PDA

View Full Version : Rights when Approached by a Cop in a Stationary Car?


Nanook
04-26-2009, 10:49 AM
Here's one that I don't recall being covered here. I was reading the "Stopped by LEO w/AR" thread and this was posted:

...I hadn't been puled over for anything. I...parked my K5 Blazer in a parking spot and was just chilling out. A Park Policeman stopped behind my vehicle and came to my drivers side window and asked me what I was doing there.

I know when approached by police as a pedestrian you don't have to produce ID, and without PC can basically tell them to kick rocks if you want to "flex your rights," but what if you're in a parked car on a public street waiting for a friend or just listening to the radio? Does VC apply here even though you weren't moving? As far as your rights go does this fall in to a "traffic stop" category or a "pedestrian" one?

BigDogatPlay
04-26-2009, 10:55 AM
I know when approached by police as a pedestrian you don't have to produce ID, and without PC can basically tell them to kick rocks if you want to "flex your rights," but what if you're in a parked car waiting for a friend or just listening to the radio? Does VC apply here even though you weren't moving? As far as your rights go does this fall in to a "traffic stop" category or a "pedestrian" one?

If you are in control of the vehicle, as in behind the wheel and in possession of the keys, then I'd think asking you to produce a DL is not inappropriate.

There are a whole bunch of variables here relative to park land. Is the parking lot a fee required area? If so, the officer has the authority to make sure the fee has been paid.

SkyStorm82
04-26-2009, 11:10 AM
Some parks have certain hours you are allowed to be in it. Being in a closed park could be an infraction so you would then be detained and have to show ID.

Nanook
04-26-2009, 11:13 AM
Thanks for the quick replies, but I should have said for the purposes of this thread, I'm just referring to a public street.

BigDogatPlay
04-26-2009, 11:34 AM
Okay parked on a public street. You're behind the wheel, have the keys and hence are in control of the vehcile. You need to have a DL in your possession.

May I please see your driver's license sir?

:D

Roadrunner
04-26-2009, 11:49 AM
I believe that if you are in the car with the keys, you have to show your drivers license if a cop asks for it. Of course, if you don't, what are they going to do, write you a ticket? On the other hand, you could just "forget" your drivers license at home, they will give you a ticket that you take to court, and you just show your driver license to the judge like I did and he says have a nice day.

BigDogatPlay
04-26-2009, 11:54 AM
Of course, if you don't, what are they going to do, write you a ticket?

Tow your car? :p

Okay so I'm kidding, but seriously, if you start to play the game of "I don't have it" you are going to have to be prepared to pay a price down the road.

Roadrunner
04-26-2009, 12:01 PM
Tow your car? :p

Okay so I'm kidding, but seriously, if you start to play the game of "I don't have it" you are going to have to be prepared to pay a price down the road.

I really did forget mine and the Highway Patrolman gave me a ticket. I showed up at court and the judge looked at my license and let me go. End of story.

CA_Libertarian
04-26-2009, 12:15 PM
Doesn't seem reasonable to me that they ask for ID. Doesn't seem the cop would even be allowed to detain you. Terry v Ohio states they have to have reasonable suspicion to believe you're involved in some sort of criminal activity. So long as he was legally parked, I don't think RS exists.

The 4th Amendment doesn't end at our threshold. It protects us everywhere we go, even if to somewhat lesser degrees.

gunsmith
04-26-2009, 1:21 PM
you have to produce your DL or ID
some NV case went all the way to SCOTUS and lost.
Papiere, Bitte

Matt C
04-26-2009, 2:36 PM
If you are operating the vehicle on a public road you need a DL (or permit). What exactly is "operation" is unclear, and any/none/all of the following factors could come into play:

1. The person's position in the vehicle;
2. Was the engine running or not;
3. Was the person conscious or unconscious;
4. Where the keys were located (ignition, person's pocket, on the floor, etc.);
5. Were the headlights on or off (if at night);
6. Was the person trying to move the vehicle;
7. Was the vehicle parked on private or public property; and
8. Do circumstances indicate that the person had to drive the vehicle to the location.
9. Do circumstances indicate that the person planned to move the vehicle from the location.

Since it's far from clear though, if you don't show ID and the cop wants to search you for it or take you to jail, your options would be minimal...

BigDogatPlay
04-26-2009, 3:48 PM
I really did forget mine and the Highway Patrolman gave me a ticket. I showed up at court and the judge looked at my license and let me go. End of story.

All too true... and you'll forgive me for reading into your post that you inference was to go to a deliberate misrepresentation of not having the DL in possession.

Liberty1
04-26-2009, 5:50 PM
In this scenario, lawfully parked vehicle on a public street (lets say the engine is running), the officer can not demand ID. The vehicle code specifically proscribes that an officer shall not stop a vehicle for the purpose of determining license status only. A vehicle code violation had to have happened in the officers presence or he has to be conducting an accident investigation to demand your license.

CVC - 14607.6 (b) A peace officer shall not stop a vehicle for the sole reason of determining whether the driver is properly licensed.

Liberty1
04-26-2009, 5:53 PM
Okay parked on a public street. You're behind the wheel, have the keys and hence are in control of the vehcile. You need to have a DL in your possession.

May I please see your driver's license sir?

:D

"May I please see..." is quite different then , "show me you CDL now" under penalty of citation or arrest.

Matt C
04-26-2009, 6:02 PM
In this scenario, lawfully parked vehicle on a public street (lets say the engine is running), the officer can not demand ID. The vehicle code specifically proscribes that an officer shall not stop a vehicle for the purpose of determining license status only. A vehicle code violation had to have happened in the officers presence or he has to be conducting an accident investigation to demand your license.

Good to know, but what about those driver's license checkpoints I see set up all the time? Illegal? Too bad this section has no teeth.

Also, despite the fact that the officer is not supposed to conduct the stop solely for a DL check, once he does, does the fact that he did excuse the driver (who is operating the vehicle) from having so show ID?

Roadrunner
04-26-2009, 6:12 PM
In this scenario, lawfully parked vehicle on a public street (lets say the engine is running), the officer can not demand ID. The vehicle code specifically proscribes that an officer shall not stop a vehicle for the purpose of determining license status only. A vehicle code violation had to have happened in the officers presence or he has to be conducting an accident investigation to demand your license.

So can I refuse to show my drivers license at a sobriety check point? They always ask for your drivers license.

Liberty1
04-26-2009, 6:14 PM
Good to know, but what about those driver's license checkpoints I see set up all the time? Illegal? Too bad this section has no teeth.

I'm not familier with the case law on this but the "safety / DUI" check points I've participated in still required us to observe some violation to detain (missing front plate, loud muffler, no seat belt etc...

Also you seeing a stop sign, me standing next to it, you rolling down your window voluntarilly and me asking, "May I see you license please" is not a demand for ID.


Also, despite the fact that the officer is not supposed to conduct the stop solely for a DL check, once he does, does the fact that he did excuse the driver (who is operating the vehicle) from having so show ID?

If you can prove it, yes. This is where recording devices would be handy for the cause of Liberty...

Fore and aft and interior audio/video recording...heck just spring for circle vision cameras (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle-Vision_360%C2%B0)!

Roadrunner
04-26-2009, 6:18 PM
So I guess since a checkpoint is checking to see if a person is drunk, they can also check your drivers license since they are checking two things?

Liberty1
04-26-2009, 6:23 PM
So can I refuse to show my drivers license at a sobriety check point? They always ask for your drivers license.

Ask him if he is demanding it. Have it on tape. Comply with all orders. Call an attorney later or take it to traffic court.

And FSTs in CA are voluntary (have your recorder recording coverly, have friendly witnessess etc...)

The Voluntary Nature of FST Tests: (http://www.expertlawfirm.com/criminal_defense/california_drunk_driving/field_sobriety_tests.html)
Recognize that these tests are completely voluntary. These voluntary “tests” (yes, voluntary) are developed NHTSA and implemented by police agencies to assist law enforcement officers in making roadside determinations as to whether a motorist is under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

Liberty1
04-26-2009, 6:25 PM
So I guess since a checkpoint is checking to see if a person is drunk, they can also check your drivers license since they are checking two things?

Talk to a DUI or 4th A. attorney. I'm not familiar with the case laws on DUI check points. Someone told me last month the courts allow them as long as it is random. I still think some PC is needed for the stop personally and that is how I operate.

Roadrunner
04-26-2009, 6:32 PM
Ask him if he is demanding it. Have it on tape. Comply with all orders. Call an attorney later or take it to traffic court.

And FSTs in CA are voluntary (have your recorder recording coverly, have friendly witnessess etc...)

I've never been stopped for drunk driving, but I'll remember that. There does seem to be a contradiction in the law though. From the basic lessons I learned in high school drivers training classes to the drivers test you take at the DMV, I was always told that I must show my drivers license to a police officer when I'm driving and they ask for it. So this 14607.6 law is new information for me. Basically, the way this law is worded it seems that all the police have to do is say they stopped you for something else and then they can justify checking your drivers license.

