIVE ME THE f ALONE, I do not want to do any business with you in any way shape or form,,, KINDLY LEAVE ME ALONE....

My .02
CCJ

countryclubjoe said:

A citizen does not need a license to travel in his/her automobile unless said citizen is conducting commerce..

I will cite the case law later today...

If we all simply stopped surrendering our rights for privileges, there would be no DUI check points or quit possibly even no IRS... Most citizens fill out a form 1040 unbeknown to said citizen that they are waiving their right to incriminate themselves... Think, think, think... What you sign and what you contract therewith lends jurisdiction to the G....

No license, no contract, no CONTACT= LIVE ME THE f ALONE, I do not want to do any business with you in any way shape or form,,, KINDLY LEAVE ME ALONE....

My .02
CCJ

Click to expand...

yeah,.. have fun with the.. the IRS in it's own hypocracy of it's tax code, will send it's state lapdogs to make you submit. you need a majority to do this to force the point, and they will all probably have to be armed and in the same neighborhood so as to present complications to enforcement, rather then allowing the ability to go door 2 door and enforce.

of course if none of us paid taxes as our labor is to have value and compensation for labor is not gain. then the system would collapse in on itself within a matter of days.. which probably needs to happen to make these morons in D.C. realize you can't run a business this way, so you also can't run a GOVERNMENT this way.

but the ensuing chaos from those on the government dole would also drastically reduce the population.. similar to a grid down situation after a few weeks. thereby forcing MORE collapse.

gotta love our house of cards huh?

color of law said:

The 4th. you do. The USSC says the cops can search your car. You can object all you want, RAS. All the cop has to say is he smells something.

Click to expand...

but he cant' claim that reasonably with the windows rolled up now can he?

and to whoever said the license is the property of the state.. last I checked you PAID for the license thereby making the physical representation PRIVATE property.

and was also stated earlier, contracts under duress are null and void.

The police screwed up. They had no just reason to arrest him which is why they "unarrested" him. Failing to provide a DL is simply an infraction and a "fix it" ticket. In California if you get this ticket its a $250 fine but if you go to court and show proof you had a license at the time then its dismissed.
The cops wanted to make a point and the lawyer wanted to make a point. The difference is the police made an unlawful arrest.

Does the language in the statute read provide, or display? What is the definition of provide? What is the definition of display?

OC for ME said:

Does the language in the statute read provide, or display? What is the definition of provide? What is the definition of display?

Click to expand...

He was brandishing.....lol

onus said:

The difference is the police made an unlawful arrest.

Click to expand...

Both parties (lawyers and cops) are under an oath regarding the law.

One party broke it. Normally both lawyers and cops break it.

countryclubjoe said:

A citizen does not need a license to travel in his/her automobile unless said citizen is conducting commerce..

I will cite the case law later today...

If we all simply stopped surrendering our rights for privileges, there would be no DUI check points or quit possibly even no IRS... Most citizens fill out a form 1040 unbeknown to said citizen that they are waiving their right to incriminate themselves... Think, think, think... What you sign and what you contract therewith lends jurisdiction to the G....

No license, no contract, no CONTACT= LIVE ME THE f ALONE, I do not want to do any business with you in any way shape or form,,, KINDLY LEAVE ME ALONE....

My .02
CCJ

Click to expand...

They are forgetting the form 2555 when they file the 1040. The 1040 is just the work sheet for a form 2555.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk