DON`T TREAD ON ME
Regular Member
Looks like we have another DUI roadblock!
http://www.lvmpd.com/Portals/0/news/2012/SobrietyCheckpointSept2012.pdf
http://www.lvmpd.com/Portals/0/news/2012/SobrietyCheckpointSept2012.pdf
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
one of us? open carry at dui checkpoint
- Thread starter chrsjhnsn
- Start date
Merlin
Regular Member
Saturday 9/22, 7pm-3am east Sahara corridor.
I am in town for this one, and will plan to hit it up after the Henderson car show.
Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2
I am in town for this one, and will plan to hit it up after the Henderson car show.
Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2
Vegassteve
Regular Member
So because of a 7% stat they wish to violate rights. Amazing.
MP_4_Life
Regular Member
Now even I have to admit something is fishy here. I'm sorry, but even though I was a Military Police officer, in those 8 years I have never seen so many officer statements being near how identical all those reports are. Honestly if I had been in your shoes, after the case is completely dismissed, I would be hiring a lawyer and filing a lawsuit against each department and officer. It's blatantly obvious to me from all those reports and hearing that tape, that evidence is missing, there should at least already be a IA investigation going on.
Maybe I'm over reacting, I dunno. I'm just appalled at the voice recording, the missing evidence, and the fact that all the statements are nearly identical. Especially during that voice recording with how the officers reacted to the gun, I'm surprised they didn't discharge a firearm at you. It's no wonder you stated, that you were afraid. I've been through a combat tour and a bunch of other crap, very little scares me, but that recording alone scared me when i imagined being in the same situation.
Yard Sale
Regular Member
Indeed, a notebook and a camera:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zImch5oB5NQ
Gangsters investigating gangsters? The lieutenant who would supervise an investigation signed off the reports and is listed as an accomplice in the kidnapping.
First they would have to draw and aim said firearm, something that takes about 3 seconds for most cops. Fortunately they didn't make that choice.
MP_4_Life
Regular Member
I thought I read in one of the reports, that at least one officer already had his weapon unholstered. But if I'm mistaken then i'm glad.
Merlin
Regular Member
Merlin
Regular Member
We had a turnout of three last night, and all went well. I went through on my motorcycle with my son on the back. When they asked questions, they got no answers. The officer called for a sargeant. The sargeant said "Do you smell alcohol?", officer said "No", and Sgt. said "Let them go".
My son, the budding videographer, recorded the whole thing. I realized after the fact that next time, I need to not have the visible camera out. Of course they were more likely to behave when they saw the camera. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad they did behave, but I don't think it necessarily captured the problem with these checkpoints, which is when they abuse it, and don't comply with the requirements set forth in statute and court decisions.
This one was not compliant on signage, I think. I'll have to review the requirements, but the one that stands out in my mind is the .25mi one, and that was definately not there.
After going through and not getting hassled, I settled in with two other fellas that were already there with "Checkpoint Ahead" signs. My son had a real blast holding the sign, and getting thumbs up from the drivers, as we were actually giving them the chance to turn off properly, and with enough notice to do so safely, and without getting chased down by the motorcycle cops.
After a while, one of the motorcycle cops came over to strike up a conversation. We were all cautious, but as he talked, I saw an opportunity for a real dialogue, and officer friendly was quite pleasant. He didn't ask any fishing questions, or try to push his views. I/we explained that the rub with these checkpoints was that they were a huge, unjustified waste of money, and more importantly a violation of civil liberties, and that the ends didn't justify the means.
We actually ended up chatting for a couple of hours. He had a lot of positive to say, which I won't elaborate on, at his request. Suffice to say, it was actually a really positive interaction. I got the opportunity to convey a lot of things about how police should handle OC situations, and he seemed to be genuinely interested and came to agree with a lot of it. I gave him my "blue pants" analogy, which he liked. (A 'man with a gun' is the same as a 'man with blue pants', neither is cause for concern or even contact, until the man takes it off and starts waving it around at people) He liked that, and seemed to get the point. We discussed taking our kids to the range, teaching them to shoot, etc. I also took the opportunity to go over several of the statutes with him (tri-fold to the rescue).
Specifically, he was not familiar with preemption. I went over it with him, and explained how it made any statute on the city/county, etc, invalid. He actually seemed pleased by that (much easier to remember 1 law instead of a dozen). We discussed blue card, and how it is so often misunderstood by officers, who demand to see it. I pointed out that it is not required to be carried on your person, and to ask for it was kind of silly. He laughed at that. More importantly, I went through the hypothetical that showed that, without RAS, he couldn't even identify your county of residence, and therefore trying to determine registration status was not on the table. He seemed enlightened by that.
THe last big thing worth mentioning was the discussion of "You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride". I rephrased it for him. "You might not have broken any laws, but I can still abuse my power and authority". That seemed to actually hit home. I explained to him that police authority is derived from their constituency, the people, and this is NOT what we hired him to do.
All in all, a positive interaction, and a really enjoyable evening.
I was hyperaware of it turning into a fishing expedition, but it never went near there. Hopefully, some of what we talked about will make it back to his fellow officers, and maybe things will get a little bit better. If not, nothing lost.
My son, the budding videographer, recorded the whole thing. I realized after the fact that next time, I need to not have the visible camera out. Of course they were more likely to behave when they saw the camera. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad they did behave, but I don't think it necessarily captured the problem with these checkpoints, which is when they abuse it, and don't comply with the requirements set forth in statute and court decisions.
This one was not compliant on signage, I think. I'll have to review the requirements, but the one that stands out in my mind is the .25mi one, and that was definately not there.
After going through and not getting hassled, I settled in with two other fellas that were already there with "Checkpoint Ahead" signs. My son had a real blast holding the sign, and getting thumbs up from the drivers, as we were actually giving them the chance to turn off properly, and with enough notice to do so safely, and without getting chased down by the motorcycle cops.
After a while, one of the motorcycle cops came over to strike up a conversation. We were all cautious, but as he talked, I saw an opportunity for a real dialogue, and officer friendly was quite pleasant. He didn't ask any fishing questions, or try to push his views. I/we explained that the rub with these checkpoints was that they were a huge, unjustified waste of money, and more importantly a violation of civil liberties, and that the ends didn't justify the means.
We actually ended up chatting for a couple of hours. He had a lot of positive to say, which I won't elaborate on, at his request. Suffice to say, it was actually a really positive interaction. I got the opportunity to convey a lot of things about how police should handle OC situations, and he seemed to be genuinely interested and came to agree with a lot of it. I gave him my "blue pants" analogy, which he liked. (A 'man with a gun' is the same as a 'man with blue pants', neither is cause for concern or even contact, until the man takes it off and starts waving it around at people) He liked that, and seemed to get the point. We discussed taking our kids to the range, teaching them to shoot, etc. I also took the opportunity to go over several of the statutes with him (tri-fold to the rescue).
Specifically, he was not familiar with preemption. I went over it with him, and explained how it made any statute on the city/county, etc, invalid. He actually seemed pleased by that (much easier to remember 1 law instead of a dozen). We discussed blue card, and how it is so often misunderstood by officers, who demand to see it. I pointed out that it is not required to be carried on your person, and to ask for it was kind of silly. He laughed at that. More importantly, I went through the hypothetical that showed that, without RAS, he couldn't even identify your county of residence, and therefore trying to determine registration status was not on the table. He seemed enlightened by that.
THe last big thing worth mentioning was the discussion of "You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride". I rephrased it for him. "You might not have broken any laws, but I can still abuse my power and authority". That seemed to actually hit home. I explained to him that police authority is derived from their constituency, the people, and this is NOT what we hired him to do.
All in all, a positive interaction, and a really enjoyable evening.
I was hyperaware of it turning into a fishing expedition, but it never went near there. Hopefully, some of what we talked about will make it back to his fellow officers, and maybe things will get a little bit better. If not, nothing lost.
wrightme
Regular Member
THANK YOU.
