DUI ROADBLOCK SAT SEPT 3rd

Good background info on the window roll down thing. I had that same problem, faced arrest, at my last dui checkpoint. Now it seems they are ordering officers not only to demand it, but also to arrest for it. Woah! So, decline first, then comply and fight any charges from there. and all the way down too! I'd like to try 1/4....then 1/2...then 3/4...see at what point they stop threatening arrest (and bodily harm with weapons drawn) heh. I raised the question on their 'lawful order' provision of the statute, and there still seems to be no black and white of what they can or can't ask for. I can claim that rolling down my window is unlawful can't i? as it may cause me to incriminate myself...which i am protected from?

How do we get this 'lawful order' crap wording changed to something specific. The metro officers at my DUI checkpoint told me they had backing from a supreme court ruling...I'm guessing the one that declared dui checkpoints not unlawful...as a minor violation for the good of all thing. Forget the case......

DON`T TREAD ON ME said:

...did I mention the scenery was great! (short skirts) This one one of the best ones period. People were so supportive, and insisted on tipping us, we took pictures with "hott Chicks" and I am still grinning. Oh yeah, and we were OC.

Click to expand...

Pics or it didn't happen!

Michigan vs Sitz

In that case, the Supreme Court ruled a 55 minute checkpoint that stopped 101 vehicles was a minimal intrusion. Metro stretches that out to an 8 hour checkpoint that stops thousands of vehicles.

In the ruling, the justices say that a temporary seizure of your person is a minimal intrusion. However, in classic Supreme Court style, they don't expand on that, leaving the rest up to the lower courts.

So when the cops says "everything we're doing here is legal, the Supreme Court said so...", it's hogwash. The STOP itself is OK, but that's where it ends. The order to roll down your window is an intrusion that goes beyond what the court even considered. That being said, the Michigan vs Sitz case is pretty much irrelevant in considering anything other than the fact that you have to stop. There is plenty of other case law that deals with self-incrimination, etc. Police authority is quite limited because after you have STOPPED as ordered, you are now in a CONSENSUAL ENCOUNTER, which means no further cooperation (besides stopping) is required. Plus, arguably, stopping thousands of vehicles over a period of 8 hours is far from the minimal numbers the court reviewed, and who knows how they would rule if instead of 101 cars, it was 3817 cars?

Regarding the lawful order question, I've been giving it a lot of thought. Consider a crime scene. Police can put up crime scene tape on a public sidewalk and cordon off the area. They can give you a lawful order to stay off the sidewalk or stay behind the tape, even though you would normally have a right to walk down that sidewalk. A DUI checkpoint example might be "shut off your lights" because they're interfering with the officer investigating the car in front of you. Or "move to the left lane" because the right lane is backed up. These would be valid lawful orders.

But a checkpoint is not a crime scene. Shut off your lights, and move to this/that lane also don't self incriminate. Roll down your window may/can. And its that michigan case you sited, that they refer to when they claim they have prior supreme court approval. Have you been to one lately driving, and had a supervisor tell you....the supreme court says i can order you to roll down your window. I heard that first hand...that's the prime example I bring you. The rest yes we can all speculate on, and its educational, but I first hand was ordered, just like you said the Lieut you spoke to is ordering his officers, to roll down your window completely. I know you replied to my post back then and said you had gone through a few, one point they waved you on...another point they had a statute ready for you. I'm guessing that this michigan case is their ammo. I asked several times for a citation of statute, they said over and over, we'll get that, we're on it, it's on its way...but they just threatened with arrest after threaten, never did i see them come up with anything. So yah I folded, complied, rolled, and then was let go.


Some one's post up a few ago...how if a criminal caught wind of our post, could cite that the stop was illegal, not posted right or not enough distance or whatever...it would enrage me to see a criminal drunk got free because of us. I'm against DUI. I feel if you drink and drive you should be in trouble, like most of you. This is the hardest part to argue in this current topic. We're not FOR drinking and driving...we're just against the infringement on our rights, and the waste of resources(money) these stops cause. It's that age old adage, give an inch they take a mile. Let them demand a window roll down...eventually they'll demand...its lawful...to order you from the car, disarm you, identify you, etc...and that's why we start with these 'basics' and prevent the furthering of the 'police state' checkpoint stuff. So, we had some success with this legislature. How can we continue that and expand on that to address this situation. I'm new to this proactive sort of thing, so i might defer to those more experienced. I think this is a classic case of something needing fixed. "lawful order" during a dui stop is too vague and our police are taking advantage of it. Our great state of Nevada needs to recognize this short coming and take action. How? Help needed =).

DUI is both malum in prohibitum and malum in se. Checkpoints are only one way to identify those who are violating the law - albeit the easiest way. The problem witrh checkpoints, as has so well be laid out, is that in order to achieve their major goal they violate a whole raft of rights, as well as, apparently with this specific one, violate the very law established to regulate how they are to be set up.

If you are willing to spend an additional $500 or so we could pass a law requiring all cars to have a breathalyzer interlock installed. Not just new cars starting with model year 2xxx but all cars - no interlock, no registration. No registration, no legally driving the car on the public roads. And yes, there would be additional expenses of regular calibrations of the interlock, and I'm willing to bet the regular (annual, semi-annual depending on where you live) inspection will check to see that it works, which will jack up that expense, too.

Or we could put more cops on the roads just to look for signs of DUI - police powers limited to that only. It would raise taxes, but it would get some more DUIs off the roads.

Or we could make DUI a capital offense - that would at least keep the number of repeat offenders down to zero.*

Or we could stop giving drunk drivers so many "chances" and start locking them up for significant periods of time well before their umpteenth repeat offense. If they will not learn (and I know not all drunk drivers are alcoholics and not all alcoholics are drunk drivers) then incapacitate them. Maybe even put them on lifetime probation after they get out so their PO can breathalyze them at any time.

It's a balancing act. And there are a lot of folks who do not like balancing the issue of identifying a small number of very dangerous drivers against the violation of many rights of a large portion of the population. Especially when it seems that identifying DUIs does little to actually reduce/eliminate the behavior except for the period of time they are locked up.

stay safe.

* Personally I like this option, but that's because I don't drink any more. Wish I was an alcoholic so I could be self-rightous about it, too.

skidmark said:

DUI is both malum in prohibitum and malum in se.

Click to expand...

I disagree. A dui can be immoral per se, if the alcohol was making you drive badly. .08 is completely arbitrary. Many people would be much more dangerous on the road tired or angry than at .08. I say punish bad driving, not a measurement.

skidmark said:

Checkpoints are only one way to identify those who are violating the law - albeit the easiest way.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure that is true. For a given department, do they actually catch more DUI or less on a night where they run a checkpoint? I haven't seen the results of a study showing that they increase DUI arrests. They might very well, but I don't like to assume. I mainly just hear about how they give a lot of people tickets for not having a valid license, proper registration, or leaving their driver's license at home. I hear a drunk could probably roll through a checkpoint okay if they just drove in a straight line through the short stretch and didn't slur their speech when the officer talked to them. If the police were following drivers on the road the impaired drivers may be more obvious.

Please see this article in the LV Sun:

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/aug/19/officials-begin-3-week-period-increased-dui-enforc/

"Metro Police Lt. Leonard Marshall said putting extra officers on a saturation patrol to look for impaired drivers usually leads to more arrests than a DUI checkpoint. But the checkpoints are more visible and help to get the word out, he said."

The checkpoint is admittedly less effective than other enforcement of methods, so the checkpoint itself is just an intrusive process designed to "get the word out" as opposed to actually stopping impaired drivers.

In this case "getting the word out" is government-speak for generating revenue.

Hmmmm. I wonder if city council would really like to hear from constituents about wasting tax dollars on a less effective enforcement method. Less effective, of course, translates into higher numbers of drunks on the road elsewhere. Meaning, the police are jeopardizing the lives of sober drivers elsewhere, in a manner of speaking.

Citizen said:

Meaning, the police are jeopardizing the lives of sober drivers elsewhere, in a manner of speaking.

Click to expand...

This is nearly verbatim the quote I gave a year ago in a Las Vegas Sun article on the topic

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/jul/05/many-stopped-few-arrested/

timf343 said:

This is nearly verbatim the quote I gave a year ago in a Las Vegas Sun article on the topic

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/jul/05/many-stopped-few-arrested/

Click to expand...

Dang! Some people will go a long way to flush out plagiarism.

most DUI checkpoint funding comes from federal grants.

rickyray9 said:

most DUI checkpoint funding comes from federal grants.

Click to expand...

Which are still taxpayer dollars...

timf343 said:

Second, police are required to put up warning signs a quarter of a mile prior to the checkpoint warning traffic of the roadblock ahead. ... My contention is that it doesn't matter where police setup the cones, the checkpoint "begins" when I have no choice but to go through it.

Click to expand...

The NRS specifies a distance from the roadblock. It doesn't say whether the roadblock is the "traffic control device" or the cones which block the road, or the officer who blocks the road.

Finally, Fletcher admits giving all officers a direct order that they are to order every driver to "roll down your window all the way" and if the window doesn't roll down to "open the door". He says that failing to comply will result in your arrest for disobeying the "lawful orders of a police officer".

Click to expand...

That makes it illegal according to the supreme court, which said police can seize motorists only for brief questioning. It did not say they could enter or search their vehicles or demand breath tests or blood tests.

When asked the question point blank, Fletcher explained that rolling down the window is so officers can detect the smell of alcohol or drugs, which sounds an awful lot like a warrantless search or an order to provide self-incriminating evidence.

Click to expand...

You have the right not to be compelled to testify against yourself. You don't have to the (enumerated) right not to be compelled to provide physical evidence against yourself. Sucks, huh?

Lostlittlerobot said:

Shut off your lights, and move to this/that lane also don't self incriminate.

Click to expand...

But they unneccessarily delay and prolong the detention beyond the allowed brief questioning.

Let them demand a window roll down...eventually they'll demand...its lawful...to order you from the car, disarm you, identify you, etc.

Click to expand...

Been there, done that, got beat up, falsely arrested for DUI and possession of a firearm while intoxicated, tortured at gunpoint, kidnapped, assaulted with a needle, strip searched.

http://www.lolinter.net/badcops.pdf

I think this is a classic case of something needing fixed. "lawful order" during a dui stop is too vague and our police are taking advantage of it. Our great state of Nevada needs to recognize this short coming and take action. How? Help needed =).

Click to expand...

Well right now DON'T TREAD ON ME and I have standing in court. I'm pretty sure I can show my local law enforcement has a policy of delaying motorists who insist on their rights at roadblocks and contriving suspicion of a crime, and if they won't voluntarily stop setting up roadblocks in a settlement I'll ask a court to issue an injunction. But as Dave's video and others show, it's more than just my local cops that are corrupt. I would like to get an injunction stopping the NDOT OTS from funding roadblocks statewide.

Yard Sale said:

The NRS specifies a distance from the roadblock. It doesn't say whether the roadblock is the "traffic control device" or the cones which block the road, or the officer who blocks the road.


That makes it illegal according to the supreme court, which said police can seize motorists only for brief questioning. It did not say they could enter or search their vehicles or demand breath tests or blood tests.


You have the right not to be compelled to testify against yourself. You don't have to the (enumerated) right not to be compelled to provide physical evidence against yourself. Sucks, huh?


But they unneccessarily delay and prolong the detention beyond the allowed brief questioning.


Been there, done that, got beat up, falsely arrested for DUI and possession of a firearm while intoxicated, tortured at gunpoint, kidnapped, assaulted with a needle, strip searched.

http://www.lolinter.net/badcops.pdf


Well right now DON'T TREAD ON ME and I have standing in court. I'm pretty sure I can show my local law enforcement has a policy of delaying motorists who insist on their rights at roadblocks and contriving suspicion of a crime, and if they won't voluntarily stop setting up roadblocks in a settlement I'll ask a court to issue an injunction. But as Dave's video and others show, it's more than just my local cops that are corrupt. I would like to get an injunction stopping the NDOT OTS from funding roadblocks statewide.

Click to expand...

WOW, I'm a medical guy but work part time with law enforcement and went through training at the academy in Idaho. I can tell you a couple things, they got together and made sure everyone put into their statements that you were reaching for your gun. This statement alone makes you look guilty; by all of them putting in into their report gives it some creditability. You need to point out that in one of the statements one officer that was grabbing your arm/wrist wrote he was told you were reaching for your weapon. If he was that close and didn't see it himself then it more than they are just trying to CYA (cover their Arses).

Any dip chit officer knows that a sweet smell could be a sign of DM (diabetes). They are using blood shot eyes and sweet smell as excuses for an illegal search. One officer even put in his report he smelt alcohol, either he has no sense of smell or he is LIEING in his statement.

What it comes down to is you challenged their authority, you stood up for your rights, and if more people did then they wouldn't have the fear of the common person on the street. There are a lot of officers (not all) that get off on the power trip. Don't get me wrong I'm normally pro police but in this case they were wrong and you need a good lawyer.

Even though they tried to get their statements together there are still inconsistencies. Good Luck and I hope you win. I work this coming Saturday wearing a vest and carrying a service pistol and handcuffs so I do know what I'm talking about. I work with good cops and some I just shake my head about, just like at the hospital where I work.

In Washington state: police check points for any reason are illegal. It is State Law, has nothing specific to do with US constitution.

Nevada, and any other state that allows police check points, can do the same thing. Vote in a responsible legislature, and have the legislature tell these power hungry LEOs that random stops and check points are no longer an acceptable practice.

Oh yes, and add teeth (personal $$$$) to it when the violate the law.

Hermannr-

How do you get past the fact that many people interpret "anti checkpoint" as "pro drunk driver" ?

The "STOP DUI" organization absolutely hates when I protest the checkpoint, and usually some of their volunteers come around to take our pictures. Despite my best efforts, they refuse to understand that I'd much prefer those same officers were out driving around looking for drunk drivers, where they are 3 times more likely to find an impaired driver, instead of stopping thousands of innocent drivers.

Tim

Yard Sale said:

SNIP I'm pretty sure I can show my local law enforcement has a policy of delaying motorists who insist on their rights,...

Click to expand...

Oh, that's shouldn't be hard at all. They showed it by smearing you in those reports you linked, saying you were "very uncooperative." This is cop-smear for exercising your rights.

"Oh, I'm sorry officer. I am a patriotic American. I will cooperate with you to the full extent required by our laws." There is no way anybody legitimately can be called uncooperative for exercising their rights. It is too obviously a smear tactic by police to make the accused look bad, bolstering their case. Which raises the immediate question of why, if their case was all that sound, would they have to stoop to smear tactics? It is one those things where, when I see cops smearing somebody in the press with that tactic, I just assume they've got a weak, non-existent, or made-up case.

I'm not familiar with SCOTUS roadblock opinions, but it seems to me that there is no point in police asking questions or speaking to someone if that person refuses to answer questions. For example,

Cop: "Roll down yer window."

Citizen: "Why?"

Cop: "I need to speak to you."

Citizen: "No point. I'm not going to answer any questions without an attorney. And, I can hear anything from your side of the conversation just fine."

Thus, its really just a tactic to coerce the driver into allowing a plain-smell of the atmosphere inside the car.

timf343 said:

Hermannr-

How do you get past the fact that many people interpret "anti checkpoint" as "pro drunk driver" ?

The "STOP DUI" organization absolutely hates when I protest the checkpoint, and usually some of their volunteers come around to take our pictures. Despite my best efforts, they refuse to understand that I'd much prefer those same officers were out driving around looking for drunk drivers, where they are 3 times more likely to find an impaired driver, instead of stopping thousands of innocent drivers.

Tim

Click to expand...

Look at your "stop DUI" orginization and you will find the same people that think there should be a seat belt law, a helmet law, and there should be tighter controls on firearms as no-one needs them..etc etc etc. nanny nanny nanny

The difference between you and those people is they are better organized and like to spread their propaganda through emotions. Look at your "stop DUI" organization and see how many dues paying, card carring members there are. I'll bet there are more registered members of the libertarian party in Nevada than your DUI group.

Anyway, you need to take a page from the "pro-choice" V "pro life" argument. You are not pro drunk drivers, you are "pro freedom from unreansonable search and seizure" as promulgated through the 4th Ammendment of the US constitution. (and your state constitution, Aricle 1 section 18))

Washington state, where I live, fortunately has Article 1 Section 7, and State Supreme Court rulings to back up that it says, exactly what it says....there will never be random "check points" in this state no matter what the US Supreme Court says.

It is proven, those that would allow the other guy to be free to do his thing as long as that person, in so doing, is not hurting anyone else...do not organize well. That is because they generally do not want to (or have the "need" to) control how another person lives his/her life, and that includes within an organization.

Has anyone taken the state to court over the random checkpoint question, under the STATE constitution, (article 1 section 18) Nothing about the US constitution, just the state constitution? Your article 18 is not worded much differently than ours is. What part of "shall not be violated" do these people not understand?

hermannr said:

What part of "shall not be violated" do these people not understand?

Click to expand...

Unfortunately it isn't a case of "not understanding", it is a case of not caring what it says.

TBG