Casual Observer
04-26-2009, 6:36 PM
So can I refuse to show my drivers license at a sobriety check point? They always ask for your drivers license.

DUI check points are voluntary. You should have seen a sign posted and have an opportunity to turn around.

I asked a cop friend of mine about this and he said that in their city, it's more of an age thing. Someone over 21 can blow .07 and still be free to go, depending on the circumstances. If someone under 21 blows .07, they're DUI.

Matt C
04-26-2009, 6:39 PM
So can I refuse to show my drivers license at a sobriety check point? They always ask for your drivers license.

Each motorist stopped should be detained only long enough for the officer to question the driver briefly and to look for signs of intoxication, such as alcohol on the breath, slurred speech, and glassy or bloodshot eyes. If the driver does not display signs of impairment, he or she should be permitted to drive on without further delay. If the officer does observe signs of impairment, the driver may be directed to a separate area for a roadside sobriety test. At that point, further investigation must be based on probable cause, and general principles of detention and arrest would apply.

I would ask (with recorder on) "what is the probably cause for this stop officer?"

If it's a DUI check point I would ask what requesting my driver's license has to do with determining sobriety.

If it's a Driver's license checkpoint I would ask there was any other reason for the stop, and if not, if he is aware of the CVC section cited by liberty1 above forbidding him to conduct a stop solely to check a license.

BigDogatPlay
04-26-2009, 7:44 PM
In this scenario, lawfully parked vehicle on a public street (lets say the engine is running), the officer can not demand ID. The vehicle code specifically proscribes that an officer shall not stop a vehicle for the purpose of determining license status only. A vehicle code violation had to have happened in the officers presence or he has to be conducting an accident investigation to demand your license.

And if this encounter is not a car stop, but rather begins as a consensual contact?

E Pluribus Unum
04-26-2009, 8:13 PM
Talk to a DUI or 4th A. attorney. I'm not familiar with the case laws on DUI check points. Someone told me last month the courts allow them as long as it is random. I still think some PC is needed for the stop personally and that is how I operate.

DUI Checkpoints have been ruled constitutional if they follow specific criteria.

It is an "implied consent" loophole.

They either disclose the fact that there will be a checkpoint before hand or they place flashing lights, road cones, and official signs disclosing the presence of a DUI checkpoint.

In addition to this, they must have a "random stop formula". This means they cannot stop everyone. They must stop "every other, every third" et cetera.

If these rules are followed, you have given implied consent for the stop.

Theoretically, the officer must then establish PC to arrest. If they start to ask questions about your alcohol consumption and you refuse to answer they must look to other things. They ask you to conduct a PAS test or FST in order to establish this PC. If all this is refused, they must rely on external signs to determine PC; the smell of alcohol, red eyes, slurred speech, or some other PC of alcohol intoxication. If they have none of this, they MUST let you go.

Unless of course it is me... then they lie about PC and then take my car to be searched.


I think I showed you this before: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12USZdggGxg

ilbob
04-26-2009, 8:25 PM
In reality your rights when dealing with police are limited to what the individual officer(s) involved allows them to be.

Fortunately, most of the time they play by the rules, or something pretty close anyway.

But they are human and if you piss them off they will often times find a way to get you. It may be something as mundane as just wasting your time. It may be much more.

gunsmith
04-27-2009, 2:22 AM
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev., Humboldt Cty.: Supreme Court upholds state law requiring individuals to identify themselves when asked during investigative stop
Immigrants' Rights Update, Vol. 18, No. 5, July 2004

In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a Nevada law that authorizes police officers to detain individuals who are encountered under suspicious circumstances and who refuse to identify themselves when asked to do so.

The Court’s ruling is very narrow, relying on the limited reach of the Nevada statute, which applies only to situations where an officer reasonably suspects that a crime has been or is being committed, and which requires the individual who is stopped to provide his or her name but not answer any other question or provide any other information. The decision does not resolve whether a statute that required presentation of a driver’s license or other identity documents would be constitutional. Nor does the decision require that a suspect identify him or herself in every situation, as the Court recognized that there may be cases where just providing one’s name may present a “real and appreciable fear” of self-incrimination by so doing.

The defendant in this case, Dudley Hiibel, is a Nevada rancher. A deputy sheriff investigating a report of a fight encountered Hiibel standing by a parked truck on a rural road. The deputy noticed that a woman was in the truck, that there were skid marks behind the truck indicating that it might have come to a sudden stop, and that Hiibel appeared to be intoxicated. When the deputy asked Hiibel to produce identification, Hiibel refused the request, telling the officer that he had done nothing wrong. After the officer repeatedly asked him to identify himself, Hiibel put his hands behind his back and told the officer to arrest him and take him to jail. Ultimately, the deputy arrested Hiibel and took him to jail after asking him 11 times to identify himself.

The only charge brought against Hiibel was for violation of Nevada Revised Statutes sec. 199.280, which allows an officer to detain a person stopped under suspicious circumstances “only to ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad. Any person so detained shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer.” Hiibel was convicted and fined $250, and the conviction was upheld by the Nevada Supreme Court. Hiibel then sought review in the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted certiorari, resulting in the recent decision.

In upholding the statute, a majority of the Court distinguished its prior ruling in Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979), which had invalidated a “stop and identify” statute that did not require that the initial stop be “based on specific, objective facts establishing reasonable suspicion to believe the suspect was involved in criminal activity” (quoting the majority opinion).

The Court also distinguished Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983), where the Court had invalidated a California loitering statute on vagueness grounds. The California statute had been interpreted to require a suspect to provide an officer with “credible and reliable” identification when asked to do so, and the Court found that this requirement did not adequately apprise individuals of what must be done to comply with the statute. The Court noted that in this case Hiibel did not allege that the statute was void for vagueness. Moreover, the majority noted that in this case the Nevada statute requires “only that a suspect disclose his name” and “does not require a suspect to give the officer a driver’s license or any other document.”

The Court concluded that requiring a suspect to provide his or her name in the context of a brief investigative stop is consistent with the principles of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the landmark case recognizing the right of police to briefly stop and investigate suspects based on “reasonable suspicion” short of the “probable cause” required for an arrest. The Court found it does not violate the Fourth Amendment to inquire into a suspect’s identity in the course of a Terry stop, where the inquiry is “reasonably related to the circumstances justifying the stop.”

The Court also rejected Hiibel’s claim that the statute violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, finding that in this case Hiibel’s refusal to identify himself “was not based on any articulated real and appreciable fear that his name would be used to incriminate him, or that it ‘would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute’ him” (quoting Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951)). However, the Court expressly rejected the state’s invitation to rule that evidence of identity is “nontestimonial,” i.e., that by its very nature requiring an individual to disclose his or her identity can never violate the Fifth Amendment. Rather, while finding that “[a]nswering a request to disclose a name is likely to be so insignificant in the scheme of things as to be incriminating only in unusual circumstances,” the majority expressly recognized that such cases may arise.

Justice Stevens dissented on the grounds that the statute violates the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. He would find that evidence of identity is testimonial, and that the majority’s interpretation of the privilege is unduly restrictive.
Justices Breyer, Souter, and Ginsberg dissented on the grounds that the majority opinion conflicts with clearly established Fourth Amendment precedent. The dissenters argued that a fundamental principle of a Terry stop is that, while an officer is permitted to stop a suspect and ask a moderate amount of questions without having “probable cause” for arrest, a suspect cannot be prosecuted for refusing to answer the questions.

The opinion is likely to cause uncertainty among both police and the public as to the scope of a person’s rights when confronted by police. An encounter with police is likely to be a sudden event rather than a clearly-defined Terry stop. In real life it may be difficult to distinguish between casual conversation and a situation where one is reasonably suspected of criminal conduct. However, if an individual clearly states that he or she does not choose to speak with an officer, as is one’s right in any casual conversation, the burden is on the officer to indicate that a response is required. Another likely cause for confusion is that neither the police nor the public are likely to be aware of whether the state where the encounter occurs has a statute that requires a suspect to identify himself or herself that is sufficiently narrow to meet the Supreme Court’s criteria for constitutionality. And while the decision acknowledges that in some circumstances requiring a suspect to identify him for herself violates the privilege against self-incrimination, those circumstances are not clear, and the cost of invoking the privilege is likely to be arrest and detention.

For immigration purposes, it is important to stress the limited scope of the ruling. Immigrants who are stopped by police and asked to identify themselves, in jurisdictions with laws that so require, generally must provide their names, but the ruling requires nothing further. Because one is not likely to know whether the particular state (or county) one is in has such a law, it is probably safer to give one’s name, but no documents or other information, when requested by state or local police. However, because immigration officers have no authority to enforce state or local laws, the ruling does not apply to them.

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev., Humboldt Cty., No. 03-5554 (June 21, 2004).
papier bitte!

Liberty1
04-27-2009, 6:52 AM
California has no "stop and Id" penal code statute (we do have a vehicle code statute) so Hiibil doesn't effect us until CA, if ever, enacts a new one (PC 647e was found unconstitutional)

Liberty1
04-27-2009, 7:11 AM
Thanks for going through that. Would have gotten more interesting if you'd been arrested and transported for a blood test but then the recording may have disapeared. However with a .00 BAC blood test, that is all the evidence you would have needed for a great 4A 1983 suit.

Nothing may come if it but DO also make a report with the FBI about this incident of civil rights violation under color of authority.




I think I showed you this before: 12USZdggGxg

Tankhatch
04-27-2009, 10:17 AM
What do the calguns.net member LEO's think of this incident ?

Matt C
04-27-2009, 10:30 AM
What do the calguns.net member LEO's think of this incident ?

The post above yours is an LEO who thinks it was a "civil rights violation under color of authority". But he is a better cop than most (better than I was when I worked LE, I was a dick and so was everyone I worked with).

Most interesting is the knee jerk response by some to rush to defend LEOs under almost any circumstance that I can only compare to Stockholm syndrome.

According to the psychoanalytic view of the syndrome, the tendency might well be the result of employing the strategy evolved by newborn babies to form an emotional attachment to the nearest powerful adult in order to maximize the probability that this adult will enable — at the very least — the survival of the child

audi2539
04-27-2009, 11:04 AM
DUI check points are voluntary. You should have seen a sign posted and have an opportunity to turn around.

I asked a cop friend of mine about this and he said that in their city, it's more of an age thing. Someone over 21 can blow .07 and still be free to go, depending on the circumstances. If someone under 21 blows .07, they're DUI.

Total Bull***** in my old part of city - West Sacramento. Got bike cops signals blaring & chasing at anyone who does a legal U-turn or turns into a street right prior to checkpoint. And they DEMAND your DL, I'm so fed up w/ LEO's, most of the time they think they own you. :mad:

eta34
04-27-2009, 11:31 AM
The post above yours is an LEO who thinks it was a "civil rights violation under color of authority". But he is a better cop than most (better than I was when I worked LE, I was a dick and so was everyone I worked with).

Most interesting is the knee jerk response by some to rush to defend LEOs under almost any circumstance that I can only compare to Stockholm syndrome.

Even more interesting to me is the knee jerk response by some to rush to condemn LEOs under almost any circumstance. Let's apply the standard fairly.

Now, regarding Eplurbus' situation, I didn't like it at all. The issue regarding red, watery eyes and the detection of alcohol on his breath is one that neither party can prove now. I can only assume that since he blew .00 in the PAS, the officer was lying. Red, watery eyes are fairly common in people for a myriad of reasons. Fatigue, allergies, etc. can all cause red eyes. I personally don't use the eyes as the sole reason to detain a driver for DUI. His assertion that you are required to perform FST's is ridiculous. The blood/breath test is the only requirement.

I think you did a great job until the point when you actually answered their questions. I am not condemning you, as you were in a high stress situation that was likely very intimidating. I would suggest next time you maintain your silence. Good job of recording the incident.

Matt C
04-27-2009, 11:46 AM
Even more interesting to me is the knee jerk response by some to rush to condemn LEOs under almost any circumstance.


Both irritate me. One is clearly more dangerous however.

paintballergb
04-27-2009, 11:59 AM
I believe that if you are in the car with the keys, you have to show your drivers license if a cop asks for it. Of course, if you don't, what are they going to do, write you a ticket? On the other hand, you could just "forget" your drivers license at home, they will give you a ticket that you take to court, and you just show your driver license to the judge like I did and he says have a nice day.

Actually if it is valid for an officer to ask you for your license and you fail to produce that is a misdemeanor. P.C. 148(a)

"Every person who willfully resists, delays, or obstructs any public officer, peace officer, or an emergency medical technician, as defined in Division 2.5 (commencing with Section 1797) of the Health and Safety Code, in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her office or employment, when no other punishment is prescribed, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment."

ilbob
04-27-2009, 1:43 PM
In this scenario, lawfully parked vehicle on a public street (lets say the engine is running), the officer can not demand ID. The vehicle code specifically proscribes that an officer shall not stop a vehicle for the purpose of determining license status only. A vehicle code violation had to have happened in the officers presence or he has to be conducting an accident investigation to demand your license.
In this scenario the officer did not stop the vehicle. It was already stopped.

DDT
04-27-2009, 2:01 PM
In this scenario the officer did not stop the vehicle. It was already stopped.

Stopping means to detain. If the vehicle was detained it shouldn't matter if it was moving or not. But the officer can "ask" for a DL without detaining. If the person asked if he was free to go and the officer said no, that's a detention.

Holocanthus
04-27-2009, 3:01 PM
If someone under 21 blows .07, they're DUI.

If someone under 21 blows over .00, they're DUI

pnkssbtz
04-27-2009, 3:39 PM
California has no "stop and Id" penal code statute (we do have a vehicle code statute) so Hiibil doesn't effect us until CA, if ever, enacts a new one (PC 647e was found unconstitutional)
Kolender v. Lawson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolender_v._Lawson)

Kid Stanislaus
04-27-2009, 3:44 PM
But they are human and if you piss them off they will often times find a way to get you.


So much for professionalism on the part of the police.

pnkssbtz
04-27-2009, 4:41 PM
So much for professionalism on the part of the police.Such mindsets are not limited to the police, but any occupation where your job can exert dominance upon another.

Be it a clerk at an airport counter, a person working a cash register at a fast food restaurant or someone in customer service for your CC company on the phone:

They all can exert dominance on you. And a good number of them will enact vengeance by any means they can for your challenge to their authority.

Liberty1
04-27-2009, 4:46 PM
So much for professionalism on the part of the police.

To be fair, we need to take it on a case by case basis and hold to answer those who violate their oath and the law. Evidence is needed when "he said he said" creates a conflict so that is why I advocate recorders for both officers and private persons.

My recorder has stopped some false complaints in their tracks...

E Pluribus Unum
04-27-2009, 6:30 PM
Even more interesting to me is the knee jerk response by some to rush to condemn LEOs under almost any circumstance. Let's apply the standard fairly.

Now, regarding Eplurbus' situation, I didn't like it at all. The issue regarding red, watery eyes and the detection of alcohol on his breath is one that neither party can prove now. I can only assume that since he blew .00 in the PAS, the officer was lying. Red, watery eyes are fairly common in people for a myriad of reasons. Fatigue, allergies, etc. can all cause red eyes. I personally don't use the eyes as the sole reason to detain a driver for DUI. His assertion that you are required to perform FST's is ridiculous. The blood/breath test is the only requirement.

I think you did a great job until the point when you actually answered their questions. I am not condemning you, as you were in a high stress situation that was likely very intimidating. I would suggest next time you maintain your silence. Good job of recording the incident.

As soon as I left the DUI checkpoint I took a picture of my eyes and emailed them to myself with my phone. The email has a time/date stamp to prove it was only 13 minutes after the initial stop. I can prove my eyes were FINE.

The problem is.... because I was not formally arrested... only detained... though it was a violation of my consititutional rights, it was not enough of a violation to be worth it for a civil rights attorney to file a suit. I am just stuck with the violation. I think the police know this.

eta34
04-27-2009, 8:07 PM
As soon as I left the DUI checkpoint I took a picture of my eyes and emailed them to myself with my phone. The email has a time/date stamp to prove it was only 13 minutes after the initial stop. I can prove my eyes were FINE.

The problem is.... because I was not formally arrested... only detained... though it was a violation of my consititutional rights, it was not enough of a violation to be worth it for a civil rights attorney to file a suit. I am just stuck with the violation. I think the police know this.

And just for the record, I am not questioning that your eyes are clear. I am simply stating that it is a "he said/she said" in this situation. It seemed to me that this thing turned into a pissing contest (on the LEO's part) pretty quickly. I am sure he didn't like that you weren't going along with his requests/demands. His ego got in the way.

I have learned many things in my 9 years as a cop. The first is that I really don't care what other people think of me. Before you jump on me, think about it. I don't care if Joe Citizen thinks he is smarter than me, stronger than me, better than me...whatever. In the end, it really doesn't matter. I care that I did a good job, kept my integrity and honesty, was a good father/husband, and honored God through my work.

I don't get bent out of shape when someone tells me I can't search his car. Generally, I only ask people who I already have PC to search anyway. I rarely, if ever, ask a "normal" guy permission to search. Have I missed some dope along the way? Probably, but I would rather let a gram of speed walk on occasion than anger the residents of my city who pay my salary.

Sorry for the off topic rant there.