OC'd in CoMo no probs - DWI checkpoint had probs.

imported post

How does a cooler INSIDE his vehicle,in plain sight,give to cop probable cause to look inside it?What if it was a bag,purse,suitcase.ect..........The cop was wrong PERIOD...but arent they most of the time???Of the several I have personally known,they were on power trips enoforceing the laws as they saw if,and breaking any law they wanted as they were ABOVE the law..And a couple of them are now in jail ,its just to bad more arent delt with .

imported post

Carnivore wrote:

But at a DWI check point, where a citizen refuses to answer any questions, and a cooler is in plain sight and coolers are designed and marketed to keep beverages cool, then the suspicion of the officer is justified by checking the cooler. That saidremoving the firearm wasn't justified, and a firearms check point is against the law, so you may have some recourse there I don't know.

Next time carry a Huge rubber snake for the nosey intruder!!:lol:That will make your nextPhishing trip a little more enjoyable.

Click to expand...

Not only are you wrong, your COMPLETELY wrong.

Nothing ever gave the officer the right to enter the vehicle, nothing other than expressed permission which was not given.

He could have had 500 pounds of cocaine in the cooler and it would have been tossed.

For whatever reason you choose to give up your rights does not instantly make it the law. This video should become a training video for new officers on exactly what they should never do so some criminal does not walk scott free based upon the illegal search.

To the OP, after viewing the footage, I think I would have repeated my right to remain silent, when he asked if you had been drinking, I would have said "No, I haven't done anything else illegal either, I do not want to answer anymore questions. Am I free to go?" and left it at that.

When a police officer ask such a question, the response needs to be clear and concise. He asked you if you had been engaged in illegal activity, drinking and driving, not responding properly can give him pc to suspect you have been and are evading.

Saying no and adding you have done nothing illegal and then asserting your rights can save you future headaches. That is how I approach such things, and it has worked so far very well.

You could inquire with a lawyer and get a better recommendation I am sure.

imported post

I beg to differ with you, 20 open and even empty alcoholic beverage containers inside the passenger compartment of your vehicle can and has resulted in open container violations and can cause a person a great deal of grief if you choose to show your funny side to the wrong officer.. Once the officers were forced to remove a driver from a vehicle, it too is their responsibility to move or have moved the vehicle to a safe location, the driver forced the police's hand for everything they did except remove the pistol from the vehicle and bring it to center stage. This was a DWI check point, they officers have a duty to insure everyone on that roadway is in compliance with Missouri's law before allowing them to proceed, and if one chooses to make a game of it, The video proved they will ablige you.

imported post

Carnivore wrote:

I beg to differ with you, 20 open and even empty alcoholic beverage containers inside the passenger compartment of your vehicle can and has resulted in open container violations and can cause a person a great deal of grief if you choose to show your funny side to the wrong officer.. .

Click to expand...

Again, you provide 100% false information.

The state of Missouri does NOT have an open container law. Approximately 13 cities have open container ordinances, but there is no state law at all. Driver may not drink, however any and all passengers may do so freely.

Empty beer cans in the cooler not only would have been 100% legal, if discovered, they would not be allowed as evidence due to the illegal nature of the search.

You need to spend a significant amount of time learning what the laws actually are in contrast to believing every thing your told by the ill informed.

The police in no way what so ever had a right or responsibility to move the car, in fact they had the opposite according to the op. He clearly stated he did not want them entering the car or driving it. He should have locked the door when he got out. If the car was located in an unsafe location they had a responsibility to protect the public, aka pull a cruiser behind it with the beacons on.

Again, there is nothing wrong with stating opinions like you felt he should answer the questions, but your efforts at quoting the laws which we all live by are a massive fail and you might want to reconsider quoting them in such an authoritative manner.

imported post

The cop forceing him to get out of his vehicle huh..................That still doesnt give them a right to go thru his belongings.....If they wanted to move his car out or the way,fine......but looking thru his stuff was wrong no matter how you try to spin it.The video does show how cops due as they please,whenever and to whomever they want,disreguarding your rights .PERIOD...thats not bias....just fact......watch the video again.............bad cops..........Next time I hope he gets out and locks his doors,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,that will really piss them off......................then they can break out his windows and some will justify that by saying,if he had nothing to hide,why did he lock his doors..............when dealing with LEO's I have found out the more you assert your rights,even calmy and polite,the more pissed off they get.They want some kind of BLIND OBEDIENCE.If you want to graze with the SHEEPLE go ahead,if you dont use whats yours,you will loose whats yours......fact.

imported post

One thing that worries me about this encounter or any future encounter like it, there is greater leeway allowed to crap on your rights in regards to being stopped at a sobriety checkpoint. I knew this already but am a bit unsure as to how much further it really goes in comparison to a routine stop.

I talked to an employee from the ACLU today, not for my own legal purposes, but just asking them questions about these kinds of stops. They told me that just being stopped and asked for ID, is probable cause and has been upheld in court, that once I stopped and am even contacted, its automatic probable cause and I can have my entire car searched including the trunk. I googled my rear off after that to try to find anything that states that, and for now, I can't find anything to specifically back that up. They weren't a lawyer btw. She was strongly adament about it and pretty much said you are screwed as far as search and seizure is concerned.

I had some issues and resistance trying to submit my FOIA request today to try and get video tape of the FST area I was detained in. After the resistance, I went and bought amic fromWal-Mart for whenever the next time is I find myself dealing with difficulty.First they told me I was under investigation. Then when they figured out I wasn't arrested they told me it was private and I wasn't entitled to anything. Then when they found out Ionly wanted stuff related to me specifically they told me it wasn't FOIA and I had to fill out another form. I did that, attached it to myletter that was much more detailed then what their form allowedme to be and submitted it.TheRecords Custodian and his helper didn't want to make any decisions and said they would pass it on to the City Attorney and he may ormay not make a decision, hehe. I am pretty sure there's a mandated time limit but they did manage to confuse the heck out of me today, so back to Googling once again for me.

It was frustrating but I am glad for the learning experience in any case.

imported post

The city attorney, Nathan Nickolaus....lol. He's crooked as all hell too. Good luck there, man.

imported post

Open container laws violationwould depend entirely how upon how many passengers were in the vehicle to pass the responsibility on to, a sole driver in a vehicle, that would be in possession of open and or empty alcohol bev. containers, in a city of St. Charles, Mo. with too many police depts. present to count,State/County/City, would be a huge headache that my schedule wouldn't have time for. I'd choose to just make my way on through the checkpoint, and leave the games on the shoulder of the roadway at the wee hours of the morning under the microscope to those among us that need more Drama in their lives.. That said, the check point wasn't put up just to keep 20/30/50 someodd officers from being bored, bottom line someone did infact call the bluff of the officers that have a job to do, and they abliged him to the next level. And I don't know very many people that enjoy having someone make an effort to cause them more work.

imported post

Carnivore,

Thanks for your feedback and sharing your opinions in relation to this thread. I can understand why some people may not have any problems submitting to things they may feel are pretty innocuous. I just take personal issue most anytime someone arbitrarily tries to force their way into my life and privacy whether it be on a small scale or associated with a much larger issue.

imported post

MK

I'm not trying to kick you in the shinns for bringing what you did to light, It took Balls to open up your scheduleand let the officers run their course at their will, I just know for me it's a lot less headaches to give em a couple simple yes and no answers and be on my way. I do infact feel the officers failed grossly in your test, by removing the firearm from your vehicle, possibly an illegal seizure resulting from a search scenario that could have been avoided had your schedule been a little more demanding of your time. There's no doubt that I would bring the video to someone higher up on their echelon's attention. I guess i'm just not the kind of fella that likes to be put center stage unnecessarily. Unnecessary attention causes me to get defensive, so i avoid it.

imported post

I can completely understand that sentiment. Its one I've played over in my head before and after I chose to exert my stubborness. There are things I wished I would have done differently but unfortunately I didn't put much thought into it before it all happened. My communication was really lacking to say the least.

imported post

MK wrote:

I can completely understand that sentiment.   Its one I've played over in my head before and after I chose to exert my stubborness.   There are things I wished I would have done differently but unfortunately I didn't put much thought into it before it all happened.   My communication was really lacking to say the least.

Click to expand...

Understandably. You got caught by surprise at 3AM by the roadblock. I think you did pretty well considering.

imported post

I know this was State Police, but, I have to note that police in Columbia have been in the hot seat lately, what with the dog-shooting, drug raid gone wrong video that went viral.

After the Brett Darrow debacle, and classifying Ron Paul supporters as "potential domestic terrorists", you'd think Missouri LE would smarten up a bit. At least a little bit!

imported post

MK, just a quick question, that chewing gum you're working on there in the video, looks like you started that just before you reached the check-point. Now, I carry non-alcohol mouthwash in my cars for that "fresh and minty feeling", but do you think your refusal to answer whether you'd been drinking and the aroma of chewing gum, neither of which are illegal, might have aroused suspicion that you had been drinking?

Another little thing is you never made eye contact with the officer. Maybe he thought you didn't want him to see your eyes.

They're just little things that add up which might have influenced the officer's decision to remove you from the vehicle.

Glad things worked out as well as they did. The officer who opened the cooler - he's got some explaining to do. That was a poor decision.

imported post

Russ P,

I started on that piece of gum almost exactly 30 minutes (miles) before encountering that stop.

I was told months before when I was stopped for a plate light being out, that the gum was an indicator that I might be driving drunk.The officer said he had a hunch due to the gum, but I seriously doubt his hunch would hold up in court if it had came to that. That wouldn't have passed the test of "reasonable" suspicion on its own.

My refusal to answer questions, not initially making eye contact as well as the gum could very well have given suspicion to the officer in this particular stop. Along with that, in a sobriety checkpoint, an officer really doesn't have todefend reasonable suspicion or probable cause to investigate me further and require a chemical test. That's why I complied with his following legal commands without hesitation. I even volunteered to take a breathalzyer test though he could have substitued any two of three other chemicaltests in its place if he wanted.I would have complied with that as well.

I don't feel the Trooper who took charge of my stop and detainment did anything wrong other thantell me a couple falsehoods in regards to my right not to answer questions as well as saying that I was mandated to take a field sobriety test. I don't know who the officer was that went in my vehicle and don't even know which agency he's affiliated with. I do know thatthe guy who went into my vehiclewasn't the Trooper that detained me though.

imported post

Everyone should watch CheckPointUSA. He handles these checkpoints very well.