arrested for OC while intoxicated

My guess is the charges will all be dropped when they begin to feel their temple come crashing down. The last thing they want is case law saying that these police state road blocks are unconstitutional.

AZkopper said:

Now, I don't know if YardSale was as dry as a north Texas county, or if he had partook of a small amount of alcohol, just to 'get the odor' of alcohol on him, with the intention of going through the checkpoint (the tape and commentary are conspicuously silent on that--while mentioning he took 2 Prelimenary breath tests in jail) [sort of like a reverse-entrapment].

Click to expand...

No such thing as a "civilian" entrapping police. And I feel there is nothing wrong with "civilians" setting up and catching "Law Enforcement Officers" breaking the law. Just my thoughts on the "revers-entrapment" phrase.

sudden valley gunner said:

No such thing as a "civilian" entrapping police. And I feel there is nothing wrong with "civilians" setting up and catching "Law Enforcement Officers" breaking the law. Just my thoughts on the "revers-entrapment" phrase.

Click to expand...

What a novel idea, the employer evaluating their employee to make sure they are correctly performing their job.

Nevada carrier said:

My guess is the charges will all be dropped when they begin to feel their temple come crashing down. The last thing they want is case law saying that these police state road blocks are unconstitutional.

Click to expand...

I believe the US Supreme Court has upheld DUI checkpoints. In other words they are Constitutional.

Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990)

Mike said:

Really? Roadblocks are illegal in Wisconsin?

Click to expand...

Under state law.

Mike said:

Really? Roadblocks are illegal in Wisconsin?

Click to expand...

color of law said:

Under state law.

Click to expand...

http://www.associatedcontent.com/ar...ckpoints_are_illegal_in_12_states.html?cat=17

"Notwithstanding sub. (1), a police officer, sheriff, deputy sheriff, traffic officer or motor vehicle inspector may not stop or inspect a vehicle solely to determine compliance with a statute or ordinance



specified under par. (b) unless the police officer, sheriff, deputy sheriff, traffic officer or motor vehicle inspector has reasonable cause to believe that a violation of a statute or ordinance specified under par. (b) has been committed..." WIS. STAT. ANN. 349.02(2)(a).

Click to expand...

wow

color of law said:

What a novel idea, the employer evaluating their employee to make sure they are correctly performing their job.

Click to expand...

1. We are not the "employers" of the police. We cannot hire, fire, or take any other direct personnel action for or against an officer. We elect the officials who appoint the officials who do the hiring and firing. Therefore, we exercise influence, but we are clearly not the employers.

2. While we technically cannot "entrap" officers (since that is a legal term applied to certain kinds of actions by law enforcement officers), it is possible to engineer a set of circumstances to motivate officers to violate a person's rights. I have no doubt that evidence of such engineering will be considered by judges and juries when they make rulings in the law and decisions in fact.

Yard Sale, I got to hand it to you for your actions. I have also refused to go along with illegal demands by police when confronted. Except I was out of state when I first found out what a roadblock checkpoint is. (in Illinois AKA ILL-ANNOY)
It sure gets them bent out of shape, but I have always subscribed to the idea that you only have the rights which you choose to defend vigorously.

My last time I was through that state, I was in a town on the northern border with WI, I was asked to pull into a parking lot, I asked what for, he said it was a random violation check, I asked if he was suspicious of something, he said "Yes" I replied with "Suspicion doesn't cut it, you need probable cause, and you don't have it as I drove around the officer and crossed into my home state of WI while giving them the "Bronx Salute"

WI does not allow roadblocks, and unattended traffic cameras are also prohibited for issuing speeding tickets. But at the same time, there are no laws as to when speed detection radar must be tested by an independent lab, or illegal blood draws without probable cause.

Good Job Yard Sale, way to defend your (and ours) rights!
Obviously he sheeple ahead of you reinforced to the police that they can just do what they want with no regards to their oath to uphold and defend the constitution of the USA

Nutczak said:

Good Job Yard Sale, way to defend your (and ours) rights!
Obviously he sheeple ahead of you reinforced to the police that they can just do what they want with no regards to their oath to uphold and defend the constitution of the USA

Click to expand...

I listened to the scanner traffic during this time. They had at least 50 cars held up during his detention.

Yup and one was a supervisor they wanted on scene. They ordered me to stop in one lane of traffic, I stopped. They ordered me to turn off my engine, I turned it off. They blocked my vehicle with their vehicle. They repeatedly refused to let me leave. The problem is theirs.

Lmao. I sure hope the judge gets to hear that audio...

I love you man!

I'm doing it. Just missed the announced New Years checkpoints. Will find another. Drive through all night refusing search. While oc'ing. Just love it!

Seriously, yard sale, that is an awesome tape. Will someone closer to you set up a fund ala Skidmark here in VA? Eye95 is skeptical (sp?) that bait was not thrown. So what if it was? The banksters have stolen our country and our future. I'm surprised anybody obeys any laws, and obviously, many don't. Allow us the last little bit of symbolic slave revolt.

color of law said:

What a novel idea, the employer evaluating their employee to make sure they are correctly performing their job.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but in no way is a citizen the employer of a police officer. Yes, sales tax pays their salary, but is your name on their check?

Ian said:

I'm sorry, but in no way is a citizen the employer of a police officer. Yes, sales tax pays their salary, but is your name on their check?

Click to expand...

Then where does the money come from to operate a police department??

Taxes, fees, licensing etc etc. it all comes from tax monies collected from citizens be it state, federal, or incidental taxation such as citations issued by said police department.

Nutczak said:

Then where does the money come from to operate a police department??

Taxes, fees, licensing etc etc. it all comes from tax monies collected from citizens be it state, federal, or incidental taxation such as citations issued by said police department.

Click to expand...

What makes an employer an employer is the ability to hire, fire, and make personnel decisions that affect the employee. Citizens do not exercise that authority over police. As a collective, the citizenry elect the person who appoints the person who is the employer. Therefore, we exercise influence, but not control, over those functions that define an employer.

color of law said:

I believe the US Supreme Court has upheld DUI checkpoints. In other words they are Constitutional.

Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990)

Click to expand...

Yes, the SCOTUS upheld that "sobriety checkpoints" were Constitutional. The issue that arises is that those checkpoints become, check for insurance, driving without a license, warrants, you name it, checkpoints.

Those checkpoints should be for sobriety only. But as usual, they are abused, and the Court should rule on items outside of the checking to see if the individual is intoxicated. Just my .02

I haven't really read(e) up on how they set these checkpoints up, but I think there should be some sort of judge to sign off, as if it were a search warrant, that laid out specific purpose and duty of searches such as this. We all know that it is in the best interest of the public that drunk drivers not drive drunk and that they be stopped ASAP, before they kill someone.

protias said:

I listened to the scanner traffic during this time. They had at least 50 cars held up during his detention.

Click to expand...

Reminds me of "what could have been" if more folks had refused body scanners over the holdiay period.

eye95 said:

1. We are not the "employers" of the police. We cannot hire, fire, or take any other direct personnel action for or against an officer. We elect the officials who appoint the officials who do the hiring and firing. Therefore, we exercise influence, but we are clearly not the employers.

2. While we technically cannot "entrap" officers (since that is a legal term applied to certain kinds of actions by law enforcement officers), it is possible to engineer a set of circumstances to motivate officers to violate a person's rights. I have no doubt that evidence of such engineering will be considered by judges and juries when they make rulings in the law and decisions in fact.

Click to expand...

"...or take any other direct personnel action for or against an officer."

Let me see, about four years ago a cop decided to stop me on a bogus traffic stop, hand cuffed me and detained me for about an hour. In the end the case was dropped. The officer was fired and stripped of his power to ever serve as an officer again. All without ever using an attorney.

So, I guess your right a poor old citizen can't take any direct personnel action against an officer.

Oh ya, I got a ticket two years ago for speeding (53 in a 35), case dismissed.

Have a nice day.