Yeah, it was a kangaroo court, for sure. I agree there should be some sanction against judges who are obviously biased and/or repeatedly make errors, especially when those repeated errors always seem to favor one side.
@@azazel20032001exactly. Need their money for their re-election campaign. If I see any judge that is endorsed by the police union then I will not vote for them.
Yeah that troubles me. The police shouldn't be allowed to do that. Otherwise, the 4th amendment means nothing. But then, after about four decades of erosion by the U.S. Supreme Court, the 4th amendment pretty much means nothing, anyway. ☹
We don't live in a nation of rule of law anymore. we live in a nation of arbitrary rule. For instance it's why police and the FBI do anything they can to violate people's Fourth amendment right and seize money and make it impossible to get back to pad their departments budgets.
The scariest thing in this whole story is the judges inclination to convict because a personal can appeal a bad ruling. How many people got railroaded and remain convicted because they couldn't afford an appeal? There is an institutional lack of accountability of the police in this case. This is the definition of a broken system.
Recent stats on DUI checkpoints show that there are far more arrests and tickets written for lack of documentation, suspended DL's etc. than for DUI, Many DUI check points result in 0 DUI's, but dozens of tickets and arrests for documentation, warrants, equipment violations, DL problems. These are becoming de facto "papers please" stops, not sobriety check points.
EXACTLY. This has always been my complaint about "DUI" checkpoints. They're *_not_* DUI checkpoints, they're "Papers, please" checkpoints. 👮♂️ The whole justification for DUI checkpoints, according to the Supreme Court's own ruling in _Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz_ (1990) was the carnage on our highways as a result of drunk driving. Of course, this is a "the ends justify the means" argument, but even putting that aside, how does the danger of drunk driving justify roadblocks merely to check driver's licenses and vehicle registrations? Drunk driving may indeed cause vehicle collisions, but merely not having a driver's license or an up-to-date vehicle registration doesn't. Those are purely administrative and bureaucratic issues that have nothing to do with the actual safe operation of a vehicle on the roads. So, as always, the government -- with the approval of the courts -- creates a small opening for itself and then later expands it beyond its original purpose and justification. Once the camel gets its nose under the tent, it squeezes its whole body in. That's how our rights are taken away -- not all at once, because that would be too obvious and controversial -- but rather bit by bit, so it can happen quietly when no one is looking.
@@Milesco I'm with you. A DUI checkpoint should be just that, nothing more. Simple question, "How much have you had to drink tonight? Oh nothing? have a nice evening. Would fix the back-ups too. The worse part, is that in 2000 stops, they got no DUI's, but 14 suspended/expired etc. So even that is less than 1% of drivers.
You say that like it's a bad thing. They are criminals that are now off the streets. If you don't have a legal license and all the legal paperwork you shouldn't be driving. Besides even if they only get one drunk or druggie off the street it's a win. Honestly they should have way more of these check points.
@@fluffycamo However, it is unconstitutional to run a roadblock for checking documentation and warrant checks, which is what the DUI checkpoints have become. It would be like cops walking down a pedestrian area and stopping and identifying everybody walking by. Like I said, many DUI checkpoints result in 0 DUI's. but lots of other arrests and tickets.
Very well done. I live in Oregon and a number of years ago our state legislature voted in a law that prohibits Police from conducting sobriety checkpoints. To be honest I feel it should be that way in all 50 states.
I agree. Its right up there with pre-employment drug screens. To me, the whole logic of testing everybody is just at best lazy. You're telling us, you can't tell if we're under the influence or not. In which case, I have to ask, does it matter? I'm not downplaying alcohol related DUIs, I know its a leading cause of death. I'm just saying, the approach to fix it doesn't seem to be the most effective way.
@@Nekulturnydrug screening should be deemed unconstitutional. One's performance on the job, or past jobs should be the only factor deciding whether or not they are hired or kept employed. What one does when not at work recreationally should have no bearing on there employment. The same with DUI, it should be a secondary offence and part of mitigating circumstances during sentencing once an actual crime (harm to another) had been committed.
@markbrown8097 pre employment drug screenings will NEVER have anything to do with the constitution. No Supreme Court ruling would change anything because those employers are not government agencies
The part I'm still puzzled about is how determining if a driver is drunk requires checking the license and registration of a driver who was stopped at rando and not based on probable cause.
They can and have still arrested people for interfering with an investigation when the remain silent. You can beat the rap but not the ride. Cops will always use their qualified immunity to bypass the constitution and violate your due process.
It’s probably also worth pointing out that the dude was driving drunk and this lawyer is finding technicalities to get him off. Maybe it would be better not to drive drunk and THEN not talk to the police when they harass you?
Here In WV I was arrested - to my surprise, convicted - of DUI even after passing the breath test with ALL ZEROS. & the breath test was literally the only test they did.
You definitely had a judge who deals with these officers on a daily basis. As far as I’m concerned, the first judge was quick to convict. Checkpoints are unconstitutional.
I miss these segments!! Keep 'em coming sooner!! I know you're a practicing attorney but the help you provide nationwide is a true and valuable service to us all. Best Wishes!!
It always seemed illegal to me since they are stopping people without cause, so even if they found the person drunk or a body in the back seat, those should not be able to be used in court.
Let's be honest here, with civil asset forfeiture and qualified immunity, the only thing really surprising about this case is that they didn't drag the guy out of the car on the premise of smelling weed beat him and then take his wallet and impound his car to keep it. Modern day highwaymen
@@Stelos-@Hadiez- No, Virginia passed a law saying that the odor of marijuana alone cannot establish reasonable suspision....look it up.... You a**holes who like to judge people for what they do in their own time are wild
Yes, drug prohibition has been used more than any other law in the past 50 years to destroy the rights of Americans and particularly the 4th amendment. Since Nixon launched the War on Drugs in 1971, the Supreme Court has made more rulings eroding the 4th amendment on drug cases than any other type of case. One Justice once smugly stated "there's a drug exemption to the 4th amendment" (that is LITERALLY Authoritarian thinking). We see in the news all the time the wrong house getting raided and cops pointing guns at innocent kids and we can thank Drug Prohibition for that as well because 96% of these no-knock raids are drug related...which means without drug laws, there wouldn't be much of a justification for these paramilitary, EXPENSIVE units in police departments, remember that for later. How about police militarization, we just love the police looking like an occupying army, right? Well, in a review of all the requests for military equipment from local police departments to the Pentagon in 2022, the most often cited justification for needing equipment like grenade launchers, spy drones, and cell phone signal interception equipment (those were all requested items) was "drug enforcement". How about civil asset forfeiture, basically state sanctioned theft by the cops....that got its modern, insane form thanks to the drug hysteria in the 80s under the Reagan administration when Republicans and democrats played a game of who could come up with the most draconian drug sentencing schemes (some included the death penalty). From what data we do have, we also know that the majority of civil asset forfeiture cases use "drugs" as their "justification". Drugs also make up at least 25%-30% of all arrests annually, with literally thousands of jurisdictions having Drugs comprise 50% or even 60% of their arrest numbers, and what are arrest numbers used for? To determine police budgets!!! So is it any surprise that cops love wasting time arresting people for simple possession than going after murders and rapists? BTW, the average sentence for a drug offender is longer than the average sentence for sexual assault, burglary, and arson....because a victimless crime should be punished more harshly than one with an actual victim, right? How about Warrantless vehicle searches, we also know the majoroty of those cite "drugs" as their probable cause. In fact, if you take a moment to think about, without Drug laws, the police wouldn't even have a reason to go on a fishing expedition with the vast majority of vehicle stops. So, we can see that drug laws have destroyed the 4th amendment and given the police more power and money than any other law or set or laws, so it's not a surprise to find out that Police Unions have spent more money than any other group or entity on opposing legislation and ballot initiatives aimed at drug law reform. They know that without drug laws, they wouldn't get to violate people's rights nearly as much, they wouldn't get as many arrests and therefore their budgets would shrink, and they wouldn't have an excuse for all that unnecessary military equipment. Bottom line, we need to end drug prohibition full stop and model drug prevention campaigns on what's been proven to work. For example, over the past three decades there has been the largest decline in tobacco use in American history. Did that require prohibition, throwing people in jail and a police state? No. All it took was a public education campaign that HONESTLY informed people about their dangers. Most importantly it respected freedom and the UNALIENABLE right of a consenting adult to determine for themselves what they can or cannot do with their own body. We can also look to Portugal who decriminalized ALL DRUGS in 2001 and now basically outperforms America in ever important metric with respect to drug use, i.e. lower teen drug use, lower overdose rate, lower overdose death rate, lower IV disease transmission rate, etc). The point is that ALL the evidence on what ACTUALLY reduces drug use and saves lives doesn't point to criminal charges and throwing people in prison, which begs the question, if drug prohibition isn't making anyone safer and only destroying our freedom....why has it persisted for so long and why do people still support it while basically universally accepting that alcohol prohibition was a failure and a terrible idea?
My girlfriend got stopped for a headlight out. A Sargent and 4 trainee cops. She got 5 searches, 5 breathalyzers, and 1 blood test. She blew .01. I was amazed she blew sober. They didn't ticket her. She also had an ounce of pot and a couple of prescription pills. Pills that weren't hers, but she has prescriptions for one or more of almost the same medicines. But waited almost 2 years to charge her. In court the D.A. claimed some paperwork was lost. Just so happened, I saved the copy of her breathalyzer they gave her. The line for the consent to a blood test was blank. Whole case was screwy. At one point they tried to charge her fees for house arrest. But she was never put on house arrest. Using my copy of the breathalyzer report, her public defender got her off all charges.
While I congratulate you on your win in court, it is sad that authorities can just change their written language to avoid legitimate defenses of the Constitution.
Court cases can be decided on details, sometime small. My favorite DUI/DWI nit pic is when newscasters and even the police misstate the legal limit for Blood Alcohol Content (BAC). In Washington state it is 0.08% BAC. Yet many simply refer to it as ".8". I've told a police officer I knew years ago that .8 is incorrect. He wanted to argue it. I told him that if a person had a BAC of .8 he/she likely would be dead from alcohol poisoning. I get the eyeball roll like I'm being picky but respond "Isn't that what you do every time you're on duty"?
Did the prosecution call a ferret from the side of the road to testify too? TWO gaping holes and the judge allows it to continue, I'm disgusted. I'm assuming that this was a jury trial instead of a bench trial at least?
Hahaha. Your comment is funnier than you know... Today I was in another court where the judge was being asked by the police to obtain custody of two FERRETS. True story. Hahaha.
I can strangely be dialed into a absurd detail that has no DIRECT relevance to the conversation at hand, but a strange relevance to a recent association. I can't tell you how often someone says, "Wow, its funny that you brought that up".@@Andrewflusche
I love when the people that are supposed to uphold the laws actually make up laws instead. They’re like… well we’re supposed to uphold these laws, but I don’t like this law so we’re gonna make one to uphold!
While I think DUI checkpoints are unconstitutional... Your client was driving drunk, irregardless if all cars were stopped and checked or if the cop forgot to sign the paper "certifying" the results of the breathalyzer. He should be convicted. It doesn't matter if a person is "okay to drive" or only "a little buzzed". Driving drunk is driving drunk and should be prosecuted to its fullest extent. If your client's job is on the line, it's his own fault for drinking and driving. Drinking and driving is no joke, it ruins lives.
Police, Prosecutors, and Judges are all paid from the same source. When the private sector does that, it’s called a conflict of interest. When the government does that, it’s called justice.
Your client was guilty and should've been convicted. You got him off on a technicality. That IS NOT justice. There is no reason in today's world why somebody can't just hire an Uber home. If the drunk person doesn't have any money, Uber will even drive him home for free.
The trial judge IMO demonstrated a Bias and should not be allowed to oversee anymore cases until they can demonstrate more self control, as should be expected of some one that can RUIN YOUR LIFE because they feel like it.
Case aside, do you really want people driving drunk? These cops didn't do things totally (by the book), but they still caught this drunk driver. Andrew was only able to win on appeal due to a technicality. It wasn't because his client was actually innocent.
There can be no justice with these dirty corrupt judges. They know as judges they are a protected class and never will be held to the standard that they hold the peasants to. Hopefully some local heroes will find this evil judge and serve and protect some justice into him.
good advice here, I'm happy about the win. I would like it much better if we didn't have to talk about strategies to defend against a roadblock if roadblocks were rightfully declared unconstitutional altogether.
If he was drunk who cares about a stupid signature? He still blew a .8 which is above the legal limits. He should be arrested license revoked and pay a huge fine. He was drunk and you helped him get away with his crime scot free.
When something like this roadblock is ruled unconstitutional, the department should be required to drop/reverse all charges against everyone else that was charged during the roadblock.
The real question is this. Since a court ruled it an unconstitutional stop, did every other defendant get their case or conviction thrown out? If not, they ALL need to file for it and then file a lawsuit for malicious prosecution when the prosecutor knew it was an unconstitutional stop.
The original trial judge needs to have what ever recourse Virginia, used to come after him, Judges must be held responsible as well. He violated the rights of your client, costing him money you don't work for free. Judges need to be held accountable as well for there constitutional violations as well
If that specific roadblock was deemed unconstitutional, would every driver who may have been charged with an offense at that roadblock be overturned? Or would each case need to retried on an individual basis?
@@Andrewflusche DUI checkpoints these days usually only result in 1, maybe 2, DUI arrests. The vast amount of arrests is for suspended drivers license, registration, etc. That is what should be unconstitutional.
I love lawyers who are also old school hackers. You did what every good hacker does... read the documentation and think while reading. I don't care if your client had been drinking or not, the cops shouldn't have done what they did... and you caught 'em. This is exactly why our society needs the honorable service of... the defense bar. Even though I don't drink (medical reasons) and am the 'responsible driver' for my friends, I absolutely hate DUI checkpoints. When I lived in the New York State, I knew, the location of the DUI checkpoints was definitely political, especially if you lived in a county that had a decent sized city and still had 'the hicks', if you were going to and from 'the hicks', you were more likely to get hassled by the cops. Yes, I lived in 'the hicks', especially if your truck or 4wd sported an 'I ain't no flatlander' bumper sticker. In S. county, the sheriff's patrol was targeting a roadhouse that was frequented by corrections officers. They would set-up on the flats either to the north or south of the roadhouse. When someone saw the sheriff's patrol setting up, someone would alert the landlady. Everyone was strongly advised to avail themselves of the breathalyzer near the door. She said that the cops will hassle designated drivers just because everyone else in the car were definitely drinking. They were known to hassle cars with out-of-state tags (roadhouse was close enough to a state line). Sometimes, the cops would keep the DUI checkpoint set-up past kick-out time. Then, she'd shut her establishment and serve free breakfasts in the car park. Yes, the landlady did have to avail herself of the services of a good attorney because she knew that her business was being targeted.
I thought there was a time limit that police can have you pulled over If a checkpoint is very busy would that timer start when you are waiting in the traffic they are causing or when you start talking to the officer?
Arkansas has the exact same process for trials. You get a bench trial at District, then if found guilty, you get a de novo appeal at Circuit, at which time you can invoke the right to trial by jury.
For Comparison (different state): "In 1994, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that DWI checkpoints violate the Constitution on the grounds that they deprive motorists of their search and seizure rights. Since this decision, state law has barred law enforcement from using these checkpoints as a tool for stopping DWIs."
The best thing you can do to defend yourself at a DUI checkpoint is to not drink for at least 6 hours before you drive a car. No court costs. No lawyer fees, no job loss, no time in the back of a police car or jail cell, and best of all, no really ticked off wife.
Just don't drink at all, if you are going out for drinks have a Designated driver or Uber / taxi / to your additional locations / home. Uber is a lot cheaper vs lawyer / court costs + the frustration.
That is good advice... however police have been know to arrest people who are sober. I think this guy even did a video about a college student who made two tiny errors while doing a roadside sobriety test. He blew a 0.0% and was arrested for DUI. The charges were eventually dismissed. I am sure he was still stuck with some legal fees though.
Why is it here in South Carolina South Carolina Court said it was unconstitutional for police to have DUI checkpoints but in other states is completely legal. If it's unconstitutional in one state he should be unconstitutional in another state that would seem to be reasonable
I have often wondered how they get away with "the odor of an alcoholic beverage." Wouldn't the odor of a beverage be substantially different than the odor of metabolized alcohol on someone's breath?
Great content, as usual. I am a 35-year Texas cop with a lot of DWI enforcement experience. Even back when they were legal here, I have never seen a DWI roadblock and have never worked with anyone who thought they were a good idea. We have had numerous people hit and or killed, including cops in patrol cars who were clearly visible at the time. DWI kills people and you should avoid driving after drinking, whether you think you are okay or not. You do not want to hurt or kill someone ever, but you certainly do not want to be in a crash after leaving a bar or party.
Great point KhanTrav. It's not always right for people to escape conviction on technicalities. I can appreciate Andy's hard work saving this person but never did I hear him say he had not been drinking. Who's to say this person will not be right back on the street under the influence next week and kill someone.
@@Chris55433 I was thinking the same thing. I believe most drunk drivers suffer in a lot of ways beyond just a misdemeanor conviction. A serious DWI defense is not cheap, and even a successful one would leave a mark on the normal human.
It is absolutely infuriating to me when the system flat out ignores its own rules as unambiguously written in black and white, and even contradicts its own statements. Cop: “we didn’t check every car”. Judge: “by not checking every car while standing on the north side of a crossroads on a moonless night at the witching hour while holding a branch of hemlock, magically every car was checked in spirit”. Along with years of study and a lot of student loans, one of the major obstacles to me ever becoming a lawyer is that I would introduce inadmissible character evidence against the judge’s mother in a situation like that.
I'm confused about the checkpoint plan: it does state if it gets too busy they no longer have to check every car (backup of more than 8 cars or more than 500 ft) so why would the second judge find it unconstitutional without more specific details from officer Andy?
Now its time for the civil suit against the police\city\county for violating his rights by stopping him and not Everyone. If you were able to get the judge to admit there was a forth amendment violation and dismiss the charges, then a civil case to get paid for all the fees, lawyers, time off, and travel expenses should not be too hard.
I agree. I don't drink or do drugs, keep my car registration and DL current. The checkpoints are a real inconvenience (especially when you're trying to be somewhere), but they do catch drunk drivers.
@@HappyBoxer-nb1mb my source is several YT videos reporting on the matter. Just look up the Loveland, Colorado Police Department…they shelled out $400,000 due to ONE false DUI arrest! It’s a huge problem because cops are all rewarded like their K-9s for finding DUIs, even if they have to make them up.
