DUI Blitz nets 21 arrests - Out of 200 stops

[Alexcabbie]

imported post

Gunslinger wrote:

madcapmag wrote:

I personally believe they should stop BAD drivers, whether or not they are over the legal limit. After all, doesn't 2 beers put some people over? I know people who can walk tightropes after a sixpack and some who go to sleep after one bottle.

And just how are they going to do that? Roadblocks every night? Random pull overs to check for "papers"? First steps; what are the next ones going to be?

Virginia law was changed a few years ago so that NOW having a blood alcohol content of .08% is "Prima facie" evidence of a violation. Before that it only established a "rebuttable presumption" of intoxication,ie it was THEORETICALLY possible to prove that you could "hold your liquor" and evidently enough people did that, or else the Madame Defarge clones known ad MADD lied about it happening enough that they tightened up the statute.

Madcapmag was talking about what I called "HUA" stops for probable cause. The roadblocks and .08 limit HAVE brought me a lot of business, though...........

 

[Statesman]

imported post

stanicus wrote:

I know they are ticky tack reasons to pull people over, but how is it "evil" to use whatever means nessessaryto attempt to clear the road of drunk drivers?

It's not evil per say, but it is quite dishonest, and it creates an atmosphere of police distrust for citizens.

It boils down to intent, and reasonable search and seizure. You pull someone over for a lane change violation, but your real intent is to try to find some other crime. There is supposed to be "reasonable cause" to pull someone over for drunk driving, which makes such a stop constitutional, I believe (i.e. unreasonable search and seizure).

Historically, government abuses search and seizure powers to the nth degree, in order to accomplish some perceived goal.

Our government is slowly but surely breaking all constitutional laws; breaking the chains that bind it. That IS pure evil.

 

[nitrovic]

imported post

Statesman wrote:

stanicus wrote:

I know they are ticky tack reasons to pull people over, but how is it "evil" to use whatever means nessessaryto attempt to clear the road of drunk drivers?

It's not evil per say, but it is quite dishonest, and it creates an atmosphere of police distrust for citizens.

It boils down to intent, and reasonable search and seizure. You pull someone over for a lane change violation, but your real intent is to try to find some other crime. There is supposed to be "reasonable cause" to pull someone over for drunk driving, which makes such a stop constitutional, I believe (i.e. unreasonable search and seizure).

Historically, government abuses search and seizure powers to the nth degree, in order to accomplish some perceived goal.

Our government is slowly but surely breaking all constitutional laws; breaking the chains that bind it. That IS pure evil.

Not true at all. If the officer has reasonable cause to pull you over for a lane change, than that validates the stop. If he smells alcohol on you after the fact and you slur your speech and have glassy eyes, then that is good as well. It is NOT unreasonable search and seizure. Not in the least bit. The only evil i see is killing innocent families while driving drunk on the road.

 

[MeBaby]

imported post

nitrovic wrote:

Statesman wrote:

stanicus wrote:

I know they are ticky tack reasons to pull people over, but how is it "evil" to use whatever means nessessaryto attempt to clear the road of drunk drivers?

It's not evil per say, but it is quite dishonest, and it creates an atmosphere of police distrust for citizens.

It boils down to intent, and reasonable search and seizure. You pull someone over for a lane change violation, but your real intent is to try to find some other crime. There is supposed to be "reasonable cause" to pull someone over for drunk driving, which makes such a stop constitutional, I believe (i.e. unreasonable search and seizure).

Historically, government abuses search and seizure powers to the nth degree, in order to accomplish some perceived goal.

Our government is slowly but surely breaking all constitutional laws; breaking the chains that bind it. That IS pure evil.

Not true at all. If the officer has reasonable cause to pull you over for a lane change, than that validates the stop. If he smells alcohol on you after the fact and you slur your speech and have glassy eyes, then that is good as well. It is NOT unreasonable search and seizure. Not in the least bit. The only evil i see is killing innocent families while driving drunk on the road.

Vic, I agree on the smelling alcohol, slurred speech etc. but it sometimes doesn't end there. If there is no other apparent violation then some officers then look the vehicle over and may even ask for permission to search looking for a "stroke". I understand that most officers that don't do thisbut you all (present officers) should police your own and explain/lead by exampleto let the other officersknow that this just gives all officers a bad name. since you can see my demeanor or hear the tone of my voice, I say this with all respect and in a friendly tone of voice .

 

[nitrovic]

imported post

MeBaby wrote:

nitrovic wrote:

Statesman wrote:

stanicus wrote:

I know they are ticky tack reasons to pull people over, but how is it "evil" to use whatever means nessessaryto attempt to clear the road of drunk drivers?

It's not evil per say, but it is quite dishonest, and it creates an atmosphere of police distrust for citizens.

It boils down to intent, and reasonable search and seizure. You pull someone over for a lane change violation, but your real intent is to try to find some other crime. There is supposed to be "reasonable cause" to pull someone over for drunk driving, which makes such a stop constitutional, I believe (i.e. unreasonable search and seizure).

Historically, government abuses search and seizure powers to the nth degree, in order to accomplish some perceived goal.

Our government is slowly but surely breaking all constitutional laws; breaking the chains that bind it. That IS pure evil.

Not true at all. If the officer has reasonable cause to pull you over for a lane change, than that validates the stop. If he smells alcohol on you after the fact and you slur your speech and have glassy eyes, then that is good as well. It is NOT unreasonable search and seizure. Not in the least bit. The only evil i see is killing innocent families while driving drunk on the road.

Vic, I agree on the smelling alcohol, slurred speech etc. but it sometimes doesn't end there. If there is no other apparent violation then some officers then look the vehicle over and may even ask for permission to search looking for a "stroke". I understand that most officers that don't do thisbut you all (present officers) should police your own and explain/lead by exampleto let the other officersknow that this just gives all officers a bad name. since you can see my demeanor or hear the tone of my voice, I say this with all respect and in a friendly tone of voice .

Still nothing wrong with asking for the search or looking into a vehicle. I don't see it as giving officers a "bad name", just the opposite actually. I've seized MANY illegal firearms, drugs, and have gotten many very bad wanted people off of the street doing this. Now, if the officer searches the car anyway, then yes, that is a HUGE problem. Some officers ask every vehicle they pull over if they can search, that was they can testify on the stand that they were not "profiling" when the do get drugs from a search. The theory is if you ask EVERY vehicle, then you didn't single out Mr. "put ethnic group of person driving and arrested here". When I worked narcotics I would sit in known drug areas and do this. It's actually very effective. I do understand where you are coming from though (when I was younger my vehicle was searched because my friend had a can of beer and we were under-age).

 

[Alexcabbie]

imported post

Yep, and sometimes a bad LEO DOES get put in his place nicely. I was cited for "improper passing" by an LEO here, but I did not see where I did anything wrong so before I sent a prepayment I looked at the trafic code and found no possible way I could have violated the law, so I prepared my defense and went to court.

We were both sworn in and, UNDER OATH, THE COP SAID I had crossed a double yellow line. That's when I knew I had him. because (1) there was no double yellow line and (2) the scene of the offense was VISIBLE FROM THE COURTROOM WINDOW!!Boy, when the judge saw that, his face turned red and he glared at the cop. Then his mouth moved while he tried to remember what to say rather than "dismissed" and finally glaring at the offficer he yelled "NOT GUILTY!!" and the LEO stalked outta the courtroom with everybody snickering at him. I hated to have to do that but I found out later that this particular cop is not very well liked even by his fellows. Wonder why that is.........

 

[nitrovic]

imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:

Yep, and sometimes a bad LEO DOES get put in his place nicely.  I was cited for "improper passing" by an LEO here, but I did not see where I did anything wrong so before I sent a prepayment I looked at the trafic code and found no possible way I could have violated the law, so I prepared my defense and went to court.

We were both sworn in and, UNDER OATH, THE COP SAID I had crossed a double yellow line. That's when I knew I had him. because (1) there was no double yellow line and (2) the scene of the offense was VISIBLE FROM THE COURTROOM WINDOW!!Boy, when the judge saw that, his face turned red and he glared at the cop. Then his mouth moved while he tried to remember what to say rather than "dismissed" and finally glaring at the offficer he yelled "NOT GUILTY!!" and the LEO stalked outta the courtroom with everybody snickering at him.  I hated to have to do that but I found out later that this particular cop is not very well liked even by his fellows.  Wonder why that is.........

I would replace "bad" with more of a "douche" type word. If most cops bring in "improper passing" without it being an accident, they get laughed at. That, or the person had the worst attitude you can imagine and talked their way into the ticket. If he was a really "bad" officer he would be sitting in a parking lot watching a movie, not out writing tickets, even the trivial ones.

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

nitrovic wrote:

I would replace "bad" with more of a "douche" type word.

That's kind of a funny line, I'll have to use that somewhere...

