Stopped at a DUI Checkpoint? What to do.
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 жов 2024
- Ivan O.B. Morse, Criminal Defense Lawyer discusses what to do if stopped at a DUI Checkpoint. Contact Ivan Morse, a criminal defense attorney at www.ivanmorse.com or www.ivanmorselaw.com. Or call 925-828-5307 for a free consultation.
thats going to be hard to remember if im drunk
@@amishparadise1924 then his license get suspended for 6 months in addition to any other charges and penalties you get for being drunk.
Why not just say “no” to the drinking question? That’s not illegal
@@DustyLambert how about not drinking and driving?
In the words of the lawyer named Fletcher.... STOP BREAKING THE LAW ASSHOLE!!!! 🤨
This is the first lawyer advertisement I have ever liked. I hope people use you.
Best solution that I've ever heard is that a drunk driver got out of his car as soon as he got in line and went up and sat in the cop car. When the cops asked him what the hell he was doing he told them that his driver was drunk and that that he ran away. He asked the cops for a ride home and he got one.....
+Blue Drums hahahah! It just might work! XD
I laughed so hard...my stomach hurts...😂
Just looking at a cop car is reason to be shot nowadays, I'd be careful trying that one.
😂😂😂
Legend Says that that that that he ran away
It's so important to understand state law, especially when it comes to DUI's. Thanks for this video!
I'd like to know what to do if I'm stopped at a DUI checkpoint and I have _not_ been drinking.
well if ya ant ben drinking rool down the window and say can i help you officer cop asks have you ben drinking and if you havent ben drinking you say no cop will know if you have because its easy to spot and you are on your way
Well first of all, good for you for NOT drinking just prior to getting stopped at checkpoint. Thing to do would be to calmly and simply answer the cops question with a "NO" answer,,, and presumably he won't waste anymore of your time and well let you go on your way.
One of the most important things for anyone, is that one knows their rights and how to exercise them. This video presents many excellent points. I especially appreciate where he stated to be respectful to the officer and never be argumentative.
I have never been stopped by one of these so-called checkpoints....but my concern is what my dad wrote me in a letter back in 1983. He was visiting our relatives in Russia (the old USSR.) After getting through custom where he had to bribe the Russian custom official. He rented a car and drove to our "kin's" farm in the Ukraine. He wrote me later saying he had been stopped at 9 check points and made to show his papers and answer questions as to why he was there.
My dad was a cop from the 1950 to 1985 here in the U.S. He would later write that he could not imagine having these types of checkpoints in America....WOW.
Thanks for the insight and the legal rules of these checkpoints...every time I hear about one being stood up in our community, our County Sheriff loves to run the not so much the City, I think of the USSR and the comments my dad wrote. He is now deceased but you have to wonder if we have not switched roles with our countries.
BTW he revisited Russia in 1999 and there were no more checkpoints.
this is what america has come to. we have given up so many of our rights........because politicians believe we need to be protected from everything and everybody!!!!!
We keep having these checkpoints because Mother's Against Drunk Driving (MADD) has been lobbying for this right violating and totally ineffective method of catching drunk drivers. Over 99% of all drunk drivers caught are from traffic stops. A slight increase in traffic stops during peak drunk driving hours will catch more drunk drivers than any checkpoints will and yet MADD want more checkpoints. Checkpoints are a waste of resources and the ones in the know know that.
Thanks for putting out this video. We The People need more information on how to protect our rapidly eroding rights.
"Driving underNEATH the influence" - first time I've heard it that way...
It "COULD" Be This Hyped Up Imagined Thing With Their Weight Upon It..Encountering Having To Go Under Something That We Sure Can't Trust and/or "Believe" (That) 'Could Result In Any Safe Encounter With!..follow the constitutional overthrow plans..the 4th..the 6th! 'we got a call..suspicion..SAFE Within Our Homes..WHO said what and to face an accuser in Court! TRACE (Nuremburg) Laws! Seizing Our Children and Placing Us Under Arrest? It "IS" This Hyped Up Inflated Thing With Much The Unlawful Weight Upon it! Rock n Roll.
As a former LEO, the problem is not the drunk driver, but the driver who is tired, sleepy, over worked or sick. I know several departments who were sued when they "arrested" a person for DUI only to get results back that said no alcohol or drugs present. Also, while young and in the police academy, we were shown the standard field sobriety tests. Most of us failed it because it is tough to do, and when you perform it on someone, gives you probable cause to arrest them. In some states, if they dont test for drugs, they can still charge you with under the influence based on field test. I have been stopped in check points, refused to answer questions or do their test. I tell them, " if you feel like paying me a big check, go ahead, arrest me, and I will pay for the blood test to go along with the breath test. When both are negative, start writing the check because you violated my civil rights without PC. Stay safe but above all, dont drink and drive. Use common sense.
You also know that checkpoints are a waste of resources as far as finding drunk drivers, but Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and local governments love them.
After you have said no and they want you out of the automobile. Just refuse everything. Don't speak, don't blow, don't walk. Just talking you run the risk of "slurred speech". Submit yourself to arrest and when you get to court simply request the evidence they have showing you are DUI. Refusal is a right.
You can thank these "Mothers against drunk drivers" !! Stop women's sufferage, ! Stop women's sufferage, ! Stop women's sufferage, ! Stop women's sufferage, ! Stop women's sufferage, ! Stop women's sufferage, ! Stop women's sufferage,.
+Thomas Horne That's some really stupid advice and a way to cost yourself a lot of money for nothing.
@@user-sp8eb6iz7f if i had to sacrifice my life to repeal the right for women to vote i would gladly do it.
It is absolutely on point with this discussion. I brought it out of the checkpoint situation to make the particular question more clear on what the police officers are able to ask of you.
1. They can ask you questions.
2. They cannot detain you without legal cause.
3. You have the right to not answer their questions.
Additionally, not answering their questions does not give reasonable suspicion. Find me a case that supports this and we will go from there.
Sounds like this advice was designed to get you arrested so you will have to call him or another attorney
+R Kurtz
LOL , Answer the cop by saying " My layer has advised me to be taken down to the station to have my blood drawn " But If you haven't been drinking then ask
the probable cause for the stop, and (am I under arrest ?)Am I free to go repeatedly . if you're drunk do the blow the bretalizer , then challenge it latter, just depends if you drank that evening as to your course of action.
+rod sims 8 y 2
+R Kurtz He's not an attorney. No lawyer would post advice on UA-cam without somehow gaining some financial recourse. I think it's a sobered-up Foster Brooks..."urrrrrrrp!"
+R Kurtz Boy you arent kidding. This guy's adviceis horrible and will get you convicted
Yeah, but if your drunk your drunk...
Great point at 2:05 about being polite when refusing to answer the officer's questions. While there are exceptions, that can go a long way in keeping the situation from escalating.
Hey Mr Lawyer: Explain to me how ANY checkpoint is Constitutional when you pull people over without probable cause?!?
Public safety is paramount in some states vs intrusion. Ask the innocent victims injured or killed by a DUI
driver. Ask the victims what their Constitutional rights were.? So please, don't tell me about your constitutional rights when victims are
being maimed or killed.. Rights are one thing. But when behind the wheel. Your responsibility is another.part of Driving.
@@jeffreydonaldson7003 Should cop be able to search homes for weapons because of "public safety" then?
@@jeffreydonaldson7003 Sorry dude, but '' victims '' of drunk drivers do not change the constitution. I don't in any way automatically give up my rights when I drive unless I and only I have violated the law.
@@jeffreydonaldson7003 people who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. and the one size fits all "blood alcohol content" is a ridiculous joke. i was arrested for dui and lost my license years ago because i had "glassy eyes" after having been up for a very long time with little sleep. i hadn't been drinking. and because of the young punk cop drunk with power and my financial state at the time, i was railroaded. and because i had just gotten out of the military, i was driving on a license from my home state. so once the state that i was in got done with me, my home state suspended my license for another year. so i lost my "privilege" to drive for 2 years (2 different years) all because i was sleepy when a punk cop pulled me over for a headlight being out.
@@jeffreydonaldson7003 so cops should show up at your house at random and you should let them search for drugs...guns...run your license in case you been speeding or running stop signs. Because who needs rights?
What if I have not had any alcohol, and am not under the influence of any drug? How is it lawful for anyone to set up a checkpoint on my (public) road and stop me from travelling to my destination to "make sure" I'm not drunk?
Can I not just tell the officer that I am not impaired, that he is obstructing traffic with his roadblock, and I wish to be free to go on my way? Would he not have to honour that?
dustymiller65
"Volume 3A behind you, is out of order."
You're out of order! You're out of order! The whole trial is out of order! They're out of order!
Sorry just a big fan of Al Pacino and I couldn't resist
First of all, I was a officer for 20 years. I'm not sure about the validity of this video, but Law enforcement will use any and all tactics to gain a search. Road blocks are used to profile drivers. Not all cops are bad, but most are just looking for a way to search and seize. Our rights in this country have eroded to the point of no return. Protect & Serve? or Harass & Collect? Government is rotten to the core. These type of videos have exposed thousands of crooked cops...Keep up the work
Here is the dealio on DUI checkpoints in Amerika. In 1990, stemming from a case in Illinois, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that such checkpoints, while inconvenient, the benefit as a deterrent to intoxicated driving warrants this inconvenience, and when conducted properly, do not violate the 4th amendment. Properly means among other things; trained personnel, adequate signage and lighting, advertisement of such checkpoints (such as a newspaper article), and REASONABLE amount of intrusion to detect intoxication. All states have these provisions spelled out in their MV laws.That being said, court after court has upheld fines against drivers for 'noncooperation' even 'obstruction'. The reasoning is that YOU entered the checkpoint, and therefore implied CONSENT to the rules of the checkpoint. Even if there is no way to turn around (legally) they fall back on the advertisement or announcement of such a checkpoint. So be wary when entering a checkpoint. If there is a way to turn away from it, do it. Oh they WILL send a chase car but at that point you can demonstrate in protest as you did NOT ENTER the checkpoint (just make sure your turn was a legal one or the chase car officer will ticket you.) The key here is the ever mounting case law ruling "consent" (to the purpose of the checkpoint) by entering the checkpoint. If there's no way around going through, stop when told, roll down window, and you will usually be (should be) asked if "YOU HAVE HAD ANY ALCOHOL TONIGHT OR TODAY.) At this point the best thing to do is say 'no'. Even if you had 3 beers 6 hrs before or a glass of wine 20 minutes ago, say 'no'. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO CONSENT TO ANYTHING ELSE. You do not have to answer questions, 'where you going/comming from etc....but by pulling into a checkpoint you must 1. Allow contact (roll window down) and 2. at least indicate that you have not been drinking ALCOHOLIC beverages. "I don't drink alcohol" is a great response. If they are vague and ask something like "Have you had anything to drink tonight?", ask them to specify what they mean (or do what I do and say sure! Water, coffee, soda). It puts them in the douche-hat chair and is psychologically powerful. The best way to assert your rights is by avoiding the checkpoint. If you enter it, basic MV stop rules are a little bit changed. Remember most states are .08 BAC...that's not a lot of booze for an avg. person. But lets say you have weed in the car or on you or something (a body in the trunk even)...then cool hand luke is the way to go here..."no officer, I don't drink alcohol" or just "no ". Chances are you will be waved on your way.
+CHIXTERS' CHANNEL True Most of the time like at New years it will be advertised most of the time on the news. Be safe, Call some friends have a couple kegs and have a party at someone's house. Then puke your guts out on your friends couch. They will be out during the Holidays Also they always say when roads are down for construction and all the rest as far as road updates.
Yeah right. Checkpoints in Kentucky aren't advertised so there goes consent right out the window. You can't say "I didn't have any drinks" to the officer even if that is true because he will ALWAYS say "I smell alcohol". The best thing to do is politely give them your license, insurance, and registration, plead the fifth, and politely refuse all roadside tests. You can't talk your way out of an arrest but you can be polite and hope that officer you're dealing with doesn't feel like arresting a sober driver that knows their rights. Remember, you can't lie to an officer, but you don't have to answer their questions, except the questions where the answers are on the stuff you gave them.
good answer :)
Basically the response that I was looking for.
While they may be able to ask you questions or for you to identify yourself, without reasonable suspicion, you can politely decline.
It is only illegal for them to ask the questions if a reasonable person would believe that they are not "free to go", which basically means they can't detain you without reasonable suspicion.
In the case of a DUI checkpoint, they can stop you and briefly question you, but that is where their power stops.
This is a great video. But you’ve neglected to mention one hugely important factor. You must only submit to a chemical test when you are lawfully arrested for a DUI. If it is an unlawful arrest, where they don’t have probable cause, you are not required to submit to the test.
If you take the test after an unlawful arrest the test will be thrown out. But that's something a judge will determine in court. If you've been arrested, illegally or not, and you refuse to take the test then you will immediately lose driving privileges and will have to wait until you are before a judge, and possibly the second or third time you are before a judge, before the legality of the arrest will be determined.
So just take the test once you've been arrested and contact an attorney immediately.
This video gives some good advice and gives us the amendments that protect us as U.S. citizens. Not speaking against yourself is valuable to practice when speaking to police officers.
Before getting out of the car, I would ask the officer to please get my cane from the back seat and help me get out of my seat due to my chronic back pain. A fold up wheel chair might be better.
ABSOLUTE GENIUS....
Then, you should not be driving. Case closed.
I have had a wheelchair since 21966 that a drunk driver put me in!!
Oops it was 1966, when incident happened. The drunk driver did not have the right to destroy my entire life!
Oh, you mean how they are defined under Title 49, Transportation.
“motor vehicle” means a vehicle, machine, tractor, trailer, or semitrailer propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used on public streets, roads, or highways.
“motor vehicle operator’s license” means a license issued by a State authorizing an individual to operate a motor vehicle on public streets, roads, or highways.
Or did you want to use another one, which is not the Transportation code?
DUI check points are the only thing I pull out of
Unless I am mistaken, he stated that you don't have to take "field sobriety tests", but if they tell you to take a chemical test (breathalyzer/blood) that you need to do it.
That being said, at DUI checkpoints, I don't believe that an officer can require you to take a breathalyzer/blood test without probable cause. (The rules differ than if you were stopped by an officer on patrol v. a checkpoint)
Why do say to talk to the police??? when many other Lawyers say "DO NOT TALK TO THE POLICE".
Cesar Martinez He never said to answer their questions.
If you haven't been drinking and are not under the influence of any substance should you still respectfully refuse to answer?
Please dont drive when under the influence. . I had a right to be safe in the back seat of a car that was stopped at a red light. I was only 17, a drunk driver rear ended the car I had a right to be safe in. This was in 1966. I still sit in a wheelchair from a broken neck. That person did NOT have a right to destroy my entire life ... no matter what this bogus attorney tells you!!!
Wow that really happened?
Wouldn’t taking a blood test be considered an assault by an officer? Also wouldn’t taking a test breathalyzer blood test or anything be considered incriminating your self?
Thank you, Counselor. This is very valuable information. Is this information, especially as far as "pro se" violations of the 4th Amendment prohibition against unlawful search and seizure is concerned universally applicable across the country?
Here in NJ, I have been physically dragged out of my car by a NJ state trooper(because I had the door unlocked) on my way home from my return from Iraq. I was in desert camo, was tired and may have nodded off. He pulled me over and immediately pulled me out of the car. He then stepped on my foot, to get me to push off so that he could then charge me with assault on a police officer. I did not do that and kept my hands at my side. I explained my situation and he cuffed me anyway and took me to a police station where I was ordered to take a breath test. Boy was he surprised when I blew 00.00. I filed charges against him, to include assault and battery and violation of my 4th Amendt. rights. The case was settled out of court.
Colonialpara Bravo to you !!!
So my question is, if this is in your view a violation of your clients rights and he has been drinking, does the police officer have an obligation to investigate and detain your client from driving further. Is their an obligation on the officers side during a DUI check point?
Ha,ha,ha,ha; take this guys' advice and you will need an Attorney, and he's hoping to be the one...
If you note, he doesn't tell that you have a legal right to avoid the DUI checkpoint or that by entering the checkpoint you have effectively agreed to being stopped and detained..
He then tells you to engage in polite conversation with the Officer, with no mention of the fact that in doing so, you may allow the Officer to smell alcohol on your breath or coming from your vehicle, which could establish probable cause to believe that you are intoxicated...
Your best "legal advice" is to not drink and drive and if you chose to do so, do not be stupid enough to continue past the signs warning you of a DUI checkpoint...
Kit Ingoldby
I'm busy right now, can I ignore you some other time?
Kit Ingoldby
Just watch me.....
right on!
Ron Pearlmann okay then submit to the police
How could that be? I see cops in front of taverns all the time with binoculars to see how much you drink
see it all the time
Very well said about DUI checkpoint.
So to all of you who are against DUI checkpoints, some questions. What do you propose to remove drunk drivers off the road? How do you propose to protect others on the roads from being killed by drunk drivers? If a DUI checkpoint removes a drunk driver, are you saying you don't think it's worth it? I realize some of you are going to be evasive with these questions and many don't want to answer, because frankly many are more concerned about themselves and their own matters of convenience; rather than the thankless job these officers endure and the lives they are trying to protect.
Oh and for the police that do risk their lives to save others, for those of you who are so thoughtless about police, what do you think of them?
"because frankly many are more concerned about themselves and their own matters of convenience" Some of us are concerned about making sure that our rights, rights guaranteed by the US Constitution are not abused by the state. It would be much easier to just roll over and let the state have its way with you.
Do what ever you want, enjoy your time fighting that fight in a jail cell too. I don't care.
I do care about my rights, of course. But unlike a lot of you, I know the proper place and time to argue them. But you go right ahead and don't be tough, you stand up to police!! Fight the fight!!
You have a misguided logic for thinking it's ok for police to stop everyone. At what point is it not ok with you? If they come to your house to see if you have drugs, (they are going door to door to make sure everyone is clean) you'll just let them in? How about every woman gets frisked in a park because the police want to see if they have bombs under their bras? See where this is going? They have no right to stop anyone without a reason. You either embrace our Constitutional rights or you don't. If you don't, move to Cuba.
Where did I say it's ok for police to stop everyone?
You need to answer that first.
What else can be done to protect people from drunk drivers, beside unconstitutional and terribly wasteful police methods?
How about this: Rather than the government lying to the Public with "legal limit" BS, the law should tell people the Truth, that there is NO amount of alcohol that may be safely consumed before driving.
The "legal limit" BS is bound to result in drunk driving, because it is based on asking people who have been drinking to exercise the JUDGMENT (impaired by alcohol) as to whether they have had "too much." Of course people are gognt o make the wrong decision -- you know it, i know it and, most importantly, the legal system knows it.
As a society we don't go to a common sense "don't drink before" rule (which, BTW, IS the rule for pilots and a lot of other people) because:
1. Alcohol makers and merchants make donations to politicians to protect their income from selling alcohol to people they know or should know will be driving after drinking.
2. Governments and lawyers make a TON of money on DUI cases.
3. Because of #1 and #2, our legal system considers the relatively few people who do die from DUI to be "a small price to pay" for lying to the Public with "legal limit" BS that generates a LOT of cash for a lot of people.
If you are truly pissed off at drunk driving then go after the people who profit from it, not the poor shmucks who are too stupid to realize that they have been duped into being someone else's meal ticket with the "legal limit" BS (which is simply a clever tax on stupidity).
Looking to see how often they stop a car is important. For the checkpoint to be valid they must not profile, and have a set procedure of how often they pull a car over.
How about just saying "No" and be on your way, and quit holding up the damn line. So we can all be on our way and not subject to an unreasonable detention. If your drunk then you deserve whatever you get. Cheers.
Let us know how it really turns out if you are ever in the position to be asked to take field sobriety test and you refunse.
Have you been drinking? NO OFFICER.
Appreciate your reply :) However, sometimes you need to go thru a checkpoint to get to where you are going. That's the point, now, isn't it? And, just because there is a sign saying something doesn't mean they can force me to waive my constitutional rights.
My free advice is this: do not drink and drive. How are you going to live with yourself after you killed somebody with the two tons of steel that you are driving while being drunk?
If I have been drinking and I know I will fail any blood test and I am stopped at a DUI checkpoint, I am going to say, "No. I have not been drinking." - I would rather risk it than plead the 5th - pleading the 5th is essentially saying you did drink (in the cops eyes)and he's going to ask me to step out of the car 999 times out of 1,000. If I am confident and have not been drinking, then I would exercise my right to plead the 5th
Or you can just NOT drink and drive! This is for California law only. Other states are very different in what is legal.
Altoids or hold breath?
No matter what state you're in the constitution is still valid and holds precedence over all state and federal laws.
***** Amen. If you drink and drive you have bigger issues. Mine was that I didn't have Jesus. Now I do and I don't even want to drink anymore. Jesus saves. Satan steals. Satan wants everyone to drink and drive.
Don't breath.
Is it opposite day? In Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, the Supreme Court ruled that DUI checkpoints are legal.
what to do. Not drink and drive.
smoke weed..................lol
Right right
But if they want you to field sobriety tests. Then what ? Why would you do them if you sober ?
What if you have not been drinking? What would you say?
How bout just DO NOT DRINK AND DRIVE! DUHHHHHHH
So what are you suggesting as other options, if any? I do agree with you up to a point. I don't like being detained /stopped for a DUI check when I'm trying to get home after a long days work. This happened to me once in my 30 + years of driving, (it wasn't pleasant) However, if that and other checkpoints mean that drunk drivers are taken off the street, I'm all for a few moments of my time.
So you are protecting people that drink and drive. .and you also was a cop? You are a fool to do this. You are allowing a fellow fool kill me! Hey ! People out there watching this. , this man wants your money! If you have been drinking. , you can't remember. All lawyers offer free consultation. You are being scammed! Beware!
If I get stopped at a DUI checkpoint and the officer catches me with a heroin needle in my arm......what do you want me to say counselor?
All DUI check points, no matter how they are conducted, are a complete and total violation of the 4th amendment. This is a FACT that should be disseminated to every potential voter and juror. As a juror (and citizen/voter) its is your responsibility to subject all legislative issues to the scrutiny of the hierarchy of law. Natural Law was, is, and always be the highest form of law - it supersedes all other forms of law and sits atop the hierarchy. Nothing should or even ever can be done to remove Natural Law from the top of the hierarchy. - For example Lincoln knew that the Natural Law forbidding slavery superseded the Constitution or the will of any majority and consequently he did all he could to rectify this illegal and criminal wrong. In the USA - the Constitution including the Bill of Rights (and the 4th amendment) is higher than all other forms of codified law and is thus 2nd on the hierarchy. All the amendments after A 10 would be third and finally last would be all non amendment law written after the Constitution including DUI law. When ever any law contradicts any other law - the hierarchy determines which is in fact legal. The lower contradictory law is both illegal and also criminal. When summoned to perform jury duty - you must remember that the Constitution and Bill of Rights is higher and outranks all subsequent codified law (this is a true FACT no matter what you are told by anyone including the judge). For any law to overrule any portion of the Constitution or Bill of Rights including the 4th A requires at a minimum an amendment. In DUI cases ask the court to provide the amendment which overrules the 4th (there is no such amendment and probably never will be). Any evidence acquired through an illegal search (violation of the 4th) should be discarded completely. In fact any defendant that had his 4th or any rights violated by the state should be set free as a bird no matter the how evil the crime or how strong the prof of guilt. Any government agent (cop) that violates the true spirit of the Bill of Rights is a criminal and should be sentenced to prison (every cop at every DUI checkpoint). There is no time or circumstance that even mitigates let alone exonerates the violation of the Bill of Rights by police no matter what they are ordered to do. Profiling is not illegal - it is common sense. The presence or absence of profiling is not a true issue determining legality - it is a FALSE issue. Any trolling for crime including DUI is itself a crime whether profiling occurs or not. Only actual evidence of a crime is proper cause to check a drivers status or condition. Evidence would be a vehicle fitting the description of a vehicle witnessed leaving the scene of a nearby accident or a vehicle operating in a clearly unsafe manner. A vehicle leaving the parking lot of a bar would not qualify as evidence allowing a check.
written but not read
You are just an idiot and totally wrong!!
If you ask an officer what crime you committed, and he says, "Driving under the influence" then he is inexperienced in participating in a DUI/Driver license checkpoint. What he should be telling you is that they are conducting a legal checkpoint to promote public safety, educate the public, and serve as a deterrent. And if they do see someone driving while intoxicated or without a license, then they will take appropriate action. They should be saying something along these lines. If you are in California, you need to read vehicle code section 2814.2(a). This section states, "A driver of a motor vehicle shall stop and submit to a sobriety checkpoint inspection conducted by a law enforcement agency when signs and displays are posted requiring that stop." So at a checkpoint, you should never tell an officer it is an illegal checkpoint, because you will look like an idiot. You should also read "William Ingersoll et al., Petitioners, v. Alfred Palmer, as Chief of Police, etc, et al, Respondents" This is a Supreme Court Case that sets the guidelines that the police must follow when setting up a checkpoint. Some of the requirements are a neutral formula. this means they cannot pick and choose which cars they want to stop and question the driver. It could be whatever formula they want. every 3rd car, every 5th car, etc. They can change the formula depending on traffic congestion. They just need to document when and why the formula was changed. They also have to have signs posted advising drivers that there is a checkpoint ahead. It is sometimes referred to as the "Ingersoll 8" meaning the eight requirements. Read this case law. You should never ask the officer what the neutral formula is or the other requirements. They don't have to tell you and it backs up the cars waiting. Your best recourse is to contact an attorney if you believe the checkpoint does not meet the criteria. It is the attorney's job to challenge the validity of each checkpoint. Keep in mind, the purpose of the checkpoint is to promote public safety, serve as a deterrent, and educate the public of the dangers of drinking and driving. Hope this helps
FiT PT I only read the first sentence of your babbling, incoherent post and have bad news, Bubba:
I keep a copy of The Constitution/Bill of Rights on my desk here and checked it out.
In the Fourth Amendment, there's not a God-damned thing about DUI checkpoints being "complete and total violation" of anything!
Further deep research (I'm known for my dedicated research) shows that motor vehicles were not even invented until about 120 years AFTER the Bill of Rights was penned! Imagine that!
I think it was 1886, and in Germany, when the first motor vehicle (internal combustion) hit the road and you know how those Germans (me included) love their beer!
Now, additional research indicated that DUI check points didn't come to be until about 90 years AFTER citizens of The United States started drinking and driving!
So, Barrister, how can you sit there and type "All DUI check points...are a complete and total violation of the 4th amendment" if DUI check points didn't come to be until 190 years later?
Don't respond with another Irving Kanarek"yawn-inducing rampage.
I would like a simple, one sentence answer.
(hint: "research, research, research!")
You should have known.
libertynjustice What also amazes me is [that] you idiots who refer to ME as an "idiot"!
Then, "You're totally wrong"? "Totally"? Welcome to 1977!
Next you'll be telling me I'm "Radical" and "Boss" and other stupid & passé names. I'm flattered and shit that you DO come to me for advice and direction but try to do it in a mature way.
That lends you more of what's called "credibility".
Now, go listen to your Go-Go's 8 tracks.
You should have known.
Yamaha SR650 Sorry about the length of the post but these are very important issues and as a researcher this should be nothing for you - seriously.
Universal Unalienable Rights never change, They are in fact immortal (as a researcher I think you know this already yes) - The fourth Amendment was the codified protection for the ETERNAL & TIMELESS Natural Right of peace and privacy - What part of person, papers, and effects is perplexing? I know that you must be aware this includes 1) you 2) your DL and 3) your motor vehicle. Peace and privacy (also unfettered free travel) are the Natural Rights then, now, and always. I know with all your research regarding Locke - Montesquieu - Jefferson - Madison and other liberty pioneers - you do not believe that these universal unalienable rights evaporate in the presence of new technology or in the presence of inconvenience or even in the face of the staple dangers of ordinary living.
James Madison traveled the roads (which they had back then). He traveled on his effect (horse). He also knew that he had the right to ride his horse (even though horses occasionally run out of control resulting in harm and injury to innocent people - way back then) and he had the right to do so without showing papers ( I am sure that Madison would joyously concede that a person riding his horse in a threatening dangerous manner thus subjected himself to some form of inspection or intervention). Madison also valued his privacy and knew that he (like all of us) was entitled to a presumption of innocence (also protected by the Bill of Rights).
Driving under the influence (over the limit) is not a crime but a violation of a man made rule - driving in a dangerous manner (dangerous to others not yourself) is a violation of Natural Law = a crime. Once their is probable cause that a person is a true danger - drinking and driving is an exacerbating compounder - but in the absence of such probable cause the right to Travel Unfettered to Personal Peace and Privacy and the Presumption of Innocence are the superseding law from Nature and the superseding law from the highest of codified law from the Bill of Rights. These Rights and laws supersede the dangers from drunk driving and the DUI law illegally enacted to ameliorate such danger (so its claimed). The effect of DUI law with respect to Natural Rights I see as an easy call - but I can comprehend the confusion (people have a near obsessive need for safety, even delusional safety - and do not realize that sacrificing Natural Rights - never = safety - I can expound in a subsequent post) However, the Bill of Rights is clear and SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. This is not debatable between reasoned educated people. Only fools or the despot that recruit them can in argument obscure the true meaning of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
If you really like research (please forgive the hubris) I can be a true asset. For example, if you like - I can explain the dire vital reasons for a Constitution and consequent codification of original principles - and need for Constitutional protection of Natural Law and the sub components of Natural Law. I can also explain the danger of progressive degradation to such an important document (much more also).
written but not read sorry for typos
Does a tourist on holiday in the USA have the same rights?
I don't doubt that checkpoints are legal, but I do wonder to what extent you're obligated to comply. For instance, I live in Alabama and according to state law, an officer must see you break the law or have reason to suspect that you have broken the law, in order to even pull you over. So, if you're going through a checkpoint, they haven't singled you out for a violation. In that case, do you have to comply? It's legal for me to ask for your wallet, but you're not required to give it to me...
I did. Your key point was that when we sign a contract to be licensed to drive we sign away some constitutional rights. I told you that no system of law allows contracts to bypass law.
How then are authorities supposed to prevent a drunk driver from a potential traffic accident?
Is it really a DUI checkpoint if they can cite you for other violations? The name should be changed to Anything Checkpoint.
Or - I and the sheeple majority don't give a dam about the Constitution - Bill of Rights - 4th amendment - presumption of innocents - or James something or other - trolling for dollars at liberties expense checkpoint.
JRS9000 HEREIN LIES THE PROBLEM WITH SITUATIONS THAT BREACH OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. IT OPENS A CAN OF WORMS, EVEN IF THE POLICE ACT INAPPROPRIATELY IT NECESSITATES HIRING AN ATTORNEY. IT'S A LOSE, LOSE SITUATION. THERE ARE UA-cam VIDEOS ON THE SUBJECT BY ATTORNEYS. I SUGGEST EVERYONE WATCH ONE.
fishing expedition
I understand that you must have a license, but what specific law are regarding checkpoints are you interpreting as saying "you do have to show license, registration, etc."? I've pretty much read the entire Code of Alabama and haven't found any laws that are specific to checkpoints. If you know where I can find, I'd like to read it. You may be right, but if there's no law that specifically says you are required to comply at checkpoints then, I can't believe that you have to.
Yes :). My favorite bar was "No Frills Grill". The one that I used to go to would give me free soft drinks for being the designated driver. They cut people off that they felt shouldn't be drinking anymore that night.
I have great respect for bars that treat their customers right and doing their job and more to prevent unsafe driving.
I've been to many bars like that if you are the designated driver with a group of people. Inform the bartender or server and you would get soft drinks free. Sometimes i get bar food for free with in reason . Most of the time my friends paid for that lol.
How many liquor licenses does the government issue? How many people walk to and from these establishments?
Hi Ivan I have a question, you said in California there is a Implied Consent law can you explain in detail what this is and whether it would apply to someone who travels unlicensed according to the common law right to travel.
Hi Rockit I believe your mistaken from Supreme court rulings and in conflict with the Constitution specifically artical 6. Please see the video as proof
Shapiro v. Thompson
394 U.S. 618 (1969)
Murdock v. Pennsylvania
319 U.S. 105 (1943)
Shuttles worth v. City of Birmingham
394 U.S. 147 (1969)
Since these are clearly decisions that the Supreme court and Constitution clearly establish the right furthermore a motor vehicle does not disqualify one to be deprived of the use of road. Case in point a disabled motor scooter being used by a disabled person requires no license
I believe in our rights also, but like Mr. Morse says I wish you the best of luck. Does that answer the question?
That's quite interesting. Obviously different countries (and legislative bodies within them) have differing rules.
In NSW, Australia, it's pretty much a breath test. Refuse, the penalty is severe. Fail that, you can do a blood test. Refuse that and the penalty is severe. Fail that and...well, court here you come if you want to appeal.
Yes I would agree with that. Unreasonable searches always need a warrant. I agree with that too.
Thank you Mr. Morse for your interesting and informative video. One question: if one is asked to submit to a chemical test for alcohol at a DUI checkpoint, is there an option to chose one over the other? It's my understanding that the blood test is more reliable and accurate than the breath test; therefore, would one be able to insist on that test as the basis for the determination of intoxication?
I seen a video on here that showed a guy (assuming sober) not saying anything when asked about if he was under the influence. The only words that he spoke was asking the police for their name and badge number. After a few minutes of remaining silent, the cops just let him drive off. Is this legal? Are you sure that cops will just remove you from the car and arrest you anyways?
2:34 you said "they already determined you are under the influence of alcohol" at that point they can order you out of the vehicle. They would be remised in their duties to let you drive away. Not to mention Pennsylvania vs Mimms they can order you out of the car. You can still refuse the test, but they can observe you walking, and may ask you to step over to the curb. At which point they can document your gate and instability while walking.
my question: let us say you're asked to leave your vehicle, for the field sobriety test. you tell them you're not going to take their tests but do you still have to get out? because if you have been drinking simply the act of getting out of your car the police officer might say you were stumbling or your gate was strange and that was their probable cause.
You are incorrect. " A 1993 California Supreme Court decision, People v. Banks, ruled that the police were not required to provide advance notice when scheduling DUI sobriety checkpoints as a prerequisite for a sobriety checkpoint. The court ruled that publicly announcing the location is not constitutionally required, but is one of several safeguards for "the maintenance of a constitutionally permissible sobriety checkpoint." So in Mesa they aren't announcing them.
It sounds like you can, but you cannot refuse a breathalyzer, blood or urine test without losing your license.
I had a bartender once tell me, you're better off refusing the sobriety test and asking for a breathalyzer immediately. Sadly, I don't remember the reasoning. Perhaps it was that the sobriety test is more to help observe and build a case against you than it is to determine if you're drunk or not. I mean, they do give you a breathalyzer no matter how you do on the FST, right?
Not being a alcohol consumer or drug user and all my documents are up to date and the car is two years old I never have concerns about the cops phishing for violations because I know there are none but I am polite and don't make attorney noises or say anything to prolong my interaction with police and give them reason to detain me any longer than necessary.
Thanks for the info. (FYI- book 3a precedes 3 but 5a follows 5.)
Oh, and I found nothing on "Statutory intent". I did find statutory interpretation. Is that what you're referring to? Interpretation of statutes?
The way I see it is that the US Supreme Court stated that checkpoints can be legal in that they stop you briefly and the officer asks you questions.
I don't believe that you have to show ID or answer any questions.
I do believe that an officer might arrest you for failure to "cooperate" with these demands though.
I would like to see a case go to the US Supreme Court to rule on whether or not you are required to identify yourself at a checkpoint.
It seems much depends on which State you are in?
Am I correct in my understanding that one doesn't have to submit to the portable alcohol breathalyzer that the cops want you to blow into during the stop and that refusal to submit to this test will not result in a license suspension? Is it that the breath or blood test that would be administered at the station or medical facility after a DUI arrest is the one that's compulsory? If this is the case then I would refuse the roadside test and opt for the blood test after an arrest.
+Jim Nesta You are correct. In most states, You most certainly are within your rights to refuse the initial breathalyzer and FST. However, if they take you to a police station, then you must either submit to the breathalyzer or blood test. Failure to comply with either of those will usually result in a suspension of your license. At least that's how it is in my state and in most states.
+piano1500 Thanks for confirming that.
Thank you for the reference, as I was still under the impression that announcement was Federally required. However, I don't think it minimizes or changes my previous claims one bit. I still think that an announcement of roving patrols is not only more of a deterrent to DUIs, but also more effective and efficient at catching DUIs.
at dui checkpoints normally u see it ahead of u and u have a choice to drive straight to it, or make a right or left turn ..because there not allowed to have u trapped to drive straight into it..they have to leave room for the driver ahead of time to have the choice to turn elsewhere.
Police sometimes do help. A Tennessee State patrolman helped me when my car broke down on I-24 near Chattanooga. They also helped the paramedics with my landlady, who had suffered heat exhaustion.
Police can be helpful and I do respect them when they are. Many, many police officers are in it to help people. Many police officers are in it to earn a honest living as well, much like the rest of us. A very few are there to exercise an ego power trip. It is unfortunate we have to guard ourselves against these few who would do things wrong but that's the way things are.
How can it be legal to demand bodily fliuds from you if your rights are already being violated? That alone makes no sense.
You can be arrested and charged with anything at anytime.....now found guilty is another story......get a lawyer$$$$....wait for court (with no license)....Months , years sometimes???? Can't drive without a license......so make no $$$$ so you wait in jail and get a court appointed lawyer......lol... Unjustice system.......
Every checkpoint I have ever hit is always set so that you cannot see it until it is too late to turn around. The signs are also placed where you will now be forced to enter.
I've read that the breathalyzer tests are only mandatory after you have been arrested?
Even at a checkpoint, an officer (without reasonable suspicion) cannot decide who he pulls over. That is strictly an administrative decision that the officer doing the questioning does not have the legal authority to make.
Could you state the statute number of the complied consent law that you keep mentioning? All I see is "Alabama Code - Section 32-5-192" under implied consent, which does not give authority to stopping and testing people without probable cause.
Are you referencing this one?
When at a DUI checkpoint, the officer will ask you if you have been drinking. If you say "NO" then he asks for license, are you required to give him your license? What would be the cause of them asking for a license if it is just a DUI checkpoint, the license will not tell them if you have been drinking.
Impressive video you have posted.I will recommend it to more other peoples.
Good advice. Thankfully I don’t drink and drive so I should not need it, but I could be accused as there are checkpoints in my state as well and we all know it is a revenue game!
So what are the approved constitutional method that allow the police to do DUI Checkpoints?
Regardless of the state you are in, it is illegal for the officer to require you to take any test at a checkpoint unless he already has enough evidence to arrest you.
Basically you should refuse the field sobriety tests and preliminary breath tests (roadside breathalyzers).
If the officer has probable cause that you are drinking, then they can likely require you take a chemical test to determine your blood alcohol level.
Isnt a breathalyzer or blood test a seizure of your property?
Correct! but in that very same case the Judges did say it was unconstitutional!
They agreed it should be legal because the end justifies the means!
Question? A drunk man pulls up to a DUI check point and uses your advise. then makes it past the police with your help. afterwards a few miles down the road he kills your wife, because he was drunk and unable to drive correctly. he then asks you to represent him and get him off all the charges. what do you say?????
So we are in agreement that DUI checkpoints are legal, however the searches without cause are not? That, if a checkpoint does not violate your rights then it arguably overall positive. That some BP agents break the law and should be fired, allowing the checkpoint to remain constitutional?
The US Supreme Court has upheld that, while it does infringe on your rights, that checkpoints are constitutional if done correctly.
They state that the police may briefly ask questions. However, I haven't seen a case where the US Supreme Court states that you have to answer the questions asked.
This is similar to the rulings that state (not dealing with checkpoints) that it is not illegal for an officer to ask for identification without reasonable suspicion, as long as they are not detained.
You obviously didn't read my comment. Way to go champ. I never disputed that drinking and driving is a bad thing. I disputed the fact that you state that an officer can test you for simply not answering their questions, in which they don't have the authority to enforce.
@LogicalFallicy
I've been stopped a few times, I've never had to show my licence and regristration. I get asked if I've been drinking, I say no, and I get waived through. All they have to do, is read your plate and get your name and stuff. Might be different in the states though.
A well-regulated militia? Is it saying that only a well-regulated militia can keep and bear arms? If so, what defines a militia and what would make it well-regulated? Or was the 'well-regulated militia' part put in for a different reason. It's not that clear.
Essentially it's not, but if the checkpoint is legal it will have a sign saying something to the degree of, "Police Checkpoint ahead, entering the checkpoint permits spot search for the officers. It is within your right to turn around now." So by driving past that sign and into the checkpoint, you are giving them permission to detain you, but you can always turn around and avoid it all together, again though, that's IF the checkpoint is legally set up.
Continued previous comment...
Apparently we were doing 80 in a 55 when our cruise was set to 50, and the cop is a physics genius because he didn't use any tools to gauge our speed when coming at us from the front at 55 miles per hour. Worse than that is the $170 part for no insurance when in Michigan if your insurance expires you are still covered for 30 days afterwards including against tickets if you can provide proof that your insurance is still within 30 days. Which we did.
In many states refusing a field sobriety test constitutes a DWI, I believe.
I went thru a dui checkpoint in Gardena, CA. Flashed my license and asked the officer if I was free to go. And off I go. I could have refused and crack my window half an inch but I wanted to go home and was not drinking................................