Atta Boy Andy!!!! If I was a Lawyer.... we'd make a great team!!! I just know it.... Right now, I'm just waiting to get a first-time driving infraction on my next driving venture to Virginia....(I live in NC)... Shouldn't be long!!! Hope to See ya then!! LY
I would love to hold a sign about 1/2 mile before the DUI checkpoint that alerts drivers there is a road block ahead and that way they can choose to take another route and avoid being inconvenienced. I bet the cops would would boiling mad at me!
So I am curious, with the roadblock deemed unlawful did you seek out others that might have been wrongfully convicted to have their verdicts overturned?
The cops clearly disregarded the defendant’s constitutional rights. The judge in the initial trial clearly disregarded the defendant’s constitutional rights. Why are there no consequences for those in authority who do this? Especially for judges, who are expected to know and fully understand the laws. A judge who is found to repeatedly ignore the constitutional rights of defendants should not only be disbarred and fired, but also arrested and tried for these crimes.
No roadblocks where I live. The police know better. If they tried any number of us would call the officers momma (because we all know each other up here) and she would come down hollering about why is her baby boy bothering all these nice people. Ever see a deputy switched by a 70 year old woman? You don't want that, you don't want to see that, and you sure as hell don't want to be on the receiving end of it. Out here our justice is handled morally, not ethically.
In 1993, after the First Gulf War, I was sent Fort Eustis in Virginia for training and was stopped at a DUI checkpoint on my way to assignment in Germany. I did a blood test, which would take six weeks to get results, well after my assignment required me to be in Germany. Even though I only had the classic 2 beers, it would still mess things and my career up if the service found this out. The state was accommodating and agreed to an early hearing at which time, my Attorney, James, used his silver bullet, which was each DUI checkpoint needed a safety plan in their overall plan and this checkpoint did not have one. Helping the matter was the DA was a former 82nd airborne officer and I wore my uniform with 82nd patches and my beret to court. She did not protest, and I proceeded on my way to Germany.
Good stuff, Maynard! Way to go taking it to appelate court. Great explanation for laymen. This is cringeworthy-shareable... yes you did great by your client (great job!) but you allowed a 0.09%BAC violater to escape the results of his actions. Not that him going to jail, paying a fine, or losing a job would -- in any way -- help him or anyone else, but the message being sent is clear: Drive drunk and a good lawyer will help you escape consequences. On the legal front I'm happy you prevailed. As my lawyer friends keep saying "Everyone has a right to competent counsel." E
I always thought that a criminal conviction required to have zero reasonable doubt. If the judge doesn't follow that rule, in which there was doubt both in the non signature of the paperwork, AND the admission by the officer that they didn't stop all vehicles, how could he have ruled in such a manner? Or does this only pertain to trials where a jury is involved?
Reasonable doubt is in regards to guilt or innocence, not the admissibility of documents or testimony. The judge was still clearly wrong, of course. He obviously should not have admitted the police officer's testimony. The checkpoint was unlawfully conducted, and the breathalyzer test certification form wasn't signed. But the concept of "reasonable doubt" or guilt or innocence was not the issue in this case. It was about the admissibility of evidence and testimony.
TWO violations on part of the police and still found guilty? That judge needs to be disbarred
Yeah, it was a kangaroo court, for sure. I agree there should be some sanction against judges who are obviously biased and/or repeatedly make errors, especially when those repeated errors always seem to favor one side.
A roof top vote would fix other judges.
Make judges afraid again
The check from the police union probably cleared.
@@37thgungruntsFeral hog problems require well-regulated solutions.
@@azazel20032001exactly. Need their money for their re-election campaign.
If I see any judge that is endorsed by the police union then I will not vote for them.
Funny how when you follow their own rules the police/judges will move the goal posts to still be in the "right"
Yeah that troubles me. The police shouldn't be allowed to do that. Otherwise, the 4th amendment means nothing. But then, after about four decades of erosion by the U.S. Supreme Court, the 4th amendment pretty much means nothing, anyway. ☹
We don't live in a nation of rule of law anymore. we live in a nation of arbitrary rule. For instance it's why police and the FBI do anything they can to violate people's Fourth amendment right and seize money and make it impossible to get back to pad their departments budgets.
Yeah, funny how the corrupt system uses corruption.
It's called corruption... they "specialize" in that kind of activity. Corruption... their literal bread and butter of existence!
No. They are still in the wrong. Now, twice.
The scariest thing in this whole story is the judges inclination to convict because a personal can appeal a bad ruling. How many people got railroaded and remain convicted because they couldn't afford an appeal? There is an institutional lack of accountability of the police in this case. This is the definition of a broken system.
Recent stats on DUI checkpoints show that there are far more arrests and tickets written for lack of documentation, suspended DL's etc. than for DUI, Many DUI check points result in 0 DUI's, but dozens of tickets and arrests for documentation, warrants, equipment violations, DL problems. These are becoming de facto "papers please" stops, not sobriety check points.
EXACTLY. This has always been my complaint about "DUI" checkpoints. They're *_not_* DUI checkpoints, they're "Papers, please" checkpoints. 👮♂️
The whole justification for DUI checkpoints, according to the Supreme Court's own ruling in _Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz_ (1990) was the carnage on our highways as a result of drunk driving. Of course, this is a "the ends justify the means" argument, but even putting that aside, how does the danger of drunk driving justify roadblocks merely to check driver's licenses and vehicle registrations? Drunk driving may indeed cause vehicle collisions, but merely not having a driver's license or an up-to-date vehicle registration doesn't. Those are purely administrative and bureaucratic issues that have nothing to do with the actual safe operation of a vehicle on the roads.
So, as always, the government -- with the approval of the courts -- creates a small opening for itself and then later expands it beyond its original purpose and justification. Once the camel gets its nose under the tent, it squeezes its whole body in.
That's how our rights are taken away -- not all at once, because that would be too obvious and controversial -- but rather bit by bit, so it can happen quietly when no one is looking.
@@Milesco I'm with you. A DUI checkpoint should be just that, nothing more. Simple question, "How much have you had to drink tonight? Oh nothing? have a nice evening. Would fix the back-ups too. The worse part, is that in 2000 stops, they got no DUI's, but 14 suspended/expired etc. So even that is less than 1% of drivers.
A 7 hour check here resulted in 3 DUI. And MANY small infractions
You say that like it's a bad thing. They are criminals that are now off the streets. If you don't have a legal license and all the legal paperwork you shouldn't be driving. Besides even if they only get one drunk or druggie off the street it's a win. Honestly they should have way more of these check points.
@@fluffycamo However, it is unconstitutional to run a roadblock for checking documentation and warrant checks, which is what the DUI checkpoints have become. It would be like cops walking down a pedestrian area and stopping and identifying everybody walking by. Like I said, many DUI checkpoints result in 0 DUI's. but lots of other arrests and tickets.
Very well done. I live in Oregon and a number of years ago our state legislature voted in a law that prohibits Police from conducting sobriety checkpoints. To be honest I feel it should be that way in all 50 states.
I agree. Its right up there with pre-employment drug screens. To me, the whole logic of testing everybody is just at best lazy. You're telling us, you can't tell if we're under the influence or not. In which case, I have to ask, does it matter? I'm not downplaying alcohol related DUIs, I know its a leading cause of death. I'm just saying, the approach to fix it doesn't seem to be the most effective way.
I live in Texas and the Checkpoints are also illegal, surprised states actually do them.
@@Nekulturnydrug screening should be deemed unconstitutional. One's performance on the job, or past jobs should be the only factor deciding whether or not they are hired or kept employed. What one does when not at work recreationally should have no bearing on there employment. The same with DUI, it should be a secondary offence and part of mitigating circumstances during sentencing once an actual crime (harm to another) had been committed.
@markbrown8097 pre employment drug screenings will NEVER have anything to do with the constitution. No Supreme Court ruling would change anything because those employers are not government agencies
In Minnesota they're considered unconstitutional, according to the state Constitution. So that's pretty cool.
As others have said, the rule book means nothing if they can rewrite it in the courtroom. American Justice is becoming an oxymoron.
The part I'm still puzzled about is how determining if a driver is drunk requires checking the license and registration of a driver who was stopped at rando and not based on probable cause.
5:30 Because you can appeal, Virginia judges are quick to convict if there is a grey area. What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Didn't make as much money.
The old. South .
Its a circus below the mason-dixon line
That phrase is propaganda, not reality.
It doesn’t apply in traffic court. And that’s in every state, not just southern states.
"Don't talk to the police." Probably the very best advice a lawyer can possibly give.
They can and have still arrested people for interfering with an investigation when the remain silent. You can beat the rap but not the ride. Cops will always use their qualified immunity to bypass the constitution and violate your due process.
It’s probably also worth pointing out that the dude was driving drunk and this lawyer is finding technicalities to get him off. Maybe it would be better not to drive drunk and THEN not talk to the police when they harass you?
Here In WV I was arrested - to my surprise, convicted - of DUI even after passing the breath test with ALL ZEROS. & the breath test was literally the only test they did.
You definitely had a judge who deals with these officers on a daily basis. As far as I’m concerned, the first judge was quick to convict.
Checkpoints are unconstitutional.
Yeah, it sounds like these first round trial courts are just kangaroo courts that rubber stamp whatever the prosecution says. 😠
@@jessjmanns What do you mean "consent to them"? It's not like you have a choice not to stop at checkpoints.
I miss these segments!! Keep 'em coming sooner!! I know you're a practicing attorney but the help you provide nationwide is a true and valuable service to us all. Best Wishes!!
Thanks! I'm trying.
@@Andrewflusche It shows!
It always seemed illegal to me since they are stopping people without cause, so even if they found the person drunk or a body in the back seat, those should not be able to be used in court.
Let's be honest here, with civil asset forfeiture and qualified immunity, the only thing really surprising about this case is that they didn't drag the guy out of the car on the premise of smelling weed beat him and then take his wallet and impound his car to keep it. Modern day highwaymen
Yes, though an odor of marijuana is no longer allowed as a reasonable suspicion since recreational weed was legalized
@redjoker365 Of course it is. That's like saying alcohol is legal therefore I can drink and drive.
You drug addicts are wild.
@@redjoker365depends on the state your in
@@Stelos-@Hadiez- No, Virginia passed a law saying that the odor of marijuana alone cannot establish reasonable suspision....look it up....
You a**holes who like to judge people for what they do in their own time are wild
Yes, drug prohibition has been used more than any other law in the past 50 years to destroy the rights of Americans and particularly the 4th amendment.
Since Nixon launched the War on Drugs in 1971, the Supreme Court has made more rulings eroding the 4th amendment on drug cases than any other type of case. One Justice once smugly stated "there's a drug exemption to the 4th amendment" (that is LITERALLY Authoritarian thinking).
We see in the news all the time the wrong house getting raided and cops pointing guns at innocent kids and we can thank Drug Prohibition for that as well because 96% of these no-knock raids are drug related...which means without drug laws, there wouldn't be much of a justification for these paramilitary, EXPENSIVE units in police departments, remember that for later.
How about police militarization, we just love the police looking like an occupying army, right? Well, in a review of all the requests for military equipment from local police departments to the Pentagon in 2022, the most often cited justification for needing equipment like grenade launchers, spy drones, and cell phone signal interception equipment (those were all requested items) was "drug enforcement".
How about civil asset forfeiture, basically state sanctioned theft by the cops....that got its modern, insane form thanks to the drug hysteria in the 80s under the Reagan administration when Republicans and democrats played a game of who could come up with the most draconian drug sentencing schemes (some included the death penalty). From what data we do have, we also know that the majority of civil asset forfeiture cases use "drugs" as their "justification".
Drugs also make up at least 25%-30% of all arrests annually, with literally thousands of jurisdictions having Drugs comprise 50% or even 60% of their arrest numbers, and what are arrest numbers used for? To determine police budgets!!! So is it any surprise that cops love wasting time arresting people for simple possession than going after murders and rapists? BTW, the average sentence for a drug offender is longer than the average sentence for sexual assault, burglary, and arson....because a victimless crime should be punished more harshly than one with an actual victim, right?
How about Warrantless vehicle searches, we also know the majoroty of those cite "drugs" as their probable cause. In fact, if you take a moment to think about, without Drug laws, the police wouldn't even have a reason to go on a fishing expedition with the vast majority of vehicle stops.
So, we can see that drug laws have destroyed the 4th amendment and given the police more power and money than any other law or set or laws, so it's not a surprise to find out that Police Unions have spent more money than any other group or entity on opposing legislation and ballot initiatives aimed at drug law reform. They know that without drug laws, they wouldn't get to violate people's rights nearly as much, they wouldn't get as many arrests and therefore their budgets would shrink, and they wouldn't have an excuse for all that unnecessary military equipment.
Bottom line, we need to end drug prohibition full stop and model drug prevention campaigns on what's been proven to work. For example, over the past three decades there has been the largest decline in tobacco use in American history. Did that require prohibition, throwing people in jail and a police state? No. All it took was a public education campaign that HONESTLY informed people about their dangers.
Most importantly it respected freedom and the UNALIENABLE right of a consenting adult to determine for themselves what they can or cannot do with their own body. We can also look to Portugal who decriminalized ALL DRUGS in 2001 and now basically outperforms America in ever important metric with respect to drug use, i.e. lower teen drug use, lower overdose rate, lower overdose death rate, lower IV disease transmission rate, etc).
The point is that ALL the evidence on what ACTUALLY reduces drug use and saves lives doesn't point to criminal charges and throwing people in prison, which begs the question, if drug prohibition isn't making anyone safer and only destroying our freedom....why has it persisted for so long and why do people still support it while basically universally accepting that alcohol prohibition was a failure and a terrible idea?
My girlfriend got stopped for a headlight out. A Sargent and 4 trainee cops. She got 5 searches, 5 breathalyzers, and 1 blood test. She blew .01. I was amazed she blew sober. They didn't ticket her. She also had an ounce of pot and a couple of prescription pills. Pills that weren't hers, but she has prescriptions for one or more of almost the same medicines. But waited almost 2 years to charge her. In court the D.A. claimed some paperwork was lost. Just so happened, I saved the copy of her breathalyzer they gave her. The line for the consent to a blood test was blank. Whole case was screwy. At one point they tried to charge her fees for house arrest. But she was never put on house arrest. Using my copy of the breathalyzer report, her public defender got her off all charges.
While I congratulate you on your win in court, it is sad that authorities can just change their written language to avoid legitimate defenses of the Constitution.
Yes indeed.
Court cases can be decided on details, sometime small. My favorite DUI/DWI nit pic is when newscasters and even the police misstate the legal limit for Blood Alcohol Content (BAC). In Washington state it is 0.08% BAC. Yet many simply refer to it as ".8". I've told a police officer I knew years ago that .8 is incorrect. He wanted to argue it. I told him that if a person had a BAC of .8 he/she likely would be dead from alcohol poisoning. I get the eyeball roll like I'm being picky but respond "Isn't that what you do every time you're on duty"?
Did the prosecution call a ferret from the side of the road to testify too? TWO gaping holes and the judge allows it to continue, I'm disgusted. I'm assuming that this was a jury trial instead of a bench trial at least?
Hahaha. Your comment is funnier than you know... Today I was in another court where the judge was being asked by the police to obtain custody of two FERRETS. True story. Hahaha.
I can strangely be dialed into a absurd detail that has no DIRECT relevance to the conversation at hand, but a strange relevance to a recent association. I can't tell you how often someone says, "Wow, its funny that you brought that up".@@Andrewflusche
@@Andrewfluscheisn't the officer testifying to the breathalyzer reading an example of hearsay?
@@franklyanogre00000 Not if he personally witnessed it.
@@franklyanogre00000 Wouldn't that interpretation require the breathalyzer to be considered a person?
You're a lawyer, you can effect change more than I can as a disabled vet, please, keep doing the right thing man.
I love when the people that are supposed to uphold the laws actually make up laws instead.
They’re like… well we’re supposed to uphold these laws, but I don’t like this law so we’re gonna make one to uphold!
While I think DUI checkpoints are unconstitutional... Your client was driving drunk, irregardless if all cars were stopped and checked or if the cop forgot to sign the paper "certifying" the results of the breathalyzer. He should be convicted. It doesn't matter if a person is "okay to drive" or only "a little buzzed". Driving drunk is driving drunk and should be prosecuted to its fullest extent. If your client's job is on the line, it's his own fault for drinking and driving. Drinking and driving is no joke, it ruins lives.
Nice work for your client!!! And thanks for your great videos!
Police, Prosecutors, and Judges are all paid from the same source.
When the private sector does that, it’s called a conflict of interest.
When the government does that, it’s called justice.
Flusche shoots and he SCORES! Nicely done Andrew!! Details....they're important!! haha
Your client was guilty and should've been convicted. You got him off on a technicality. That IS NOT justice. There is no reason in today's world why somebody can't just hire an Uber home. If the drunk person doesn't have any money, Uber will even drive him home for free.
The trial judge IMO demonstrated a Bias and should not be allowed to oversee anymore cases until they can demonstrate more self control, as should be expected of some one that can RUIN YOUR LIFE because they feel like it.
These stops are 100% a constitutional violation but I’m not going to cheer for a drunk driver
It's no wonder why people no longer respect cops anymore.
Case aside, do you really want people driving drunk? These cops didn't do things totally (by the book), but they still caught this drunk driver. Andrew was only able to win on appeal due to a technicality. It wasn't because his client was actually innocent.
You make my favourite US law videos. Real people, real situations, real interesting. Keep 'em coming, Andrew!
There can be no justice with these dirty corrupt judges. They know as judges they are a protected class and never will be held to the standard that they hold the peasants to. Hopefully some local heroes will find this evil judge and serve and protect some justice into him.
Now consider how this case would have gone if it had been a Public Defender handling it.
how guilty are you going to feel when your client drives drunk again and kills someone
He was driving drunk, though. Officer directly witnessed this. Isn’t that evidence in some capacity?
good advice here, I'm happy about the win. I would like it much better if we didn't have to talk about strategies to defend against a roadblock if roadblocks were rightfully declared unconstitutional altogether.
I really like these videos that you make that are based on real cases that you have done. great video as usual!
Are we supposed to consider this a win now that we have another drunk driver on the road
If he was drunk who cares about a stupid signature? He still blew a .8 which is above the legal limits. He should be arrested license revoked and pay a huge fine. He was drunk and you helped him get away with his crime scot free.
Andrew, you are the uncle all of us wish we had! Great vid!
When something like this roadblock is ruled unconstitutional, the department should be required to drop/reverse all charges against everyone else that was charged during the roadblock.
Good job, Sir Drew. Glad you shared. 👍🏻
Well done. Thanks for what you do.
Did you also appeal based on the judge allowing the officer to testify about the breath machine reading? Or only the roadblock procedures?
Thanks!
Wow. Thank you very much!
Thank you for fighting back against the fascist authoritarian system. We need more like you.
With the roadblock declared unconstitutional, does that automatically throw out other dui convictions from that roadblock?
The first judge needs a brain transplant. Thank you for being a great lawyer. You vigorously defend you client.
The real question is this. Since a court ruled it an unconstitutional stop, did every other defendant get their case or conviction thrown out? If not, they ALL need to file for it and then file a lawsuit for malicious prosecution when the prosecutor knew it was an unconstitutional stop.
The original trial judge needs to have what ever recourse Virginia, used to come after him, Judges must be held responsible as well. He violated the rights of your client, costing him money you don't work for free. Judges need to be held accountable as well for there constitutional violations as well
One of your best videos yet!
CAN'T WAIT FOR THE SECOND SEASON!
Thanks for your extremely important work and for taking the time to share with us.🌞
If that specific roadblock was deemed unconstitutional, would every driver who may have been charged with an offense at that roadblock be overturned? Or would each case need to retried on an individual basis?
Retried
If they didn't contest the charge to begin with, they're toast now. Convictions don't get overturned because of a ruling in a different case.
@@Andrewflusche DUI checkpoints these days usually only result in 1, maybe 2, DUI arrests. The vast amount of arrests is for suspended drivers license, registration, etc. That is what should be unconstitutional.
I love lawyers who are also old school hackers. You did what every good hacker does... read the documentation and think while reading. I don't care if your client had been drinking or not, the cops shouldn't have done what they did... and you caught 'em. This is exactly why our society needs the honorable service of... the defense bar.
Even though I don't drink (medical reasons) and am the 'responsible driver' for my friends, I absolutely hate DUI checkpoints. When I lived in the New York State, I knew, the location of the DUI checkpoints was definitely political, especially if you lived in a county that had a decent sized city and still had 'the hicks', if you were going to and from 'the hicks', you were more likely to get hassled by the cops. Yes, I lived in 'the hicks', especially if your truck or 4wd sported an 'I ain't no flatlander' bumper sticker. In S. county, the sheriff's patrol was targeting a roadhouse that was frequented by corrections officers. They would set-up on the flats either to the north or south of the roadhouse. When someone saw the sheriff's patrol setting up, someone would alert the landlady. Everyone was strongly advised to avail themselves of the breathalyzer near the door. She said that the cops will hassle designated drivers just because everyone else in the car were definitely drinking. They were known to hassle cars with out-of-state tags (roadhouse was close enough to a state line). Sometimes, the cops would keep the DUI checkpoint set-up past kick-out time. Then, she'd shut her establishment and serve free breakfasts in the car park. Yes, the landlady did have to avail herself of the services of a good attorney because she knew that her business was being targeted.
How much does it cost for attorney fees for this initial court appearance, and then more cost to have an appeal?
Good work. Way to stay diligent.
Great to see you post another video! I'd love to know what county/jurisdiction this was.... curiosity and all.
Great job, Andrew! Keep up the good work 👏.
I thought there was a time limit that police can have you pulled over If a checkpoint is very busy would that timer start when you are waiting in the traffic they are causing or when you start talking to the officer?
The cop not showing up should be held in contempt and jailed!! Period.
What is the use of having a laws and rules if the judge is going to throw out the evidence? Judges need to be held accountable.
Arkansas has the exact same process for trials. You get a bench trial at District, then if found guilty, you get a de novo appeal at Circuit, at which time you can invoke the right to trial by jury.
This video left me feeling happy.
For Comparison (different state): "In 1994, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that DWI checkpoints violate the Constitution on the grounds that they deprive motorists of their search and seizure rights. Since this decision, state law has barred law enforcement from using these checkpoints as a tool for stopping DWIs."
There is no justice without a win in the civil lawsuit.
That was good 😊 Perry Mason, Dragnet and Law& Order!
So no question about the fact he did indeed indicate as drunk... And was driving...
“Justice” is so fuzzy. It sounds like this guy was guilty but got off on a technicality.
Somehow this idea of having gov and police to protect the peoples rights has backfired on the people.
Wait...a trial judge ignored the law?! Is anyone actually surprised?
The best thing you can do to defend yourself at a DUI checkpoint is to not drink for at least 6 hours before you drive a car. No court costs. No lawyer fees, no job loss, no time in the back of a police car or jail cell, and best of all, no really ticked off wife.
Just don't drink at all, if you are going out for drinks have a Designated driver or Uber / taxi / to your additional locations / home.
Uber is a lot cheaper vs lawyer / court costs + the frustration.
That is good advice... however police have been know to arrest people who are sober. I think this guy even did a video about a college student who made two tiny errors while doing a roadside sobriety test. He blew a 0.0% and was arrested for DUI. The charges were eventually dismissed. I am sure he was still stuck with some legal fees though.
When you deal with the Devil, you are not going to win if he does not want you to win.@@rudder727
True. But even 6 hours isn't enough time if you REALLY tied one on.
I stopped drinking many years ago. I was going from memory. I may edit it to say 10 hours to be safe. Thanks for all your videos. @@Andrewflusche
Funny, here in Florida, how many judges were former prosecutors. I see the slant every. Single. Day.
Lower court judges are horrendous .
Even under those criteria the checkpoints are unconstitutional. The courts have this one wrong
SCOTUS ruled that they cannot check all the cars that go through a DUI check point it has to be at a minimum every few
Why is it here in South Carolina South Carolina Court said it was unconstitutional for police to have DUI checkpoints but in other states is completely legal. If it's unconstitutional in one state he should be unconstitutional in another state that would seem to be reasonable
I have often wondered how they get away with "the odor of an alcoholic beverage." Wouldn't the odor of a beverage be substantially different than the odor of metabolized alcohol on someone's breath?
Great content, as usual. I am a 35-year Texas cop with a lot of DWI enforcement experience. Even back when they were legal here, I have never seen a DWI roadblock and have never worked with anyone who thought they were a good idea. We have had numerous people hit and or killed, including cops in patrol cars who were clearly visible at the time. DWI kills people and you should avoid driving after drinking, whether you think you are okay or not. You do not want to hurt or kill someone ever, but you certainly do not want to be in a crash after leaving a bar or party.
Great point KhanTrav. It's not always right for people to escape conviction on technicalities. I can appreciate Andy's hard work saving this person but never did I hear him say he had not been drinking. Who's to say this person will not be right back on the street under the influence next week and kill someone.
@@psuitt I hope defendants like this feel that going through the legal process was enough deterrent to set them straight.
What some people call "technicalities," I call the Constitution of the United States of America.
@@Chris55433 I was thinking the same thing. I believe most drunk drivers suffer in a lot of ways beyond just a misdemeanor conviction. A serious DWI defense is not cheap, and even a successful one would leave a mark on the normal human.
So glad I live in the state of Oregon where DUI checkpoints are unconstitutional
You've got a great channel, thanks.
It is absolutely infuriating to me when the system flat out ignores its own rules as unambiguously written in black and white, and even contradicts its own statements.
Cop: “we didn’t check every car”.
Judge: “by not checking every car while standing on the north side of a crossroads on a moonless night at the witching hour while holding a branch of hemlock, magically every car was checked in spirit”.
Along with years of study and a lot of student loans, one of the major obstacles to me ever becoming a lawyer is that I would introduce inadmissible character evidence against the judge’s mother in a situation like that.
Well done sir! Though I do hope Joe has learned his lesson when it comes to (allegedly) driving under the influence.
I'm confused about the checkpoint plan: it does state if it gets too busy they no longer have to check every car (backup of more than 8 cars or more than 500 ft) so why would the second judge find it unconstitutional without more specific details from officer Andy?
I must live in the nice side of VA because I've never heard of a DUI roadblock.
Judges have way too much power in this country, and nearly zero accountability
Now its time for the civil suit against the police\city\county for violating his rights by stopping him and not Everyone. If you were able to get the judge to admit there was a forth amendment violation and dismiss the charges, then a civil case to get paid for all the fees, lawyers, time off, and travel expenses should not be too hard.
Congrats, you allowed a drunk driver back on the streets!
The *best* way to defeat a DUI checkpoint is to be sober behind the wheel.
I agree. I don't drink or do drugs, keep my car registration and DL current. The checkpoints are a real inconvenience (especially when you're trying to be somewhere), but they do catch drunk drivers.
You’re kidding right? Haven’t you seen all the people getting DUIs even when they blow triple zeros?!?
@@LeeHawkinsPhotoYeah your source is “trust me bro..”
@@HappyBoxer-nb1mb my source is several YT videos reporting on the matter. Just look up the Loveland, Colorado Police Department…they shelled out $400,000 due to ONE false DUI arrest! It’s a huge problem because cops are all rewarded like their K-9s for finding DUIs, even if they have to make them up.
Atta Boy Andy!!!!
If I was a Lawyer.... we'd make a great team!!! I just know it....
Right now, I'm just waiting to get a first-time driving infraction on my next driving venture to Virginia....(I live in NC)...
Shouldn't be long!!! Hope to See ya then!!
LY
I would love to hold a sign about 1/2 mile before the DUI checkpoint that alerts drivers there is a road block ahead and that way they can choose to take another route and avoid being inconvenienced. I bet the cops would would boiling mad at me!
Great tribute to Dragnet and Law and Order
So I am curious, with the roadblock deemed unlawful did you seek out others that might have been wrongfully convicted to have their verdicts overturned?
its called judicial misconduct...
The cops clearly disregarded the defendant’s constitutional rights. The judge in the initial trial clearly disregarded the defendant’s constitutional rights. Why are there no consequences for those in authority who do this?
Especially for judges, who are expected to know and fully understand the laws. A judge who is found to repeatedly ignore the constitutional rights of defendants should not only be disbarred and fired, but also arrested and tried for these crimes.
No roadblocks where I live. The police know better. If they tried any number of us would call the officers momma (because we all know each other up here) and she would come down hollering about why is her baby boy bothering all these nice people. Ever see a deputy switched by a 70 year old woman? You don't want that, you don't want to see that, and you sure as hell don't want to be on the receiving end of it. Out here our justice is handled morally, not ethically.
In 1993, after the First Gulf War, I was sent Fort Eustis in Virginia for training and was stopped at a DUI checkpoint on my way to assignment in Germany. I did a blood test, which would take six weeks to get results, well after my assignment required me to be in Germany. Even though I only had the classic 2 beers, it would still mess things and my career up if the service found this out. The state was accommodating and agreed to an early hearing at which time, my Attorney, James, used his silver bullet, which was each DUI checkpoint needed a safety plan in their overall plan and this checkpoint did not have one. Helping the matter was the DA was a former 82nd airborne officer and I wore my uniform with 82nd patches and my beret to court. She did not protest, and I proceeded on my way to Germany.
If you had had only the proverbial "two beers", why didn't you opt for the breath test, which would've provided immediate results?
i hate judges that ignore the law, like this judge skipped over the law twice.. that kind of judge should be fired.
So the drink driver got off on a technicality. Oh joy.
Good stuff, Maynard! Way to go taking it to appelate court. Great explanation for laymen. This is cringeworthy-shareable... yes you did great by your client (great job!) but you allowed a 0.09%BAC violater to escape the results of his actions. Not that him going to jail, paying a fine, or losing a job would -- in any way -- help him or anyone else, but the message being sent is clear: Drive drunk and a good lawyer will help you escape consequences.
On the legal front I'm happy you prevailed. As my lawyer friends keep saying "Everyone has a right to competent counsel."
E
I always thought that a criminal conviction required to have zero reasonable doubt. If the judge doesn't follow that rule, in which there was doubt both in the non signature of the paperwork, AND the admission by the officer that they didn't stop all vehicles, how could he have ruled in such a manner? Or does this only pertain to trials where a jury is involved?
Reasonable doubt is in regards to guilt or innocence, not the admissibility of documents or testimony.
The judge was still clearly wrong, of course. He obviously should not have admitted the police officer's testimony. The checkpoint was unlawfully conducted, and the breathalyzer test certification form wasn't signed. But the concept of "reasonable doubt" or guilt or innocence was not the issue in this case. It was about the admissibility of evidence and testimony.
Nice job! Great video.