 

[Alexcabbie]

imported post

Nitro, this cop was not only a "douche", he thought bhe could get away with SWEARING UNDER OATH that I did something that was plainly and easily observable from the very window of the courtroom impossible o do, ie cross a yellow line that did not exist. He thought he could bully a citizen into just signing, accepting and pre-paying and whe he showed up he thought that a common cabdriver's word would be worthless against his. And he thought I was such an idit that I would not point out the obvious to His Honor. This cop also has a history of being a bully toward the local teenagers who skate along King Street. He just loved to throw his weight around and the more helpless and timid the victim the better. Yeah, he was a douche nozzel but he was and remains aBAD COP.

As a taxicab driver I realize that the fear of the police helps protect me from criminals. And the police in this city are by and large professional and polite and helpful. There may be Alexandria LEOs on this thread so I want to make it clear that the Alexandria PD is among the best in the nation. Ordinary citizewns might get nervous when a cop car is in their rearview mirror. Me, I relax a bit. But as to this particular cop, "BAD COP!!NO DONUT!!"

 

[murphy2]

imported post

This, in a way, reminds me of the "can a LEO stop and question you for open carry" discussion a while back. After all a vehicle is nothing more than a firearm, tool if you will. Anything that is operated/carried by an individual in public CAN BEa hazard to said public. I do not personally like LEOs setting up check points of any kind. But we have idiots that do not respect there fellow citizens enough and drive UI. The one lawfull thing that LEOs are obligated to stop and enforce (DUI)we can't gripe about. With freedom comes responsibility. Inconvenient at times? YES! Do we need DUI check points? Unfortunately, Yes! Do I like it? No!But having lost a friend to a drunk driver I can see the reason behind it. But again,gun ownership is a RIGHT! Driving is a "privilege". This is where LEOs screw up.

 

[PT111]

imported post

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

The problem with the fourth amendment is that no one can decide what it unreasonable even though the Supreme Court has ruled on it many times. I a DUI check point an unreasonable infringement of our rights? Many who have lost loved ones to a DUI driver say no but many others say yes. I have been through many checkpoints and have never been asked anything other than to show my license or sometimes registration and insurance. One of the things I see on this thread is that some want selective enforcement of some laws but exact enforcement of others. Many say that the LEO should follow the exact law of the land when dealiong with guns or checkpoints yet at the same time selective enforcement of violations such as illegal equipment (tail lights out), lane change violations etc. There we come back to unreasonable and no definition of it.

 

[nitrovic]

imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:

Nitro, this cop was not only a "douche", he thought bhe could get away with SWEARING UNDER OATH  that I did something that was plainly and easily observable from the very window of the courtroom impossible o do, ie cross a yellow line that did not exist.  He thought he could bully a citizen into just signing, accepting and pre-paying and whe he showed up he thought that a common cabdriver's word would be worthless against his.  And he thought I was such an idit that I would not point out the obvious to His Honor. This cop also has a history of being a bully toward the local teenagers who skate along King Street.  He just loved to throw his weight around and the more helpless and timid the victim the better.  Yeah, he was a douche nozzel but he was and remains a BAD COP.

As a taxicab driver I realize that the fear of the police helps protect me from criminals. And the police in this city are by and large professional and polite and helpful.  There may be Alexandria LEOs on this thread so I want to make it clear that the Alexandria PD is among the best in the nation.  Ordinary citizewns might get nervous when a cop car is in their rearview mirror.  Me, I relax a bit.  But as to this particular cop, "BAD COP!! NO DONUT!!" 

I meant for giving you a ticket for that weak charge. Lying under oath is inexcusable (and highly illegal).

 

[nitrovic]

imported post

PT111 wrote:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

The problem with the fourth amendment is that no one can decide what it unreasonable even though the Supreme Court has ruled on it many times.  I a DUI check point an unreasonable infringement of our rights?  Many who have lost loved ones to a DUI driver say no but many others say yes.  I have been through many checkpoints and have never been asked anything other than to show my license or sometimes registration and insurance.  One of the things I see on this thread is that some want selective enforcement of some laws but exact enforcement of others.  Many say that the LEO should follow the exact law of the land when dealiong with guns or checkpoints yet at the same time selective enforcement of violations such as illegal equipment (tail lights out), lane change violations etc.  There we come back to unreasonable and no definition of it.

 

I agree. I hate DUI checkpoints (I don't know one cop who actually likes working them, usually they are "volun-told because nobody signs up for them). It's BS and usually does not account for many DUI's (in my area anyway, not speaking for every jurisdiction).

 

[MeBaby]

imported post

murphy2 wrote:

Snip

But again,gun ownership is a RIGHT! Driving is a "privilege". This is where LEOs screw up.

Who says that being able to transport yourself form one area to another is a "privilege"? I think you may be imbibing some of the "govment koolaid"