1) for seeing and seizing the opportunity while remaining cautious
2) for coming here and sharing with us
1) for seeing and seizing the opportunity while remaining cautious
2) for coming here and sharing with us
Last edited:
28kfps
Regular Member
I have not replied to the DUI roadblocks for some time. Just a little info from the other side of the fence. It has been over 20 years so no condolence needed. However, one Friday we put my wife’s mom on a plane to go to a family reunion. The next morning, Saturday morning we received a phone call telling us my wife’s mom, grandma, grandfather, and aunt had been killed by a drunk driver. As I said on their way to a family reunion and this drunk killed 4 people all with the same last name. Sure wished there had been a DUI roadblock on his route. He spent no time in the hospital and got two years of probation and no time in jail.
Many years ago and for over 20 years, I did volunteer work often-supporting Metro activities. Something I have never posted here for obvious reasons. I feel I can bring it up now after over 700 posting it should be obvious I am a pro-gun, pro open carry and pro enforcement of the real law. I am all for the checks and balances needed to keep those from enforcing their opinion of the law or trying to use part of a law incorrectly to intimidate. I had the opportunity to work several DUI roadblocks. One was on Lake Mead Dr. heading back into North Las Vegas. Metro stopped a driver that had two kids in the car. He was a divorce farther with part time visits with his kids. He had decided to take them to the lake and drink all day. He could hardly walk. When the kids grandparents and mom showed up to get the kids they were really glad there was a roadblock before they got into town traffic. My family and I will have a different view on the DUI roadblocks than what is reflected in these postings.
Many years ago and for over 20 years, I did volunteer work often-supporting Metro activities. Something I have never posted here for obvious reasons. I feel I can bring it up now after over 700 posting it should be obvious I am a pro-gun, pro open carry and pro enforcement of the real law. I am all for the checks and balances needed to keep those from enforcing their opinion of the law or trying to use part of a law incorrectly to intimidate. I had the opportunity to work several DUI roadblocks. One was on Lake Mead Dr. heading back into North Las Vegas. Metro stopped a driver that had two kids in the car. He was a divorce farther with part time visits with his kids. He had decided to take them to the lake and drink all day. He could hardly walk. When the kids grandparents and mom showed up to get the kids they were really glad there was a roadblock before they got into town traffic. My family and I will have a different view on the DUI roadblocks than what is reflected in these postings.
So you would surely be in favor of more cops on patrol looking for drunk drivers, then, yes?
You would also be in favor of "administrative" road blocks following all laws so that actual drunks arrested cannot get off on technicalities.
You would also be in favor of "administrative" road blocks following all laws so that actual drunks arrested cannot get off on technicalities.
Last edited:
28kfps
Regular Member
I give you an answer as if I was running for president. One that does not answer your direct question. My family and I would be all for the most effective, cost proficient, and 100% law supported method. As far as getting off on technicalities it does appears to me in the last 10 years when caught the punishment is more appropriate. Even for the ones that get the DUI lawyer it is still costly for most hopefully more of a deterrent.
I hope most of us here can say that.
Merlin
Regular Member
What MAC702 is saying here is that the stats have shown in the past that regular patrol is much more effective than DUI Roadblocks at catching drunk drivers, which last nights officer interaction confirmed, anecdotally.
Lest anyone think anyone in the OC community is in support of people DUI'ing, that is not the case. We are against violating the 4th amendment in the name of safety, only to find that it is less effective than just doing their jobs the normal, less intrustive way.
28kfps
Regular Member
No explanation needed. I understand the stance. Might have been two years ago however, had a pretty good conversation while having dinner with some of the strongest DUI road block activist after a OC outing. Only time will tell if the roadblock actions will help or hinder. If it helps for a more legal and effective method great. I have my doubts.
Yard Sale
Regular Member
It's no longer 1/4 mile in urban areas since the cops lobbied to change the law. It's 1/4 mi rural, and I think 700 ft urban. Which is nothing at 35 mph with 100 ft required for your turn signal. There are a lot of other parts of the roadblock law that aren't usually followed, though. I'd love to see your video and/or notes.
Imagine us collecting video evidence and reports from north and south and requesting a statewide injunction.
KBCraig
Regular Member
Roadblocks aren't operated as an effective way to stop DUI. They're operated because they're easy overtime paid for through grant money, not out of the department's budget. They typically result in far more arrests or citations for expired registration or inspections or lapsed insurance coverage, or for outstanding warrants, and almost no arrests for drunk driving.
usmcmustang
Regular Member
They are a dog and pony show. They are a means by which the police can "show" the populace that they are truly looking out for their welfare by removing drunk drivers from the roads. They are a huge waste of time, tax dollars, and effort (not to mention a method of tyranny) if measured by their results, as compared to just regular police work/patrolling that nets way more drunk drivers than do checkpoints. When is the last time anyone saw any numbers of DUI arrests let's say on a particular day as compared to how many at a checkpoint?.. NEVER. And you won't see those numbers because the numbers would pretty much put a stop to the dog and pony show, showing the populace that it is just that... a show. Perhaps, if that's what is wanted and needed - checkpoints that is - law enforcement should be solely relegated to that type of enforcement. Just have the entire police force engaged in checkpoints all over the town/city/county/state looking for murderers, rapists, thieves, arsonists, child molesters, and yes - drunk drivers; and have them advertise this monstrosity of a dog and pony show so that the citizenry will "feel" better about how well they are being "protected." Maybe a bit far fetched... maybe not.
Yard Sale
Regular Member
My Tahoe roadblock video (on the motorcycle) has about 15,000 views and 125 comments. Many of them are from boot lickers who utterly and completely missed the point. E.g., Why didn't you just answer the question and be on your way?
Now, YouTube commenters, especially those trolls who registered to comment ("****") and don't have any videos of their own, are among the lowest forms of life on earth. But assuming they are representative of the larger American population, we who want to go about our lives freely and unmolested are doomed to have our rights diminished thanks to these chuckleheads.
Wow, the forum software edited the four-letter Greek word meaning "same," often used as a slur.
Now, YouTube commenters, especially those trolls who registered to comment ("****") and don't have any videos of their own, are among the lowest forms of life on earth. But assuming they are representative of the larger American population, we who want to go about our lives freely and unmolested are doomed to have our rights diminished thanks to these chuckleheads.
Wow, the forum software edited the four-letter Greek word meaning "same," often used as a slur.
Last edited:
Yard Sale
Regular Member
I got a visit from the Sparks court marshals at work today. Not cool. OpenWatch recorder failed on my smart phone. Not cool.
I had received notices of certified mail from Sparks muni court but I work during post office hours. I called the court and asked them to send whatever it was regular mail. No can do, judge's order.
Today at 12:45 pm the marshals served me with an order to appear for arraignment today at 9:00 AM. I am not making this up. They also served the notice of October 23 trial date, which I already received via first class mail, an order denying my motion to dismiss, an order deny my motion to compel discovery, and an order to appear for arraignment on October 8.
I assume he wants to re-arraign me on the same charge under the amended complaint, which isn't necessary. Maybe because there's no record of the original arraignment. Maybe he wants to arraign me on a new charge.
Whatever. The denial to compel discovery is preserved in the record, and the city's failure to disclose the notebook and camera is a slam dunk win on appeal.
Oh, I saw the judge this morning at Starbucks. I was open carrying a Glock; same holster, belt, and mag pouch as the night I was kidnapped. He left in a hurry without his mocha. I drank his mocha.
I had received notices of certified mail from Sparks muni court but I work during post office hours. I called the court and asked them to send whatever it was regular mail. No can do, judge's order.
Today at 12:45 pm the marshals served me with an order to appear for arraignment today at 9:00 AM. I am not making this up. They also served the notice of October 23 trial date, which I already received via first class mail, an order denying my motion to dismiss, an order deny my motion to compel discovery, and an order to appear for arraignment on October 8.
I assume he wants to re-arraign me on the same charge under the amended complaint, which isn't necessary. Maybe because there's no record of the original arraignment. Maybe he wants to arraign me on a new charge.
Whatever. The denial to compel discovery is preserved in the record, and the city's failure to disclose the notebook and camera is a slam dunk win on appeal.
Oh, I saw the judge this morning at Starbucks. I was open carrying a Glock; same holster, belt, and mag pouch as the night I was kidnapped. He left in a hurry without his mocha. I drank his mocha.
Last edited: