Shocked by an off Duty LEO

[spencerhut]

I was at an NRA function with the wife yesterday and when lunch came around we were seated with several nice folks, including Wes from 10%. As the lunch discussion went around the table one person, a LEO, began telling stories, as LEOs tend to do.
He told us about setting up a checkpoint on the CA-NV boarder during the 4th of July time period to catch folks coming over the boarder with fireworks. I asked him about the probable cause (PC) they used to search cars and his response was it was like a DUI checkpoint. I again asked what PC they used to search a car. He said they just asked and if the person said no they made them pull over and told the citizen if they refused to allow a voluntary search they would have a bomb sniffing dog search the outside of the car and any alert of the dog would give them PC if the citizen refused a voluntary search. He was very proud of all the people they caught. In particular he was very proud of catching several people with (what he said) were .50cal guns and full auto guns coming across the boarder. All had refused the voluntary search and were discovered (he claimed) when the dog alerted on the ammo they were carrying.
Mind you this is a guy who is a "Friends of the NRA" director. Talk about eating your own. He was a gun rights person all right, but like so many failed to see how his actions violated other rights. These rights stand together or, as we are seeing, will be ripped apart one at a time until there are none left and were a bunch of subjects. We're already most of the way there and it makes me sad.

[socalguns]

sad indeed
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Feature-Article.htm?InfoNo=022337
California Conducts Illegal Fireworks Checkpoint
http://www.co.san-bernardino.ca.us/Sheriff/Public/PressReleases/PRDetail.asp?PRID=634

[anothergunnut]

The Modesto Bee recently had an article about DUI checkpoints. One of the items brought up in the article is that the police are required to provide a turn around point so that the motorist does not have to enter the checkpoint. Avoiding the checkpoint is not grounds for stopping a motorist. Seems like the same thing would apply here.

I can't believe a guy who was a Friends of the NRA director would want to take part is random searches of passing motorists. Perhaps he is suffering from an "us versus them" mentality. With friends like that...

[bluestaterebel]

i never understood the legailty of the dui checkpoint much less a checkpoint for fireworks. this guy sounds like he has good intentions but has been brainwashed. did you ask him how those cases held up incourt?

[Diablo]

The Modesto Bee recently had an article about DUI checkpoints. One of the items brought up in the article is that the police are required to provide a turn around point so that the motorist does not have to enter the checkpoint. Avoiding the checkpoint is not grounds for stopping a motorist. Seems like the same thing would apply here.

I can't believe a guy who was a Friends of the NRA director would want to take part is random searches of passing motorists. Perhaps he is suffering from an "us versus them" mentality. With friends like that...

The turn around point must be in modesto only. In Los Angeles they are set up as to not give the motorist a chance to turn around and whoever does it is chased by motorcycle officers.

On another note; how sad that the officer admitted to basically forcing the motorists to be searched.

[50 Freak]

What a shame....What a loser....I would have ripped into him.

[hoffmang]

You should write the Sheriff's department and request their copy of the internal document they created for guidelines for the checkpoint. You could include a copy of this which proves they were violating the Constitution:
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-1030.ZS.html

-Gene

[Davidk]

I used to work down the street from a common location for a DUI check point. The people that turned around were normally chased into my employers parking lot by motorcycle cops.:(

[hitman13]

so its illegal to bring fireworks into cali or no?

[Harrison_Bergeron]

Only safe and sane fireworks allowed, can't explode or go more than a specific height in the air.

When I heard about these checkpoints on the news they said that the LEOs were setup at fireworks retailers following CA plate or recording them and that that was how they decided who to inspect. Obviously there were multiple checkpoints, and I do think that our fireworks ban is excessive, but that would be PC enough IMO.

[50 Freak]

So these LE's have determined that taxpayer's money is best spent enforcing fireworks laws and not by patroling the streets and keeping down rape, murder and mayhem???

I think it's time to call the City Council and Mayor and start giving them an earful of why you do not plan to vote for them if they don't get on the Police Chief's case.

[Harrison_Bergeron]

Fireworks bans are in place to prevent forest fires, house fires, and dismemberment.

[CavTrooper]

Fireworks bans are in place to prevent forest fires, house fires, and dismemberment, and if is neccesary to violate your constitutional rights in order to enforece them, the police will. Its for your protection!

fixed it for ya.

[redneckshootist]

Fireworks bans are in place to prevent forest fires, house fires, and dismemberment.

and handgun bans are to prevent murder and mayhem:rolleyes:

[Harrison_Bergeron]

Didn't say anything about the checkpoints, just the rationale behind the ban. We have a big problem with wild fires in SoCal, and every year children lose fingers or worse, so to say that restricting fireworks is contradictory to protecting citizens from real threats is untrue.

[Two Shots]

In particular he was very proud of catching several people with (what he said) were .50cal guns and full auto guns coming across the boarder.
Anyone believe this? If this was the case it would have been all over the news and web.

Using the threat of the dog sniffing the outside of your car. If the dog does check your car and if the dog jumps on your car and you have no contraband, Can you sue the dept for scratches to your car?
On another site a guy's wife coming home from work gat stoppedat DUI checkpoint they asked to search her car, she told them NO they couldn't search the car because the had no PC, They had her pull over and had her wait 30+mins until the dog got there,Then the dog was jumping up on the sides of the car sniffing and scrached the sides of the car the handler and other cops were all smiles when she protested. Her car had scratches on it and all the cops said was you should have left us search and you can go now. The people filed a complaint but so far nothing has been done. I was in Wyoming at a firework store right across the Utah line and I saw two cops come in that were from Utah buying fireworks and when they left they put them in the trunk of thier police car. Utah has a law against fireworks that leaves the ground Bottle rockets,Mortors etc. Another item with Utah if you have Utah plates and your coming back from Wyoming you best not have beer (they watch the store and wait for you to cross the line) from wyoming they will pull you over, confiscate the beer and give you a hefty ticket. They only allow thier weak beer in thier state. I found out after my brother had me drive to the liquer store across the border. With Cal plates they can't do anything about bringing beer back into Utah.

[hawk81]

This officer is a **** sucker:)

[Blackflag]

California police - saving the world one firecracker at a time. :rolleyes:

I've been stopped a couple of times for a ticket and the officer has asked if he can search my car for no reason. I say no and that's the end of it.

But I was pretty damn pissed off every time that I would even be asked for no reason. What is the obsession with cops searching people for no reason?? :mad:

[ViPER395]

I often wonder if they train the dogs to jump on your car and 'indicate' anyways.

IMHO bringing a dog to sniff around your car is still "searching" your car, and a violation of your rights. I don't think it should automatically give PC.

It's the same as the x-ray and bomb-sniffing machine at the airport. The difference is trips to the airport aren't required by law like puling over and PC searches are. You have made a choice to use the airport.

[cartman]

Actually it's not illegal to bring any firework in to cali which each unit is less then 500grams of explosive each which i believe is the federal limit for recreational fireworks. If you say your stated destination is a state allows fireworks they have to provide you with safe passage.

[ViPER395]

I think illegal fireworks are instant felonies now in CA, no? So why even risk it?

I had some firecrackers I had laying around for YEARS and when I heard that a couple years back (whenever they were made felonies) I got rid of those bad boys.

[trashman]

What is the obsession with cops searching people for no reason??

Most LEO's will tell you that these kind of dragnets always pull in an astonishing number of people with suspended licenses, DUI's, outstanding warrants, etc. It's a kind of self-reinforcing argument -- because these kinds of operations are successful and low cost, they are essentially self-justifying.

Add to that the fact that, IIRC, the SCOTUS has held that since you are on a public road, the threshold for PC is much lower than inside private property (even though the car may be private property).

It does seem ridiculous (one circular legal argument buttressing another) but that is the way the law of the land is these days: refusal to submit to a search of your car is PC for a search of your car.

--Neill

[-hanko]

Mind you this is a guy who is a "Friends of the NRA" director. Talk about eating your own. He was a gun rights person all right, but like so many failed to see how his actions violated other rights.
He's a confused *** bucket.

-hanko

[CavTrooper]

It does seem ridiculous (one circular legal argument buttressing another) but that is the way the law of the land is these days: refusal to submit to a search of your car is PC for a search of your car.

--Neill

I dont belive this is true. I know this has been discussed before, someone with some knowledge will chime in Im sure.

[Blackflag]

I think illegal fireworks are instant felonies now in CA, no? So why even risk it?


That's not the point. Police hate the 4th Amendment.

[Blackflag]

Most LEO's will tell you that these kind of dragnets always pull in an astonishing number of people with suspended licenses, DUI's, outstanding warrants, etc.

It does seem ridiculous (one circular legal argument buttressing another) but that is the way the law of the land is these days: refusal to submit to a search of your car is PC for a search of your car.


You first statement ignores the purpose for the 4th Amendment. In fact, you can use that same logic to say that a person's house should be searched without notice from time to time. That would find a lot of criminals and contraband.

Your second statement is just plain incorrect.

[amd64]

Fireworks bans are in place to prevent forest fires, house fires, and dismemberment, and if is neccesary to violate your constitutional rights in order to enforece them, the police will. Its for your protection!

fixed it for ya.

Fixed again, below. CavTrooper, this is not directed at you, just thought I would put my own fix to it...

Fireworks bans are in place to prevent forest fires, house fires, and dismemberment, caused by stupid ignorant people who spoil things for everyone else by screwing up and giving legislators reason to remove more freedoms from everyone.

[fun2none]

....refusal to submit to a search of your car is PC for a search of your car.

--Neill

Take this for whatever it's worth. A friend of a friend who is a LEO told me that using a K9 is a common technique for getting PC for searching a vehicle. If the dog expresses any signal, they have instant PC, whether it was a false positive or not.

In a very sarcastic tone, he stated "the K9 officer would never intentionally cause the dog to express the gesture for contraband."

[CitaDeL]

This story doesnt really surprise me. The problem is that law enforcement sometimes attracts personalities that are predisposed to throw their weight around- Having checkpoints such as these give them a wider audience over which they can assert their control.

And the fact that a 'pro-gun' sheriff who is a self-proclaimed NRA member would violate the second amendement in order to either enforce a law or worse, to use their office to subvert the Constitution, is not that big a leap from a manufactured PC for an illegal search and seizure... What has precipitated this isnt the corrupt official, but the people's inaction or inability to correct the situation through litigation.

[odysseus]

Ahhh yes, the ugly "checkpoint" conversation. This most always usually goes into endless debate with some people (usually LEO or M.A.D.D) on the true legality of "mandatory" interrogation and searches of US citizens on public streets (not a border).

My personal interpretation is that it is not Constitutional. Whether I am walking down a street or driving down it in a car, I am as a US Citizen not subject to random and unwarranted interrogation (are you doing something wrong?) or search -dog sniffing or not! Don't start with, "it's a privledge". I am not talking about speeding, driving unsafe, or having a vehicle violation. Checkpoints are not about that. I think there is strong legal argument to shut down this type of operation, but there hasn't yet been the motivation to take it on yet.

Hence the slippery slope of it all. It always starts with an emotional extreme. Drunk driving deaths were up and M.A.D.D. was big in the media back when these random checkpoints started in big numbers. We all want to do something about DUIs, but instead of real change, we take a lazy course which infringes on the vast majority (99%) of legal driver's rights. We round up everyone on a street and interrogate them. Well now with this infrastructure and complacency accepted, it moves on to even more laziness and offense to common sense.

Proof? Now in my county when they do checkpoints, they are calling it DUI and ID checks. So now they are not stopping people just for DUI check, they want a full ID check of you. They are going to ask you for a driver's license and check you out, while looking into your car looking for anything remotely that they can try to look for a violation. If you speak back about this, eyes are rolled and you are meant to look like a "problem". You will even be examined more so for challenging the LEO on this.

This should sound offensive to any normal American, and what is even worse is to see everyone just accept it prima facie without really taking their community to task. Why, because "if you aren't doing something wrong, what do you have to worry about". :puke:

..as an aside: Not all LEOs support this. I know those who hate doing these and don't agree with them. However they are in the minority.

[anothergunnut]

If a dog is jumping around "alerting" on your car for explosives, you've been had. Explosives sniffing dogs sit down when they are indicating explosives. Something about dogs jumping up and down around bombs is seen as a bad idea.

When I was in the Air Force, the cops brought the dope dogs out and gave us a demonstration of their drug finding prowess. They put a bag of pot in one of three suitcases. The dog promptly alerted on the first which did not contain the pot. It took the dog several tries to find the pot.

[Grouch]

i never understood the legailty of the dui checkpoint much less a checkpoint for fireworks. this guy sounds like he has good intentions but has been brainwashed. did you ask him how those cases held up incourt?

DUI check points are technically voluntary. They are announced publicly and then as such, if you drive into one it was your "choice" to do so. Ignorance of the announcement is irrelevant.

[odysseus]

DUI check points are technically voluntary. They are announced publicly and then as such, if you drive into one it was your "choice" to do so. Ignorance of the announcement is irrelevant.

Unfortuntely they are not often in practice, and this is usually just procedural lip service. How about when they put one right in front of the only readible onramp to the freeway? How about when they put one right on the only and main strip to people's homes? This is usually how it is done.

Also I have seen multiple times when they have cars at the ready, and have pulled over people who turned away from the checkpoints. Guess that sounds pretty voluntary until you actually act on the choice.

[Grouch]

Unfortuntely they are not often in practice, and this is usually just procedural lip service. How about when they put one right in front of the only readible onramp to the freeway? How about when they put one right on the only and main strip to people's homes? This is usually how it is done.

Also I have seen multiple times when they have cars at the ready, and have pulled over people who turned away from the checkpoints. Guess that sounds pretty voluntary until you actually act on the choice.

If it was the ONLY onramp, or the only entrance to the housing area you would be right. But if there is a reasonable alternative (is the next on ramp 2 miles down or 20 miles down?) then you wouldn't.

Turning away from a check point and being pulled over is a whole different issue and has nothing to do with check points being legal or not.

[odysseus]

Turning away from a check point and being pulled over is a whole different issue and has nothing to do with check points being legal or not.

Please advise what the different issue is. I was discussing on the "voluntary" point made.

[Grouch]

Please advise what the different issue is. I was discussing on the "voluntary" point made.

uh, :rolleyes:

Issue 1)
DUI check points are legal.

Issue 2)
Stopping someone because they turned around and avioded a DUI check point is illegal.

[odysseus]

uh, :rolleyes:

Issue 1)
DUI check points are legal.

Issue 2)
Stopping someone because they turned around and avioded a DUI check point is illegal.

No reason to roll your eyes, just asking you to define what you said. However on your Point 2 - How is that voluntary? So it seems then that in practice, choosing not to go through a DUI checkpoint is illegal from what you are saying, so it is not voluntary as you said earlier?

[Grouch]

No reason to roll your eyes, just asking you to define what you said. However on your Point 2 - How is that voluntary? So it seems then that in practice, choosing not to go through a DUI checkpoint is illegal from what you are saying, so it is not voluntary as you said earlier?


I did define what I said, you just failed to understand it. But I will do so again in clearer terms.

The SC has decided that DUI check points are legal, but states have the right to not use them.

In CA setting up a check point is not illegal. There was a claim that in CA check points must have an area for cars to turn around and avoid the check point and that this avoidance is not PC for stopping the car. If someone was stopped because they avoided the check point, then that single stop would be an illegal stop. That in no way makes check points illegal.

[odysseus]

In CA setting up a check point is not illegal. There was a claim that in CA check points must have an area for cars to turn around and avoid the check point and that this avoidance is not PC for stopping the car. If someone was stopped because they avoided the check point, then that single stop would be an illegal stop. That in no way makes check points illegal.

I am not aruging to you that currently a check point is not legal. Never was doing that here. No failure of understanding on my part. Most obviously they currently are considered legal. The point that SCOTUS has a current opinion on it, doesn't mean that they can't have another opinion at a later time, or other law is introduced. That's another discussion.

However, I am making the point that they are not necessarily voluntary as you said. I have witnessed on a couple occasions while being in line, people pulled over whom when faced with the checkpoint, made that immediate turn to avoid, and LE at the scene as prepared to, commence a pull over of them right away. Was it legal? Not too sure - but maybe not. However, it is happening nonetheless. I am sure it happens in other places too. Hence my comment that it is in lip service, and in certain jurisdictions not really voluntary in practice that way.

[Mr. Ed]

Straight from CA DMV website:

Vehicle Inspection and Sobriety Checkpoints
2814.1. (a) A board of supervisors of a county may, by ordinance, establish, on highways under its jurisdiction, a combined vehicle inspection and sobriety checkpoint program to check for violations of Sections 27153 and 27153.5 and to identify drivers who are in violation of Section 23140 or 23152. The program shall be conducted by the local agency or department with the primary responsibility for traffic law enforcement.

(b) A driver of a motor vehicle shall stop and submit to an inspection conducted under subdivision (a) when signs and displays are posted requiring that stop.

(c) A county that elects to conduct the combined program described under subdivision (a) may fund that program through fine proceeds deposited with the county under Section 1463.15 of the Penal Code.

Added Sec. 3, Ch. 482, Stats. 2003. Effective January 1, 2004.

Driving is a privilege. When we all got our licenses, we agreed to submit to checkpoints.

[odysseus]

Straight from CA DMV website:
(b) A driver of a motor vehicle shall stop and submit to an inspection conducted under subdivision (a) when signs and displays are posted requiring that stop.


Thanks for the specifics. The point Grouch was making of them being voluntary is pretty clear now under item (b). If faced with one, you shall submit.

[Grouch]

However, I am making the point that they are not necessarily voluntary as you said. I have witnessed on a couple occasions while being in line, people pulled over whom when faced with the checkpoint, made that immediate turn to avoid, and LE at the scene as prepared to, commence a pull over of them right away. Was it legal? Not too sure - but maybe not. However, it is happening nonetheless. I am sure it happens in other places too. Hence my comment that it is in lip service, and in certain jurisdictions not really voluntary in practice that way.


Of course and illegal stop is not a voluntary one. Part of what makes check points legal is that they remain voluntary. And until you give something more than an anecdotal example from the 1000's of legal check points that happen every year, to make the claim that they are not voluntary (when legally run) is intellectually dishonest.

I've been trying to find what ever PC says that in CA check points need to have an area where someone can turn around before entering one. If no such situplation exists, then there is your PC (as some may see it).

[Grouch]

Thanks for the specifics. The point Grouch was making of them being voluntary is pretty clear now under item (b). If faced with one, you shall submit.


Uh NO! :rolleyes:

They are voluntary because they are publicly announced for their time and location. You make the choice to drive down that road when they have a check point up. If you don't want to be checked, keep up with the announcements and don't drive down that road.

[trashman]

Originally Posted by Trashman:
Most LEO's will tell you that these kind of dragnets always pull in an astonishing number of people with suspended licenses, DUI's, outstanding warrants, etc.

It does seem ridiculous (one circular legal argument buttressing another) but that is the way the law of the land is these days: refusal to submit to a search of your car is PC for a search of your car.

You first statement ignores the purpose for the 4th Amendment. In fact, you can use that same logic to say that a person's house should be searched without notice from time to time. That would find a lot of criminals and contraband.

Your second statement is just plain incorrect.

To clarify -- I think all of this - the dragnets, car searches, etc., are a bad idea and in violation of the 4th amendment; but, LEO's do them because they produce results. I am *not* defending the rationale...

I'll do some digging on the car-consent-search thing and find the SCOTUS case I'm thinking of. The distinction here is that being in your car (on a public road) is NOT the same thing as being in your own home (WRT the 4th Amendment).

--Neill

[Piper]

Chasing people down and doing a Tstop on someone who turned before a checkpoint is not new. A girl I was riding with in 1975 made a U-turn at an intersection. I was about a tenth of a mile from a chippie vehicle inspection point. When the chippie caught up with us, he ordered her to drive to the checkpoint. So, California has a long standing precedence of LE doing this. It's not right, but it happens and will continue.

Since I keep getting chasitzed in my PM's for LEO bashing, I'll let this thread stand without futher comment.

[odysseus]

And until you give something more than an anecdotal example from the 1000's of legal check points that happen every year, to make the claim that they are not voluntary (when legally run) is intellectually dishonest.

Ok Mr. Grouch, living up to your name.

I am not trying to be "dishonest" as you would like to infer on me. However I can only speak to my own experience as to what a checkpoint is. What it is for you is your experience, in your own area. And I think others have experienced what I have seen, and it has been shown here - that it is legal for LE to pull you over for not going through them.

What my exercise here is about, is not to make a blanket summary that checkpoints are voluntary as was made - in the cause of "intellectual honesty" as you may put it. When you are faced with one, you must submit - you can't turn away.

Whether or not the announcements made through some media channel gets to the community and if that is what "voluntary" means, is another subject.

[Diablo]

Uh NO! :rolleyes:

They are voluntary because they are publicly announced for their time and location.

Do you have a link to this? I've looked but can't find future dates, only past.

[bluestaterebel]

That's not the point. Police hate the 4th Amendment.

you know your statement "california police-saving the world one firecracker at a time" thats funny. but the above statment is ignorant and childish. it's not the first time you say such things.it's not impossible to have a conversation like the one that is ongoing without your hate. in fact it's much more productive without you.

that being said, i hate dui check points, i stated that in one of the firsts posts. in fact, everytime i see one i refuse to go through them out of principle. i will go out of my way, i just try not to make any illegal turns or uturns or i use my signal and try not to burn rubber.that is in my opinion what catches leos attention and then gives them pc to stop.

i have always argued that these checkpoints are illegal detentions but apparently thats not the law as it stands. police depts get pressure to stop dui's(or fireworks), the checkpoints come from the higher ups. the street cops dont like them and they are not in the minority like someone else mentioned. the last thing i want to do is spend my night dealing with drunks.

[Grouch]

Ok Mr. Grouch, living up to your name.

Please no need for petty ad hominem's :rolleyes:

I am not trying to be "dishonest" as you would like to infer on me. However I can only speak to my own experience as to what a checkpoint is. What it is for you is your experience, in your own area. And I think others have experienced what I have seen, and it has been shown here - that it is legal for LE to pull you over for not going through them.

I'm sorry for looking for more "proof" than, "one time I saw a cop pull someone over once when they tried to avoid a check point". If claims are to be supported that DUI check points had a tendancey to be illegally run (if CA even prohibits stopping someone BECAUSE they turned around while at or approching the check point, which NO ONE has proved here). If CA Law does not prohibit cops form stopping someone because they turned around while at or approching the check point, then as I already stated, some may take this avoidance as PC to make a stop. Which then is legal.

What my exercise here is about, is not to make a blanket summary that checkpoints are voluntary as was made - in the cause of "intellectual honesty" as you may put it. When you are faced with one, you must submit - you can't turn away.

Whether or not the announcements made through some media channel gets to the community and if that is what "voluntary" means, is another subject.

If someone is too stupid, lazy or just missed the memo about up comming check points, it is irrelevant to this person making the choice to drive down a street where a legal check point is placed.

This argument fails. Ignorance is not an excuse to not follow the law. Never has been and never will be.

[Grouch]

Do you have a link to this? I've looked but can't find future dates, only past.


In an effort to provide standards for use by the states, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration subsequently issued a report that reviewed recommended checkpoint procedures in keeping with federal and state legal decisions. ("The Use of Sobriety Checkpoints for Impaired Driving Enforcement", DOT HS-807-656, Nov. 1990) An additional source of guidelines can be found in an earlier decision by the California Supreme Court (Ingersoll v. Palmer (43 Cal.3d 1321 (1987)) wherein the Court set forth what it felt to be necessary standards in planning and administering a sobriety checkpoint:

Decision making must be at a supervisory level, rather than by officers in the field.

A neutral formula must be used to select vehicles to be stopped, such as
every vehicle or every third vehicle, rather than leaving it up the officer in the field.

Primary consideration must be given to public and officer safety.

The site should be selected by policy-making officials, based upon areas having a high incidence of drunk driving.

Limitations on when the checkpoint is to be conducted and for how long, bearing in mind both effectiveness and intrusiveness.

Warning lights and signs should be clearly visible.

Length of detention of motorists should be minimized.

Advance publicity is necessary to reduce the intrusiveness of the checkpoint and increase its deterrent effect

[odysseus]

.
This argument fails. Ignorance is not an excuse to not follow the law. Never has been and never will be.

No petty ad hominems in quoting your name. Seems humor is lost here, as I took your dishonesty statment as. Here is a smily for you.:)

You are all over the place, and a little on the straw-man about the annoucements. We can define "voluntary" all day. I do not need to provide emperical proof to you on pullovers for avoiding checkpoints, for I am not pleading a case. I am merely entering my observations based on my own experience.

You again go on about legalities of checkpoints, however it is not being challenged. I am stating that they are not truly voluntary as a definition, so no blanket statements are needed. We all know that often interpretations of laws by LE in their practice can be scrutinized. The OLL topic brings this up.

We agree to disagree.

[ViPER395]

This is all the same as the illegal search debate.

It's pretty simple to me. If a cop wants you to do something you're going to do it, whether it is you're right to refuse or not, whether it is illegal for him to 'coerce you into it' or not.

If you refuse to consent to a search of your vehicle. The cop is going to get in that vehicle to search it. He is going to find a way, and you're not going to be leaving the scene until him and the couple extra units he calls to help him out and find something. Afterall, once you refuse you're a suspect and uncooperative (backup) Now, once you refuse the search you must be hiding something. It's the old: "If you're not hiding anything, why won't you let me search your vehicle and prove it" crap that cops use.

Now it's the same with DUI checkpoints. We can yammer all day long about how they're legal, or they announce them ahead of time (YEA F'N RIGHT), or how you can turn around when you see the checkpoint. Try it. You will get followed and pulled over. They're ready for that around here. It's the same as the refusal to search. You raise suspicion when you turn around. Then they think they have an excuse to come pull you over and harass you when it should be (and I think it is) your right to turn and avoid the DUI checkpoint. Afterall if you turn around and avoid the checkpoint, you must be hiding something or drunk.

It boils down to this. Cops think they're right to investigate tramples your 4th amendment right. It's not just a matter of a few LEOs here and there. LEOs are trained to find reasons for PC, and to coerce people into incriminating themselves and admitting more than they would to their best friend. That is what this thread is all about. It may be some memo from the top brass at individual departments, but it is happening.

I hope no one here seriously thinks that LEO are not going to persue you if you visibly avoid a DUI checkpoint or refuse a search of your vehicle.

I also hope that no LEO present reading this seriously thinks that this JBT-ery is not going on in this state, and others. It goes on all the time, probably in your own agency. Maybe you should talk to your bosses about it :rolleyes:

[falawful]

Where do they publish the time and place of DUI checkpoints?

I've gone around a few was on the way home from work at the time, just didn't want the bother. ID checks I don't mind so much as long as it's like a 5second stop, but only if they grab the illegals. I don't like fishing expeditions.

Never ever ever give consent to search.

[ViPER395]

ID checks I don't mind so much as long as it's like a 5second stop, but only if they grab the illegals.

You mean cops can ask people they pull over if they're legal residents now?

I thought that they weren't allowed to ask about citizenship. :confused:

[SteveH]

I recall some news articles about this form this summer. I believe that the cops were actually staking out out of state fireworks stands looking for California plates. They would then pull over the car as it entered California. Simular to the Nevada gunshow stings.

The articles i saw made no mention of anything resembling a check point.

[Grouch]

No petty ad hominems in quoting your name. Seems humor is lost here, as I took your dishonesty statment as. Here is a smily for you.:)

Yes yes, I’m sure.

You are all over the place, and a little on the straw-man about the annoucements.

I invite you to support that statement with anything I’ve said. Where has my argument or explanation wavered?

[Linh]

He told us about setting up a checkpoint on the CA-NV boarder during the 4th of July time period to catch folks coming over the boarder with fireworks.

Has the law changed? When I was in monterey, CA in 2005 during the 4 of July timeframe you could see pently of places selling fireworks trust me it's right there. They would set up these small booths along the major streets and sell them. A cop would have to be BLIND not to see them trust me I had really bad eyes back then.

From what I understand some counties in ca are allowed to have fireworks while in major cities it's illegal. Isn't it wrong for a cop to pull over someone and take there fireworks if it is legal to own in there county? Or is there some illegal importation law?

[chris]

it seems to be occuring more and more often than usual wiht LE searching citizens cars upon refusel of search and the a "bomb" dog determines that you have explosives in your car, ie ammo, gun powder for reloading and related items.

it seems that they are proud of the subversion of the 4th amendment they are trashing to make themselves look big and bad with their peers and supervisors.

it happened to me coming back from duck hunting at wister and my car was sniffed by the border patrol and he told his dog smelled "hidden humans" and "narcotics" in my car.

mind you i have 3 shotguns and 21 dead ducks and 2 dogs in my truck and a crap load of gear to boot. i told him his dog was wrong and i did not consent to search so they pulled me over to the side and said they had probable cause to search since i refused to search. i wanted to say BS get a warrant and i'll wait. there were 3 of us in the truck also.

they asked me if i came down there often. DUH it's duck season, of course i do other than that i don't go there. also there was a huge amount of BP and Sherrif activity the night before. they must have been looking for someone or something.

i also i have my SSG sticker on my front corner of the window and Iraq War Veteran sticker on my back window. whether or not this has anything do with me getting searched is unknown to me at this time. i did ask other hunters that came back from Wister and they were not searched but the dog was there. so it's anyone's guess as to what they were looking for.

they did ask who here is in the Army well i'm the only one who has short hair and have my ACU pants on. hey they are comfortable ok. but i did tell them that i have 20 years in and i'm not so stupid to hide a person in my truck let alone narcotics. so i have to say i was disgusted and being accused of smuggling said items considering my service to this country.

in closing there are LE who get their rocks off and violating our rights and a majority that don't either way if you are in the service of the public and supposidly have the public trust and you violate the rights of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. you should hold your head in shame are reevaluate your thought process.

not all citizens are guilty and should be presumed innocent until proven otherwise. not the other way around. continuing down this path is very dangerous and will further erode the public trust in LE in general. i would respectfully tell any LE paticipating in such activity that this is wrong and should be morally thought of as wrong.

i for one do not like the subversion of our rights since they have taken the same oath i have and i will not do any such activity ever.

[Grouch]

This is all the same as the illegal search debate.

It's pretty simple to me. If a cop wants you to do something you're going to do it, whether it is you're right to refuse or not, whether it is illegal for him to 'coerce you into it' or not.

If you refuse to consent to a search of your vehicle. The cop is going to get in that vehicle to search it. He is going to find a way, and you're not going to be leaving the scene until him and the couple extra units he calls to help him out and find something. Afterall, once you refuse you're a suspect and uncooperative (backup) Now, once you refuse the search you must be hiding something. It's the old: "If you're not hiding anything, why won't you let me search your vehicle and prove it" crap that cops use.

Blanket statements and worthless cop bashing.

Now it's the same with DUI checkpoints. We can yammer all day long about how they're legal, or they announce them ahead of time (YEA F'N RIGHT),

Having lived in both Fresno and South Santa Clara County I can attest that in both these locations, anyone listening to the morning or evening news on either TV or radio or reading the papers (Fresno Bee, Mercury News ect.) Would be well aware of when and where DUI check points were going to happen.

It really sounds like you just have remained ignorant of them happening. As if they did happen without notification it would be breaking the law. And I’m willing to bet there would be at least

[Grouch]

Has the law changed? When I was in monterey, CA in 2005 during the 4 of July timeframe you could see pently of places selling fireworks trust me it's right there. They would set up these small booths along the major streets and sell them. A cop would have to be BLIND not to see them trust me I had really bad eyes back then.

From what I understand some counties in ca are allowed to have fireworks while in major cities it's illegal. Isn't it wrong for a cop to pull over someone and take there fireworks if it is legal to own in there county? Or is there some illegal importation law?


Those are "safe and sane" fireworks. None of them are projectilies or explosives.

[Bizcuits]

they would have a bomb sniffing dog search the outside of the car and any alert of the dog would give them PC if the citizen refused a voluntary search.

This is true. If a dog catchs a sniff of something, it is justified PC.

[ViPER395]

Blanket statements and worthless cop bashing. :rolleyes: I don't see any denials.

Having lived in both Fresno and South Santa Clara County I can attest that in both these locations, anyone listening to the morning or evening news on either TV or radio or reading the papers (Fresno Bee, Mercury News ect.) Would be well aware of when and where DUI check points were going to happen.

It really sounds like you just have remained ignorant of them happening. As if they did happen without notification it would be breaking the law. And I’m willing to bet there would be at least

I read the Sacramento Bee, I watch the morning news, and I listen to newstalk 1530 all day. I never hear them tell you where they're going to be. I've heard them say DUI checkpoints in "Northeast Sacramento County tonight" over the x-mas holiday. I hope that's not the notification you speak of.

If you see how big Sac county is, you'd see that that is a blanket statement.

[Harrison_Bergeron]

I have heard some announced on the news for the big holidays, but to say that all checkpoints are always publicised and if one doesn't know it it is their fault is just the time tested "cops are infallable" ignorance.

[bluestaterebel]

If you refuse to consent to a search of your vehicle. The cop is going to get in that vehicle to search it. He is going to find a way, and you're not going to be leaving the scene until him and the couple extra units he calls to help him out and find something. Afterall, once you refuse you're a suspect and uncooperative (backup) Now, once you refuse the search you must be hiding something. It's the old: "If you're not hiding anything, why won't you let me search your vehicle and prove it" crap that cops use.

this is very interesting. none of it holds up in court. if this happens to you ask to speak to a supervisor. make a complaint, file a lawsuit. sick of hearing you spout generalities.

Now it's the same with DUI checkpoints. We can yammer all day long about how they're legal, or they announce them ahead of time (YEA F'N RIGHT), or how you can turn around when you see the checkpoint. Try it. You will get followed and pulled over. They're ready for that around here. It's the same as the refusal to search. You raise suspicion when you turn around. Then they think they have an excuse to come pull you over and harass you when it should be (and I think it is) your right to turn and avoid the DUI checkpoint. Afterall if you turn around and avoid the checkpoint, you must be hiding something or drunk.

as i stated before. i have done this many times. ihave never been followed or pulled over. at the same time, i dont commit any traffic violations while doing it. again..if you are detained, absent pc or resonable suspicion, ask to speak to a supervisor, make a complaint, file a lawsuit.

It boils down to this. Cops think they're right to investigate tramples your 4th amendment right. It's not just a matter of a few LEOs here and there. LEOs are trained to find reasons for PC

that statement doesnt make any sense. on the hand you say that cops trample your 4th amendment rights, ie. illegal detention without pc. then you say that they are trained to find pc, ie LEGAL detention

I hope no one here seriously thinks that LEO are not going to persue you if you visibly avoid a DUI checkpoint or refuse a search of your vehicle.

like i said, i have done it many times. so i guess i have just been lucky

[Grouch]

I have heard some announced on the news for the big holidays, but to say that all checkpoints are always publicised and if one doesn't know it it is their fault is just the time tested "cops are infallable" ignorance.

If the PD is not making check points anouncements they are breaking the law.

[bluestaterebel]

:rolleyes: I don't see any denials.

.:icon_bs:

[cartman]

Personally I think it boils down to the worst of the group comes to represent the rest. I know a few cops that are pretty cool guys and respect peoples rights. Then theres those that deserve prison more then a badge. Then who does the public think about when you mention cops? The bad ones. I Believe the reason behind this is cops aren't held to the same standard as the rest of us. If they break the law the don't face the same punishment. And that is what stays in the back of peoples minds.

[50 Freak]

If you pull up to a checkpoint. Can you roll down your window maybe half and inch and speak (or yell) at the officer. That way, he will have no PC for saying he "smells" alcohol or drugs. You then deny any search and short of getting dog there and having it sniff your car, there is basically no PC for him to search your car?

I can't believe I have to do crap like this. Since when has this "Land of the Free" turn into "Land of the guilty, till you plead for a lower charge".

[50 Freak]

I would also like to point out the current uproar the Cops down in LA are raising because the city wants to search their financial records for possible drug money.

Apparently "if you have nothing to hide, you don't mind us searching" doesn't apply to LE's.

[Blackflag]

I can't believe I have to do crap like this. Since when has this "Land of the Free" turn into "Land of the guilty, till you plead for a lower charge".

These checkpoints are not voluntary. California law says that you have to submit to the check. The idea that if you avoid the road altogether that is voluntary...that's a strawman argument. You might as well say that they're voluntary because you're free to move out of California if you like.

Plus, this idea that if you refuse to a search that it creates probable cause is asinine. No court has ever said that. And if you think about it, that you make the whole probable cause concept moot. Of course you always say that you don't consent.

[Blackflag]

you know your statement "california police-saving the world one firecracker at a time" thats funny. but the above statment is ignorant and childish. it's not the first time you say such things.it's not impossible to have a conversation like the one that is ongoing without your hate. in fact it's much more productive without you.

I do hate - I hate people who violate the 4th Amendment because they're on a power trip. And, in my experience, there are many police who do.

Am I supposed to keep my opinion to myself because you don't like hearing it? That makes me sad... :( But police do hate the 4th Amendment.

[bluestaterebel]

Personally I think it boils down to the worst of the group comes to represent the rest. I know a few cops that are pretty cool guys and respect peoples rights. Then theres those that deserve prison more then a badge. Then who does the public think about when you mention cops? The bad ones. I Believe the reason behind this is cops aren't held to the same standard as the rest of us. If they break the law the don't face the same punishment. And that is what stays in the back of peoples minds.

that is a fair assessment. the reality is we ARE held to a higher standard. i guess thats what erks me. yeah its true, we may get out of tickets more than the general public. but our dept hammers us for different things.

for example. if you get stopped, you can tell the cop he is an a**hole, stupid. moron whatever youd like. ( i dont condone this by the way) if i were to do that and my dept found out i would take a hit(suspension)

if i would get arrested for dui, and yes cops do get arrested for dui. not only would i suffer allof the consequences, fines, suspended drivers license. i would also get suspended at work, even tough it happened off duty on my own time. the going rate for dui suspension is 22 days.

if i told my neighbor to, "turn down the f***in music" i could get suspended for conduct unbecoming. so yes, we are held to a higher standard.

[bluestaterebel]

I do hate - I hate people who violate the 4th Amendment because they're on a power trip. And, in my experience, there are many police who do.

Am I supposed to keep my opinion to myself because you don't like hearing it? That makes me sad... :( But police do hate the 4th Amendment.

how old are you? in your experience? if you have a specific experience then state it. frankly i wonder why you would have so many bad experiences with leos....... are you accusing me of violating your 1st amendent rights now? go ahead and state your opinion. my opinion of your opinion is that it is ignorant and childish.

since you have so many bad experiences with leo, it is likely you will have another one. do me a favor when it happens. ask for a supervisor, make a complaint, file a lawsuit.

[Grouch]

These checkpoints are not voluntary.


You have the choice to not drive down the road where the big flashing lights saying "CHECKPOINT" or you can pay attention to their published anouncements.
:rolleyes:

But most people are to lazy to do something as simple as that.

[Blackflag]

frankly i wonder why you would have so many bad experiences with leos.....

since you have so many bad experiences with leo, it is likely you will have another one.

Classic police officer response: if you have had bad experiences with police, you must be a criminal.

It sounds a lot like: if you don't want to be searched on the side of the road, you must be hiding something in your car.

You don't see a little flaw with that logic, you do?

[Blackflag]

You have the choice to not drive down the road where the big flashing lights saying "CHECKPOINT" or you can pay attention to their published anouncements.
:rolleyes:

Yes, I read your opinion already. Unless you can show a court that has said they're voluntary, then it's just another bad opinion.

Until then, the california code says you "shall" submit to the check. Not your choice.

[SC_00_05]

Anyway, to get this back on track....screw that "friend of the NRA" cop.

[Grouch]

Yes, I read your opinion already. Unless you can show a court that has said they're voluntary, then it's just another bad opinion.

Until then, the california code says you "shall" submit to the check. Not your choice.

What part of making a VOLUNTARY CHOICE to drive down a street with a posted check point do you not understand?

[Blackflag]

What part of making a VOLUNTARY CHOICE to drive down a street with a posted check point do you not understand?

"Voluntary" is the part I don't understand. Because until a court says that "voluntary" means planning out your day to avoid the police on the road because you might be searched - then it doesn't mean that. Using that lame-*** argument, you could say you "voluntarily" left your house today and have consented to a public search. In fact, some countries do that.

But until you can point to a court that has said that - it doesn't mean that. Get it? Your opinion means nothing in the law. No offense, but that's the truth. Neither you nor I wear a robe.

Until that day, the california code says "shall," ie. "mandatory."

[Blackflag]

Anyway, to get this back on track....screw that "friend of the NRA" cop.

Totally - I think we can all agree on that. :)

[bluestaterebel]

Classic police officer response: if you have had bad experiences with police, you must be a criminal.

wait a minute. generaliztions bother you?

btw, i never made the above statment. you do have to wonder why YOU have had more bad experiences with leos than most people. ofcourse you will never look at yourself.

It sounds a lot like: if you don't want to be searched on the side of the road, you must be hiding something in your car.

that is not probable cause or reasonable suspicion for a search, i am not defending that.

You don't see a little flaw with that logic, you do?

what are you talking about?

[cartman]

that is a fair assessment. the reality is we ARE held to a higher standard. i guess thats what erks me. yeah its true, we may get out of tickets more than the general public. but our dept hammers us for different things.

for example. if you get stopped, you can tell the cop he is an a**hole, stupid. moron whatever youd like. ( i dont condone this by the way) if i were to do that and my dept found out i would take a hit(suspension)

if i would get arrested for dui, and yes cops do get arrested for dui. not only would i suffer allof the consequences, fines, suspended drivers license. i would also get suspended at work, even tough it happened off duty on my own time. the going rate for dui suspension is 22 days.

if i told my neighbor to, "turn down the f***in music" i could get suspended for conduct unbecoming. so yes, we are held to a higher standard.

In that regard I'll agree you are held to a higher standard. On the flip side most cops will get the back of other cops. I lived in a small town in Ct. and near half the force got caught in a corruption scandal. Not one of them went to jail for what they did. But if a nonleo did it we'd be in jail for 5 to 20. In my experience leo will not face the same penalties as nonleo when going through the courts. I'm not trying to persuade anyone with that story, just saying I have my reasons for not trusting leo's until I know them.

[Blackflag]

generaliztions bother you?

Generalizations do not bother me. Illogical thinking bothers me.

[Grouch]

"Voluntary" is the part I don't understand. Because until a court says that "voluntary" means planning out your day to avoid the police on the road because you might be searched - then it doesn't mean that. Using that lame-*** argument, you could say you "voluntarily" left your house today and have consented to a public search. In fact, some countries do that.

Now that is a straw man if I have ever heard one. Now had there been a posted notice that said anyone coming out of their home today will be searched, and you still made the choice to come out of your house. You might have had a point but thats not what you said, so you don't

If there is a fork in the road where each side eventually gets to the same location, and on the right fork there is a published DUI check point while on the left there is not. You have voluntarily made the choice to submit to a search as deemed by law if you take the right fork.

It as simple as that. You can lookfor all the excuses for laziness and ineptitude that you want. But it does not change the fact that notification was posted of a check point and for whatever irrelevant reason and by no action but your own, you chose to drive through that check point.

[Blackflag]

In that regard I'll agree you are held to a higher standard.

Yeah, I agree. Not swearing at your neighbor is a really high standard to live up to.

In response to the original poster, I was a passenger in a car once driven by an off-duty cop who had too much to drink. He was pulled over and showed his ID, then the cop let him go and said to 'get home as quickly as possible.'

Higher standard? In their dreams, maybe.

[bluestaterebel]

Totally - I think we can all agree on that. :)

no, i dont agree with that. you are so quick to jump when you act with your emotions. obvioulsy this cop is a pro 2nd amendment guy. thats a good thing. he needs some work on the 4th amendment. as i said before he probably has been brainwashed or hasnt thought things out. so by saying screw this guy will only leave him to continue his thought process and continue his actions.

let me have him for a few minutes. after that, if he still doesnt get it, screw him!

blackflag i reccomend you join a police department. i feel you can make a difference.

[Blackflag]

blackflag i reccomend you join a police department. i feel you can make a difference.

We may have different opinions and experiences, but that's a righteous sentiment - thanks. :)

[Piper]

You have the choice to not drive down the road where the big flashing lights saying "CHECKPOINT" or you can pay attention to their published anouncements.
:rolleyes:

But most people are to lazy to do something as simple as that.

Perhaps you can tell me, when was the last time LE posted the exact location of a checkpoint? That would completly defeat the purpose of the checkpoint. I know the news has mentioned that checkpoints will be in place but short of some recon, how many people know where checkpoints are?

[leelaw]

Perhaps you can tell me, when was the last time LE posted the exact location of a checkpoint? That would completly defeat the purpose of the checkpoint. I know the news has mentioned that checkpoints will be in place but short of some recon, how many people know where checkpoints are?

I dunno, all the flashing lights three blocks ahead, and the eight signs with "DUI CHECKPOINT AHEAD!!" might clue me in on a DUI checkpoint location, but some might not get the hint. ;)

[bluestaterebel]

Yeah, I agree. Not swearing at your neighbor is a really high standard to live up to.

In response to the original poster, I was a passenger in a car once driven by an off-duty cop who had too much to drink. He was pulled over and showed his ID, then the cop let him go and said to 'get home as quickly as possible.'

Higher standard? In their dreams, maybe.

i like how you used a specific experience. i guess there is hope for you.

i can name several cases where a leo is arrested for dui and several where a non-leo gets a similar break.

the more important question is why would you get in a car with someone who has had too much to drink? that is a specific example of your bad decisions and actions.

[odysseus]

I dunno, all the flashing lights three blocks ahead, and the eight signs with "DUI CHECKPOINT AHEAD!!" might clue me in on a DUI checkpoint location, but some might not get the hint. ;)

I can only speak to what I see in my area, but that's not how our checkpoints are setup. Basically you often have little choice, nor but one option which sets you out of your way - and we have established that at times people have witnessed those that did being pulled over.

YMMV - not all places apply it the same.

[Grouch]

Perhaps you can tell me, when was the last time LE posted the exact location of a checkpoint? That would completly defeat the purpose of the checkpoint. I know the news has mentioned that checkpoints will be in place but short of some recon, how many people know where checkpoints are?

Well in fresno the PD posted what district they are in on their website and 580KMJ said what streets over the radio during the christmas season.

Prior to that KRZR notified listerns of ones after the Van Halen concert.

Those are the last I remember.

[Blackflag]

the more important question is why would you get in a car with someone who has had too much to drink? that is a specific example of your bad decisions and actions.

I never claimed to be a smart guy...but we get the benefit of the bill of rights, too.

[Blackflag]

I can only speak to what I see in my area, but that's not how our checkpoints are setup. Basically you often have little choice, nor but one option which sets you out of your way - and we have established that at times people have witnessed those that did being pulled over.

YMMV - not all places apply it the same.

It's the same in my area. The last one I was in...they set it up such that if you made a right turn (you couldn't see the check point from where you turn) you are trapped in the checkpoint. They put orange cones in the middle of the road so you couldn't turn around.

[ViPER395]

It's the same in my area. The last one I was in...they set it up such that if you made a right turn (you couldn't see the check point from where you turn) you are trapped in the checkpoint. They put orange cones in the middle of the road so you couldn't turn around.

Sounds pretty voluntary to me :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[metalhead357]

I'm soooooooooo friggin livid over the OP's original post about this guy's attitude...it makes me wanna hurl.


Someone wanna help start an OLL-Fireworks Campaign? LOL! Somebody save me!!!!!!!!!!!! I need some levity from the absurdity that is California!!!!!

[Harrison_Bergeron]

The only checkpoint I've ever had to go through, luck I guess, was on PCH through Sunset Beach right before Warner, and it had cones siphoning people through(i.e no chance of turning around). For those unfamiliar with the area, a right turn puts you in a small no exit row of houses before the beach, and a left turn puts you into a private condo complex. So to say that they are voluntary and you have the right to turn away when you see the lights in the distance is ridiculous. And repeating the same response over and over without siting any verifiable references to actual publication of checkpoints, despite being asked repeatedly, is not a valid conjecture anymore.

[Grouch]

So to say that they are voluntary and you have the right to turn away when you see the lights in the distance is ridiculous. And repeating the same response over and over without siting any verifiable references to actual publication of checkpoints, despite being asked repeatedly, is not a valid conjecture anymore.


Are you really that helpless or just trolling? :rolleyes: I see a lot of attempts to make arguments but no one but me is posting anything with varifiable citation. I wonder why?

Fresno's PD's site has their general locations.

http://www.fresno.gov/CityOfFresno/Search/Query.aspx?q=DUI+checkpoints

And now as I've said, Fresno local news, the Fresno Bee, 580KMJ, and KAZR have all given detailed locations of them.


http://www.modbee.com/local/story/139748.html

From October 2006 to September 2007, California law enforcement agencies conducted 911 checkpoints, a 28 percent increase from the previous year, according to the state Office of Traffic Safety. Almost 846,000 vehicles passed through them, resulting in 3,526, or 41 percent more, DUI arrests. Officers conducting sobriety checkpoints must follow strict criteria laid out by the California Supreme Court in 1987:

Drivers must always be able to turn to avoid a checkpoint.

Motorists who turn to avoid a checkpoint may not be stopped merely because of this, though if they show signs of unsafe driving, it is legal to stop them.

Supervisory officers, rather than officers in the field, make decisions about sobriety checkpoints, including location.

Officers must use a neutral formula, such as every driver, or every third, fifth, or 10th driver, to determine who to stop.

Officer and public safety is a primary concern.

There are no set rules as to the timing or duration of the checkpoint, but officers must consider effectiveness and intrusiveness.

Sobriety checkpoints must be easy to see, with adequate lighting, law enforcement vehicles and uniformed officers.

Officers operating checkpoints should detain motorists only long enough to question the driver briefly to spot signs of intoxication.

If the officer does observe signs of impairment, the driver may be directed to a separate area for a field sobriety test.

So it does seem to be law that you must be given a chance to turn around and that turning around can not be the reason to pull you over.

Now for you people that are just complaining after claiming to have experianced a wrongfull and illegal stop, why dont you give off the internet and file formal complaints.

[532Fastback]

When i was taking apart my 68 Fastback behind the interior parts down by the rear wheel well i found all kinds of old fireworks or something. Looked like M1000s. Not sure because they were rotted from water damage.I guessed the old owner hide them or someone was trying to hide them for some reason.

Also i came up on a DUI checkpoint where i used to live and instead of turning around they left a side street open and so i just drove around the DUI checkpoint, i hadn't been drinking or anything just was in a hurry. No officers followed me or anything and i drove right by an officer sitting on that street too.

[Grouch]

Also i came up on a DUI checkpoint where i used to live and instead of turning around they left a side street open and so i just drove around the DUI checkpoint, i hadn't been drinking or anything just was in a hurry. No officers followed me or anything and i drove right by an officer sitting on that street too.

You must have flashed your badge or something at them! ;)

[odysseus]

Now for you people that are just complaining after claiming to have experianced a wrongfull and illegal stop, why dont you give off the internet and file formal complaints.

LOL...

For some, the world can only work inside of a box.

[Grouch]

LOL...

For some, the world can only work inside of a box.

So it looks like you'll just be crying on the internet instead of actually being productive when problems happen. I was expecting such, glad I wasn't disappointed.

[532Fastback]

You must have flashed your badge or something at them! ;)

LOL i think i was about early 20s, way before i got into fire.:D

[Grouch]

:rolleyes: I don't see any denials.

I read the Sacramento Bee, I watch the morning news, and I listen to newstalk 1530 all day. I never hear them tell you where they're going to be. I've heard them say DUI checkpoints in "Northeast Sacramento County tonight" over the x-mas holiday. I hope that's not the notification you speak of.

If you see how big Sac county is, you'd see that that is a blanket statement.


http://www.sacpd.org/press/102607-184.pdf

HOLY ****! Sac PD even tells you the EXACT location!

Why to keep a tab on things guys!

[socalguns]

its not as simple as that
police were pulling the checkpoint BS for years before the supreme court said
what the requirements were for a legal checkpoint
simply publishing what street you'll have the checkpoint is not adequate

[Grouch]

its not as simple as that
police were pulling the checkpoint BS for years before the supreme court said
what the requirements were for a legal checkpoint
simply publishing what street you'll have the checkpoint is not adequate

So since it is legal. And CA has give PD's the authority to do them. What would you have them do differently.

They already have to be announced. Which I've proved they are in both Fresno and Sac.

And the law says you have to give people a change to turn around and if they do you can't pull them over for that reason.

And give me something more than "They shouldn't have them" or some other such nonsense as for now the SC has deemed them constitutional.

[odysseus]

So it looks like you'll just be crying on the internet instead of actually being productive when problems happen. I was expecting such, glad I wasn't disappointed.

LOL... the irony of that statement is AWESOME.

Look, you can have your pissing match to yourself. To each his own. :p

[Grouch]

LOL... the irony of that statement is AWESOME.

Look, you can have your pissing match to yourself. To each his own. :p

You seem to need a dictionary, or are you using the Alanis Morissette form of irony? I'm not the one complaining about anything nor do I see a need to work for policy change.

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

You seem to need a dictionary, or are you using the Alanis Morissette form of irony? I'm not the complaining about anything nor do I see a need to work for policy change.

None of those situations in that song are ironic. Did anyone else catch that? I chuckled.

[odysseus]

You seem to need a dictionary, or are you using the Alanis Morissette form of irony?

Are you feeling well over there?

Main Entry: iro·ny
Pronunciation: \ˈī-rə-nē also ˈī(-ə)r-nē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural iro·nies
Etymology: Latin ironia, from Greek eirōnia, from eirōn dissembler
Date: 1502
1: a pretense of ignorance and of willingness to learn from another assumed in order to make the other's false conceptions conspicuous by adroit questioning —called also Socratic irony
2 a: the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning b: a usually humorous or sardonic literary style or form characterized by irony c: an ironic expression or utterance
3 a (1): incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (2): an event or result marked by such incongruity b: incongruity between a situation developed in a drama and the accompanying words or actions that is understood by the audience but not by the characters in the play —called also dramatic irony, tragic irony

[Grouch]

Are you feeling well over there?

Main Entry: iro·ny
Pronunciation: \ˈī-rə-nē also ˈī(-ə)r-nē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural iro·nies
Etymology: Latin ironia, from Greek eirōnia, from eirōn dissembler
Date: 1502
1: a pretense of ignorance and of willingness to learn from another assumed in order to make the other's false conceptions conspicuous by adroit questioning —called also Socratic irony
2 a: the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning b: a usually humorous or sardonic literary style or form characterized by irony c: an ironic expression or utterance
3 a (1): incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (2): an event or result marked by such incongruity b: incongruity between a situation developed in a drama and the accompanying words or actions that is understood by the audience but not by the characters in the play —called also dramatic irony, tragic irony

Now that you've read the definition, maybe you would like to explain what I said that was ironic?

[odysseus]

Now that you've read the definition, maybe you would like to explain what I said that was ironic?

I'll save that for you to ponder on.

I am done with the back and forth on this thread. I made the points I want; you however come across as having stumbled out of a debate class and needing a win. There is none here.

[Grouch]

I'll save that for you to ponder on.

I am done with the back and forth on this thread. I made the points I want; you however come across as having stumbled out of a debate class and needing a win. There is none here.

I did not think you capable of doing so.

http://www.osney.org/po/royalFail.jpg

[odysseus]

Wow, I am talking with a juvenile. My point is even more clearer.

Hey I got to crash because I have a job to go to. Have a good evening to you Mr. Grouch.

I did not think you capable of doing so.

http://www.osney.org/po/royalFail.jpg

[socalguns]

i'd have them adhere to the rules, you know,
give an actual chance to avoid the checkpoint,
instead of ZERO chance of avoiding
just last weekend there was such an illegal
checkpoint near a 280 on ramp

[metalhead357]

And give me something more than "They shouldn't have them" or some other such nonsense as for now the SC has deemed them constitutional.

So what? They did the same for slavery and then again for seperate but equal....until they changed thier mind.

[spencerhut]

Well I'm glad this generated some conversation. I have no idea if the LEO in question really knows what a full auto is or if the ('three full auto AR's" he claims they got is true. But even if he made it up or exaggerated from semi to full it still shocked me that an NRA supporter would be proud or rather completely ignorant of violating our rights to reasonable search.

[Grouch]

Wow, I am talking with a juvenile. My point is even more clearer.

Hey I got to crash because I have a job to go to. Have a good evening to you Mr. Grouch.

You're the one making the pitiful and cowardly attacks. Should I hold my breath until you are able to stay exactly what it illogical about my statements? :rolleyes:

[Grouch]

i'd have them adhere to the rules, you know,
give an actual chance to avoid the checkpoint,
instead of ZERO chance of avoiding
just last weekend there was such an illegal
checkpoint near a 280 on ramp

Then file a complaint.

[Grouch]

So what? They did the same for slavery and then again for seperate but equal....until they changed thier mind.

So what? That means you deal with it (or become politically active and fight for a change) and when when these stops are not being conducted in accordance to the law you file complaints instead of crying about them on the internet.

[ibanezfoo]

Didn't say anything about the checkpoints, just the rationale behind the ban. We have a big problem with wild fires in SoCal, and every year children lose fingers or worse, so to say that restricting fireworks is contradictory to protecting citizens from real threats is untrue.

Restricting things from something that may or may not happen is completely anti-freedom and just plain asinine. The irony is that they are removing freedom we use to celebrate our freedom.

-Bryan

[metalhead357]

So what? . LOL! agreed.


That means you deal with it (or become politically active and fight for a change) and when when these stops are not being conducted in accordance to the law you file complaints instead of crying about them on the internet. yes, but the medium today of the net is much like the whinny pamphlets of Common Sense and the Federalist Papers of yesturyear. It IS a way to motivate;)

[pnkssbtz]

Why am I reminded of Douglas Adam's "Hitch hiker's Guide to the Galaxy" where Arthur Dent's house is scheduled for demolition.

It turns out that the city did in fact file paperwork declaring the demolition of his house; it was published, and subsequently locked up in filing cabinet, in the basement of the clerks office, that was flooded under several feet of water.


If you people arguing the validity of a DUI checkpoint, by pointing out that the DUI checkpoints are published on their website, then you fail to understand the irony, or the full ramifications of the entirety of the situation at hand.

Ironically for the citizen ignorance of the law, etc. etc. is no excuse. But ignorance of the law for those that are not citizen's is perfectly understandable; after all there are so many codes and laws on the books no one could possibly have it all memorized.

[tyrist]

for the most part when people are drunk enough where it is a safety concern, they are far too intoxicated to realize where the turn off is and will drive right through the checkpoint and any people that are standing on the roadway not paying attention.

[Piper]

This is a little :offtopic: but whatever happened to the good old days of just patrolling, observing a deuce and taking care of the problem.

DUI checkpoints seem like a waste of manpower and are expensive. It would be very interesting to see the stats on checkpoint to Tstop ratios for catching deuces.

[Blackflag]

DUI checkpoints seem like a waste of manpower and are expensive. It would be very interesting to see the stats on checkpoint to Tstop ratios for catching deuces.

I was just talking with the wife about this earlier, and she said she was stopped at a "seatbelt checkpoint" a few weeks ago. She said the officer put both hands on the windsill of the door, then stuck his head inside the car to take a look around the back seat.

For a seatbelt check. Come on. Give me a ****ing break already... we can't drive down the street without somebody examining our back seat?? :mad:

[Grouch]

yes, but the medium today of the net is much like the whinny pamphlets of Common Sense and the Federalist Papers of yesturyear. It IS a way to motivate;)

Lets not get an delusions of grandeur here.

Thomas Paine, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison all did just a tiny bit more for this nation than anyone on this forum who does nothing more than *****ing ever has.

[tenpercentfirearms]

Ok, a few missing points.

The officer in question is actually a Cal Fire LEO. He is not some local PD or sheriff; he does arson and crimes committed during fires.

I was impressed that Spencerhut started questioning him about probable cause and what not. The LEO in question didn't seem too torn up about catching the bad guy by whatever means it took. And yes it was interesting that a NRA guy was bragging about getting some .50 BMGs and full autos.

At the same time, that is his job. He is supposed to catch guys bringing illegal fireworks into California. If that was your job, would you just do it in a half arsed manner or would you go try and bust some guys?

So the question becomes what are we doing to counter this officer's perceived job of busting people at the expense of our civil rights?

My question would be if I refused a search and they asked me to pull over, can I just refuse and drive away? What does case law say about asking a motorist to wait around for a K-9 unit? How long do you have to wait?

If any of us ever end up in the situation, what would we do? Exercise your rights? Or just go along?

If I had nothing to hide, I might go for it. I have nothing to lose other than a little time and too much to gain doing the right thing. If I were hiding something, then I guess I would go all the way anyway because if I fail, I go to jail!

[falawful]

"What does case law say about asking a motorist to wait around for a K-9 unit? How long do you have to wait?"

TWO WEEKS!!!!

LOL!

[falawful]

Where do they publish the DUI checkpoints for LA and Ventura counties?

I have no plans to DUI or anything but I HATE checkpoints.

[eta34]

Ok, a few missing points.

The officer in question is actually a Cal Fire LEO. He is not some local PD or sheriff; he does arson and crimes committed during fires.

I was impressed that Spencerhut started questioning him about probable cause and what not. The LEO in question didn't seem too torn up about catching the bad guy by whatever means it took. And yes it was interesting that a NRA guy was bragging about getting some .50 BMGs and full autos.

At the same time, that is his job. He is supposed to catch guys bringing illegal fireworks into California. If that was your job, would you just do it in a half arsed manner or would you go try and bust some guys?

So the question becomes what are we doing to counter this officer's perceived job of busting people at the expense of our civil rights?

My question would be if I refused a search and they asked me to pull over, can I just refuse and drive away? What does case law say about asking a motorist to wait around for a K-9 unit? How long do you have to wait?

If any of us ever end up in the situation, what would we do? Exercise your rights? Or just go along?

If I had nothing to hide, I might go for it. I have nothing to lose other than a little time and too much to gain doing the right thing. If I were hiding something, then I guess I would go all the way anyway because if I fail, I go to jail!


I can add my LEO perspective to this, as well as Piper's belief that checkpoints are expensive and a waste of time.

First, as a participant in prior checkpoints, I can tell you that during a typical DUI/CDL checkpoint, thousands of cars go through the "screening area." An officer contacts the driver. If he or she displays objective symptoms of intoxication or does not possess a CDL, he/she is directed into a secondary area where they are contacted by another officer. That officer generally runs the person for a CDL or conducts FST's. Once the driver is determined to be properly licensed or not DUI, he/she is free to leave. If not, he/she is arrested.

In a typical checkpoint (generally 6-8 hours long), we get an average of 1 or 2 DUI arrests. We get upwards of 15 unlicensed/suspended drivers. Nearby cities which are much busier than us get only a few more DUI's per checkpoint, but many more unlicensed/suspended drivers. In short, if we believe that checkpoints catch deuces effectively, we are sadly mistaken. I much prefer "saturation patrols" in which extra units are put out to find DUI drivers. This, in my experience, has been very effective.

Now, to Wes' question about detentions. If you are lawfully pulled over, case law has clearly stated that the officer can only detain you for a reasonable time; that is, if you are not going to jail, he can keep you for the time it takes to run your DL and write a ticket. He cannot unreasonably prolong the detention awaiting a K-9. However, if during the time it reasonably takes for him to write the ticket a K-9 arrives, the K-9 can be lead around your car

[spencerhut]

I was impressed that Spencerhut started questioning him about probable cause and what not.

What should have impressed you was the way my wife shut me up, without anyone noticing, before I lit into the LEO on a civil rights tangent. ;)

[Blackflag]

First, as a participant in prior checkpoints, I can tell you that during a typical DUI/CDL checkpoint, thousands of cars go through the "screening area." An officer contacts the driver. If he or she displays objective symptoms of intoxication or does not possess a CDL, he/she is directed into a secondary area where they are contacted by another officer. That officer generally runs the person for a CDL or conducts FST's. Once the driver is determined to be properly licensed or not DUI, he/she is free to leave. If not, he/she is arrested.

Are you saying that you're not checking people solely for intoxication - but you're just generally stopping people to check their ID's?

This just gets better and better...

[50 Freak]

the officer can only detain you for a reasonable time

What constitutes "reasonable" time? Who's reasonal are we using. Is there a hard and fast number?

[eta34]

There isn't a hard and fast rule for time. Here is an excerpt from the Peace Officer's Legal Sourcebook, generally viewed as the case law "bible" for LEO. It discusses the length of detention problem.

A routine traffic stop "must be temporary and last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop." (Royer (1983) 460 U.S. 491, 500; Bell (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 754, 761.)

Typically, this means no longer than the time it takes to perform the duties necessary to warn the driver or issue a citation. A detention "justified solely by the interest in issuing a warning ticket to the driver can become unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete that mission." (Caballes (2005) 543 U.S. 405, 407.)

It is impossible to set an absolute time limit for a reasonable detention because it depends totally on the circumstances. For example, a 20-minute detention might be reasonable under one set of circumstances but not under another. (Dasilva (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 43, 50; Soun (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1499, 1519-1520.)

The key is simply whether or not "the police diligently pursued a means of investigation reasonably designed to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly." (Sharpe (1985) 470 U.S. 675, 686-688; Russell (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 96, 102; Alexander (9th Cir. 1995) 64 F.3d 1315, 1321.)

In addition, even during a strictly routine traffic stop, you are permitted to run a radio or computer check on the vehicle and/or the driver, so long as "the check does not unreasonably prolong the detention." (Brown (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 493, 498; Valencia (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 906, 918; McGaughran (1979) 25 Cal.3d 577, 584-587; Castaneda (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1222, 1227.) Courts will not view the few minutes it normally takes to obtain the results of a warrant check as unduly or unreasonably prolonging a routine traffic detention.


Hope this helps.

[eta34]

Are you saying that you're not checking people solely for intoxication - but you're just generally stopping people to check their ID's?

This just gets better and better...


Well, it depends on the type of checkpoint, as there are many. There are seatbelt, DUI, DUI/CDL, etc. It depends on the primary purpose.

[metalhead357]

Lets not get an delusions of grandeur here.

Thomas Paine, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison all did just a tiny bit more for this nation than anyone on this forum who does nothing more than *****ing ever has.


no delusions. Both did more...considering it after the fact. At the time they were both whinny little pamphlets trying to make a point. All it took here in cali was a bunch of guys via the internet to essential turn back the tide of the DOJ......Will the same prevail for DUI and fireworks checkpoints? I doubt it....but then again one might view history as a series of small steps leading to one large step time after time.

So while I aint saying that you're worng-- the process of change--starts with complaining:)

[GuyW]

....the Peace Officer's Legal Sourcebook, generally viewed as the case law "bible" for LEO....

Is this easily available to the tax-paying public?

[Grouch]

Is this easily available to the tax-paying public?

http://www.copware.com/products/reference.html

[eta34]

It is available at Grouch's link. However, it is $85.00. Pretty spendy.

[Grouch]

It is available at Grouch's link. However, it is $85.00. Pretty spendy.

Most giant reference books aint cheap.

[eta34]

Agreed. Our department provides it to us. However, it is chock full of useful information. I would highly recommend it.

[Blackflag]

Well, it depends on the type of checkpoint, as there are many.

It's illegal to detain somebody just to look at their ID. Look that up in your book.

[tenpercentfirearms]

It's illegal to detain somebody just to look at their ID. Look that up in your book.

Is it? Why not quote us where that is illegal? Or are you just trying to bash on someone without your own proof. Until you show proof, your statement was uncalled for. Look it up and show it out of your book. :mad:

[Fjold]

Yeah, I agree. Not swearing at your neighbor is a really high standard to live up to.

In response to the original poster, I was a passenger in a car once driven by an off-duty cop who had too much to drink. He was pulled over and showed his ID, then the cop let him go and said to 'get home as quickly as possible.'

Higher standard? In their dreams, maybe.


A lieutenant in the CHP office here in Bakersfield was just arrested and booked for two counts of drunk driving.


DUI charges filed against CHP lieutenant
The Bakersfield Californian | Monday, Jan 14 2008 5:28 PM
Last Updated: Monday, Jan 14 2008 5:28 PM

Misdemeanor driving under the influence charges were filed Monday against a lieutenant with the Bakersfield California Highway Patrol Office.

Lt. Deborah Pierce, 48, was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence Dec. 28 in Merced County.

Pierce was charged with two counts of driving under the influence, said Harold Nutt, a chief deputy district attorney in Merced.

It’s unclear when Pierce will appear in a Merced County court.

Pierce said she had no comment Monday afternoon, according to her colleague Sgt. Larry McGuire.

When asked if Pierce was on paid administrative leave, McGuire said he couldn’t discuss personnel issues.

Pierce has worked in the Bakersfield CHP office since August, when she transferred from Sacramento.

[pnkssbtz]

Is it? Why not quote us where that is illegal? Or are you just trying to bash on someone without your own proof. Until you show proof, your statement was uncalled for. Look it up and show it out of your book. :mad:IIRC, the SCOTUS said the states had the right to decide, right?

In CA there (to my knowledge) is no "stop and identify" law. (Kolender v. Lawson?)


Some states do have stop and identify laws.

[Blackflag]

Is it? Why not quote us where that is illegal? Or are you just trying to bash on someone without your own proof. Until you show proof, your statement was uncalled for. Look it up and show it out of your book. :mad:

In Hilbel v. Nevada, the Supreme Court said that if a state has a law allowing a stop for identification that it is Constitutional, but that the person only needs to "state their name." They don't have to produce an ID.

Such laws are usually directed at loitering people. Not cars. However, California has no such identification law at all.

Therefore, stopping a car and demanding ID would be illegal under California law and the U.S. Constitution. My book is the Supreme Court Reporter, not some rinky-dink police handbook. And you need to learn the difference between "bashing" and facts.

[Grouch]

Therefore, stopping a car and demanding ID would be illegal under California law and the U.S. Constitution. My book is the Supreme Court Reporter, not some rinky-dink police handbook. And you need to learn the difference between "bashing" and facts.


The problem is that 99.9 of drivers only have a CDL as ID.

[Piper]

I can add my LEO perspective to this, as well as Piper's belief that checkpoints are expensive and a waste of time.

First, as a participant in prior checkpoints, I can tell you that during a typical DUI/CDL checkpoint, thousands of cars go through the "screening area." An officer contacts the driver. If he or she displays objective symptoms of intoxication or does not possess a CDL, he/she is directed into a secondary area where they are contacted by another officer. That officer generally runs the person for a CDL or conducts FST's. Once the driver is determined to be properly licensed or not DUI, he/she is free to leave. If not, he/she is arrested.

In a typical checkpoint (generally 6-8 hours long), we get an average of 1 or 2 DUI arrests. We get upwards of 15 unlicensed/suspended drivers. Nearby cities which are much busier than us get only a few more DUI's per checkpoint, but many more unlicensed/suspended drivers. In short, if we believe that checkpoints catch deuces effectively, we are sadly mistaken. I much prefer "saturation patrols" in which extra units are put out to find DUI drivers. This, in my experience, has been very effective.
Now, to Wes' question about detentions. If you are lawfully pulled over, case law has clearly stated that the officer can only detain you for a reasonable time; that is, if you are not going to jail, he can keep you for the time it takes to run your DL and write a ticket. He cannot unreasonably prolong the detention awaiting a K-9. However, if during the time it reasonably takes for him to write the ticket a K-9 arrives, the K-9 can be lead around your car

Okay, eta34, you've just made an excellent point for me to touch on and that's "DUI" checkpoints are more a matter of using it for catching all of the other things you wouldn't otherwise have PC to get and not just catching Deuces.

Using the term "DUI checkpoint" is something the public will rally around. I think that's dishonest on LE's part because LE knows that if they set up a checkpoint with the intent of going after all of these other "nonsafety" type violations like 12500(a)&(b), 140601's, 16028(a), 27315(e) etc,etc, the public and potentially city councils/ county supervisors would question the necessity and LE would have a huge PR problem on their hands. So the logic is "let's call it a DUI checkpoint", no PC is necessary beyond we were looking for deuces and all of these other things just fell into our lap. :nono: What about just doing a real DUI checkpoint by contacting the driver, observing the odor of an alcoholic beverage on the drivers breath and slured speech. If none is observed, simply move on to the next. I think DUI checkpoints are simply a fishing expedition so that the chief can say "look at me, aren't I great ?" On the other hand, I think a deuce is fair game for going after all of these other violations because on a Tstop, they would be discovered in the course of the investigation and the PC for the stop would be the officers observation of driving or in this case lack of driving ability which led the officer to believe that the person was possibly DUI. So it's no longer a question of doing this for the sake of public safety. It's more of a way of skirting around PC to go after these other nonissues regarding safety.

[Blackflag]

Exactly. Why don't we stop trying to play bait and switch and just follow the law? There is something very wrong when the police are trying to think of clever new ways to violate the Constitution.

[eta34]

It's illegal to detain somebody just to look at their ID. Look that up in your book.

Nice. I love when people make things personal, particularly when they speak ignorance. I am here sharing what the industry does, not my personal opinion. Courts have upheld the constitutionality of checkpoints. Great contribution Blackflag.

As to Piper's question/statement, I agree 100%. I believe that the majority of these DUI/CDL checkpoints are ineffective in catching DUI drivers for several reasons. First, we are required to advertise these checkpoints in advance. In most small cities, there are only a few logistically feasible places for them to be set up. It is easy to avoid the checkpoint completely.

I believe the motivation is often to catch unlicensed drivers in the DUI/CDL checkpoint. Some would argue that unlicensed drivers cause just as much damage to society as drunk drivers. These checkpoints are very effective in catching them. I am not a huge fan of the checkpoint concept.

I believe that saturation patrols are much more effective. When I work a DUI car, I can almost guarantee I will find one or two during the shift.

[Blackflag]

I believe the motivation is often to catch unlicensed drivers

I didn't give my opinion, either. I gave the legal basis for my statement. But you didn't answer the question - where in your book does it say that it's legal to stop people just to check their ID? For that matter, do you have any basis in California law for that statement?

And, no, you don't get to violate people's rights then come back and say...'I'm just saying how it is, I'm not saying I approve.' You approve de facto by doing that job, and it's de facto your opinion that stopping people to check their ID is acceptable.

[eta34]

I am done with this conversation. I didn't violate anybody's rights. I never said it is legal to stop someone to check ID. Checkpoints, as evidenced by case law, are completely legal, even if we both dislike them. Please allow reason, not emotion, to control your posts.

[tenpercentfirearms]

It's illegal to detain somebody just to look at their ID. Look that up in your book.

This is unsubstantiated bashing. No facts to back up your claims.

In Hilbel v. Nevada, the Supreme Court said that if a state has a law allowing a stop for identification that it is Constitutional, but that the person only needs to "state their name." They don't have to produce an ID.

This is a fact that backs up your claims and is not bashing. I clearly know the difference and if called on it, you do too.

Now to your Supreme Court case, it was a case of a man standing next to his vehicle who refused to give his name. He was not operating a motor vehicle on a public road, which requires a driver's license. Are you making a stretch trying to say that if you are stopped by law enforcement in a motor vehicle (either by traffic stop or checkpoint), you do not need to produce a driver's license, but need only give them your name and then continue on?

So can you produce a Supreme Court decision that says it is unlawful for law enforcement to stop driver's at a check point to ensure they are properly licenses to drive? That really is what is at issue here.

eta34 is claiming the courts have upheld these checkpoints. Surely he is only a jack booted thug making this up and actively and/or passively violating our rights. Please cite where he and his "rinky-dink polcie handbook" are wrong. :rolleyes:

[Blackflag]

I don't operate on emotion, I operate on logic.

I believe the motivation is often to catch unlicensed drivers in the . . . checkpoint.


I never said it is legal to stop someone to check ID.

The reason you're done with this conversation is because I supported my point with law and you can't support your point at all.

[tenpercentfirearms]

The reason you're done with this conversation is because I supported my point with law and you can't support your point at all.

Actually, you cited a court case where a man standing next to his vehicle was arrested for not giving his name in the course of an investigation of a peeping tom. Hardly a checkpoint decision.

[Blackflag]

Now to your Supreme Court case, it was a case of a man standing next to his vehicle who refused to give his name. He was not operating a motor vehicle on a public road, which requires a driver's license. Are you making a stretch trying to say that if you are stopped by law enforcement in a motor vehicle (either by traffic stop or checkpoint), you do not need to produce a driver's license, but need only give them your name and then continue on?

This is what happens when unqualified/uneducated people read cases. The point of the case was that IF a state has a law allowing the police to stop and ask for ID, it's ok, but he only needs to state his name and not produce ID.

California has no such law.

If they did, he would only have to state his name. They can't demand his ID.

Get it, or do I need to draw it in crayon?


So can you produce a Supreme Court decision that says it is unlawful for law enforcement to stop driver's at a check point to ensure they are properly licenses to drive? That really is what is at issue here.

I don't have to. I only have to point out that California has no law providing for ID checks. That's the threshold issue.


eta34 is claiming the courts have upheld these checkpoints.

With no support for his statement. I wonder why you're not asking for his support?

[Blackflag]

Actually, you cited a court case where a man standing next to his vehicle was arrested for not giving his name in the course of an investigation of a peeping tom. Hardly a checkpoint decision.

The case has nothing to do with checkpoints or peeping toms. The case is about whether the police can demand ID. Buy a book.

[Grouch]

The case has nothing to do with checkpoints or peeping toms. The case is about whether the police can demand ID. Buy a book.

They can demand a DL.

[bluestaterebel]

I don't operate on emotion, I operate on logic.

:icon_bs:

[tenpercentfirearms]

This is what happens when unqualified/uneducated people read cases. The point of the case was that IF a state has a law allowing the police to stop and ask for ID, it's ok, but he only needs to state his name and not produce ID.

LOL. Sorry oh most elite and arrogant master. I guess my political science degree from UCLA makes me darn near a red-neck hill billy that don't know a darn thing.

For example, when I said this, Now to your Supreme Court case, it was a case of a man standing next to his vehicle who refused to give his name. He was not operating a motor vehicle on a public road, which requires a driver's license. Are you making a stretch trying to say that if you are stopped by law enforcement in a motor vehicle (either by traffic stop or checkpoint), you do not need to produce a driver's license, but need only give them your name and then continue on?your own reading comprehension must have been off because you didn't address this point. You didn't seem to recognize that I understand the Supreme Court case perfectly fine because I have asked if it covers a person driving a motor vehicle on a public road where that operator must be licensed by the state DMV.

Here was your response, Get it, or do I need to draw it in crayon?Yeah, draw it in crayon for me. While you are at it, answer the question. Has the Supereme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to ask for a driver's DRIVER'S LICENSE while operation a motor vehicle. That is the issue at hand here since we are discussing vehicular checkpoints, not men standing besides their pick up trucks that were APPROACHED (not stopped) by an officer investigating a possible crime.

Oh wait, here is your response again, The case has nothing to do with checkpoints or peeping toms. The case is about whether the police can demand ID. Buy a book.I got a book for you, it is called, "How Blackflag can't comprehend that his example clearly doesn't apply to vehicular checkpoints where an officer will not request an ID, but a driver's license" by Ten Percent Firearms, 2nd Edition, (2008).

Lets see if you need a third edition. :eek:

[Blackflag]

That's was long. But you said nothing about the issue. Hire a lawyer to explain the case to you.

There isn't one case for standing in public. And one case for riding a bicycle. And one case for driving in public. And one case for riding a horse. The supreme court doesn't issue hundreds of cases for every circumstance. They issue one case and the courts apply it variously.

There's just one case - Hilbel:

Question: Can police demand a person's name when they're in public?

Answer: Yes - if state law provides for it. But they only need to state their name, not produce ID.

Until you or your friend can cite a California statute, you have no argument. Case closed.

Go Bruins. :whistling:

[bluestaterebel]

blackflag, i dont konw if i like you or not. i think you are growing on me.:)

[Blackflag]

I'm an acquired taste. :chinese:

[Grouch]

That's was long. But you said nothing about the issue. Hire a lawyer to explain the case to you.

There isn't one case for standing in public. And one case for riding a bicycle. And one case for driving in public. And one case for riding a horse. The supreme court doesn't issue hundreds of cases for every circumstance. They issue one case and the courts apply it variously.

There's just one case - Hilbel:

Question: Can police demand a person's name when they're in public?

Answer: Yes - if state law provides for it. But they only need to state their name, not produce ID.

Until you or your friend can cite a California statute, you have no argument. Case closed.

Go Bruins. :whistling:

Since you're a little slow on the uptake of what 10% has been saying.

It is perfectly, 100% legal for a police officer to ask for a DRIVERS LICENSE during a traffic stop.

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp/traffic/info.htm

What Happens When the Police Stop You
The police officer will ask for your driver's license, your car's registration, and your proof of insurance and may ask you to step outside your car. For infractions and some misdemeanors, the officer can write a ticket and ask you to sign it. The ticket is also called your "Notice to Appear" in court. The officer will give you a copy. Signing the ticket doesn't mean you admit that you're guilty. It just means that you promise to appear in court or pay the fine.

[tenpercentfirearms]

That's was long. But you said nothing about the issue. Hire a lawyer to explain the case to you.

LOL. My post had everything to do with the issue. The issue at hand is whether it is lawful for the police to stop motorists in order to check for a valid CA driver's license while conducting a checkpoint.

You came up with a case which affirmed that you are only required to give the police your name if they approach you and ask for identification. I have pointed out numerous times that I do not see how that is the same as someone driving a motor vehicle on a public road in which case a person is required to be licensed by the state in order to operate said vehicle.

The only thing you can do is continue to make snide remarks about how your court case proves you only have to give your name unless there is a state law that says otherwise.

I am still working on finding the applicable vehicle code and/or penal code section, but so far the best I can find is this from the DMV website (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/pgs12thru16.htm).
License in Your Possession
You must always have your driver license with you when you drive. Show it to any police officer who asks to see it. If you are in an accident, you must show it to the other driver(s) involved. (More information about accident involvement).

So are you going to continue to ignore the real issue here and stick to your same old argument that Hilbel v. Nevada has anything at all to do with a person driving a motor vehicle on a public road or are you going to finally step up to the level of this discussion and realize your point was brought up, has been refuted, and all you have left to fall back on is to ignore my points and make useless one liners.

There appears to be only one person here who has a problem with reading comprehension and that is Blackflag.

[Knauga]

It is perfectly, 100% legal for a police officer to ask for a DRIVERS LICENSE during a traffic stop.

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp/traffic/info.htm

Is a random check the same thing as a traffic stop? Traffic stop assumes probable cause that you have comitted some sort of crime or infraction. The City of Pasadena and the City of Upland both hold checkpoints to verify your drivers license. I know because I've been stopped in both of them.

If these are not legal, how does one fight the practice and get it stopped... without getting tasered of course ;)

[Blackflag]

I am still working on finding the applicable vehicle code and/or penal code section . . .

The anticipation is killing me.

Knauga - you have to file suit against the people doing it. Then have the mettle to see it through the appeals. That's where these battles are fought - no taser required.

[tenpercentfirearms]

Is a random check the same thing as a traffic stop? Traffic stop assumes probable cause that you have comitted some sort of crime or infraction. The City of Pasadena and the City of Upland both hold checkpoints to verify your drivers license. I know because I've been stopped in both of them.

If these are not legal, how does one fight the practice and get it stopped... without getting tasered of course ;)

Driver's license checkpoints are legal, that is why they do them. When they stop you at one, that is where it gets interesting. Once you show them your driver's license, you are free to leave. The original intent of this thread was that a LEO was having people sit on the side of the road until a bomb sniffing dog showed up or they had one nearby. What you should do is simply drive away after they have verified your driver's license is valid.

Law enforcement can keep you for a reasonable amount of time to write a ticket, but if there is no ticket being issued and they want you to sit on the side of the road for a bomb sniffing dog to show up, you don't have to.

Of course you might end up going to court to affirm this as cops are pretty good about doing what they want in the field to a certain extent. What good are rights if you don't use them? So if you are going to drive away, be prepared to be chased down and harassed. You might win in the end, but probably not that night.

I like discussions like these because it makes everyone more aware of their rights. It also is interesting to see if anyone on here will ever have the stones to exercise their rights.

If you are confused by the never ending debate about having to show your ID, just forget about that as Blackflag tried to make it an issue, but it isn't. He is right that you do not have to show your ID to law enforcement if they approach you outside of your vehicle (unless state law requires it). You only have to provide your name. Of course that wouldn't apply to someone operating a motor vehicle who must lawfully possess a valid driver's license, but that point seemed lost to him.

[tyrist]

What is funny is in my experiance any vehicle can be stopped at will. Merely watch it for a few seconds and there will be some sort of violation. If the police want to detain you, you are getting detained. Whether it is a warning or a ticket is sometimes up to you. Look at a vehicle code book and dare to think you can follow everything.

[Piper]

I would strongly suggest that when you do call them on this unlawful detention, that you have some kind of recording device going. In fact, while you don't have to tell them that you are recording, I would strongly suggest you make the recording device obvious to them and watch the fun. I guarantee they will be say anything and use any stall tactic possible to hang onto you. And they will definately be asking for an ETA on the dog while they watch their watches tick away. At this point, a recording device is your very best friend. A camera or camcorder is even better.

[Blackflag]

I don't have time to disprove every idiot theory that somebody throws out there...but I had some extra time to find a case directed at vehicle ID checks - just for you. It just says the same as Hilbel, though. Personally, I like Hilbel the best.

"When there is not probable cause to believe that a driver is violating any one of the multitude of applicable traffic and equipment regulations, or other articulable basis amounting to reasonable suspicion that the driver is unlicensed or his vehicle unregistered, there is no legitimate basis upon which a patrolman could decide that stopping a particular driver for a spot check would be more productive than stopping any other driver. This kind of standardless and unconstrained discretion is the evil the United States Supreme Court has discerned when in previous cases it has insisted that the discretion of the official in the field be circumscribed, at least to some extent.

An individual operating or traveling in an automobile does not lose all reasonable expectation of privacy simply because the automobile and its use are subject to government regulation, and just as people are not shorn of all Fourth Amendment protection when they step from their homes onto the public sidewalks, nor are they shorn of those interests when they step from the sidewalks into their automobiles."

Delaware v. Prouse - U.S. Supreme Court. No random ID stops, even though Delaware had a law allowing it.

And back to the original topic of dog sniffs at a roadblock...

"It is well established that a vehicle stop at a highway checkpoint effectuates a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The fact that officers walk a narcotics-detection dog around the exterior of each car at the Indianapolis checkpoints does not transform the seizure into a search.

We decline to suspend the usual requirement of individualized suspicion where the police seek to employ a checkpoint primarily for the ordinary enterprise of investigating crimes.

Without drawing the line at roadblocks designed primarily to serve the general interest in crime control, the Fourth Amendment would do little to prevent such intrusions from becoming a routine part of American life."

Indianapolis v. Edmond - U.S. Supreme Court.

What about you? Did you have any luck finding California law allowing ID stops yet? :rolleyes: Enough of me doing the heavy lifting for you - time for you to open a book.:p

[tenpercentfirearms]

"When there is not probable cause to believe that a driver is violating any one of the multitude of applicable traffic and equipment regulations, or other articulable basis amounting to reasonable suspicion that the driver is unlicensed or his vehicle unregistered, there is no legitimate basis upon which a patrolman could decide that stopping a particular driver for a spot check would be more productive than stopping any other driver. This kind of standardless and unconstrained discretion is the evil the United States Supreme Court has discerned when in previous cases it has insisted that the discretion of the official in the field be circumscribed, at least to some extent.This is still lacking. I haven't read the actual case as I want to go to bed, but just what you quoted would only deal with an officer deciding to do random DL checks.

For example, "I pulled you over to see if you had a driver's license." Not legal.

However, if you stop every driver at a check point, it might be legal according to the Supreme Court. We will need to look up any cases regarding this...tomorrow.

What about you? Did you have any luck finding California law allowing ID stops yet? I wasn't really looking for it. Or are we talking about driver's license checks. We really need to diferentiate in this discussion the difference between identification checks and driver's license checks. As you pointed out, ID checks are not permissible. Driver's license checks might be.

The question is, does the penal code have to give authorization to law enforcement to conduct driver's license checks? Does the penal code give law enforcement authority to stop people for speeding? If it didn't, would they be allowed to pull people over for speeding?

Just curious.

And thank you for sticking to the subject this time and not making any personal attacks. This has turned into a pleasant discussion.

[odysseus]

As you pointed out, ID checks are not permissible. Driver's license checks might be.

No might about it. In my county they just tell you that they will be doing DUI and DL checks somewhere on a given evening. You are driving so they have the right to ask. However we all know this is just another method of "inspecting" for any other violations, as their reports on what they catch will tell you. I have been drilled on why I had bolt cutters in my car, when it actually was just my steering wheel lock on further inspection.

The current legality of all this should not be in question as it has been tested, however the fact that they might be in a future time hammered down should not be. Seems some are hellbent that there could never be fault with Checkpoints. It is in the courts, and courts rule by judicial opinion. It usually is that the envelope is further pressed until something of an outcry happens to where legal pressures further define or ratchet back questionable activity.

It's a slippery slope, and like my heated conversation with another here on this thread on them truly being "voluntary", and what that voluntary-ism really is, demonstrates on the differences and nuances of how they are administered. Many of these checkpoints might be done simply wrong or in very questionable ways. Just like in many other areas we all here see in 2nd Amendment rights, YMMV.

[Grouch]

Blackflag, what is it that makes you incapable from understanding the difference between an ID check and a drivers license check?

[tenpercentfirearms]

Blackflag, what is it that makes you incapable from understanding the difference between and ID check and a drivers license check?

Uncalled for, please edit and refrain from personal attacks (the way I quoted it is not uncalled for). Lets keep the discussion civil.

[Grouch]

Uncalled for, please edit and refrain from personal attacks (the way I quoted it is not uncalled for). Lets keep the discussion civil.

ehh

[metalhead357]

Just my 0.02

You guys are all off base: this thing was an underlying issue about guns and now its about personalities and nuances in ID over DL as ID.

Get it back on topic before she get shut down.

[ivanimal]

Blackflag, what is it that makes you incapable from understanding the difference between an ID check and a drivers license check?

Everyone here seems to want to identify what is legal versus illegal and how to stay out of harms way. You seem to want to get into arguments and press people into your myopic view of the law. We have rules of civility here and you stepped over the line. Enjoy your time off.:mad: