Interesting issue regarding sobriety checkpoints

[Archangel M]

This should be interesting.

[yt]pTG5rWF_Uis[/yt]

Obviously these guys were intentionally out to make a point and were willing to risk arrest to make it.

Sobriety checkpoints are a hairy 4th Amendment issue as it is. Some States will not conduct them due to the 4th Amendment question.

I admit that I'm on the fence about "full stop" sobriety checkpoints. I have participated in Traffic Safety checkpoints where cars are simply slowed down or briefly stopped to check reg/inspection stickers, seat-belts, lights etc. but not in DWI checkpoints which are operated by my PD's traffic division. In their defense though, they mix checkpoints with "saturation patrols"...which are coppers in on DWI grant funded OT out driving looking for signs of intoxicated drivers.

I have to admit that if I were supervisor on this location I would probably have done close to the same thing. Ask, tell, make and then charge obstruction of governmental administration and see where it goes in court. Check points are legal in my state. I have the authority to stop a car and check for sobriety which I can't do from behind a closed window with people repeating "Name and badge number!!!" so they are obstructing me in my duty.

OTOH. I do wonder about the legal issues that that decision would stir up. Should we (LEO's) be allowed to stop cars on the roadways without reasonable suspicion? If you do stop do we have the right to demand anything from you that you are not willing to do (talk to me/roll down the window)? Interesting legal questions.

Thats the position we coppers are placed in though. Citizens and politicians demand and pass laws that allow for sobriety checkpoints (DO SOMETHING ABOUT DWI DEATHS!!! WE MUST DO SOMETHING!!!), we are told to conduct them, in situations like this we make decisions on the fly then catch the heat for those decisions later. Thats why we have a thing called qualified immunity.

 

[gobbly]

IMO it's fairly cut and dry. They asked if they were being detained, they were told yes, they asked why, they never got an answer. They repeatedly ask for a name and badge number because those are things an officer is required to give you when you are being detained and ask for them, and getting that info was like pulling teeth.

Reminds me of once when I got pulled over. My window was broken, something in the lifting mechanism, wouldn't go up anymore. I had removed the door panel and secured it in closed with a 2x4. The cop who pulled me over a few weeks later beat the hell out of the top of my car with his flashlight while screaming for me to roll the window down, despite me saying numerous times that it was broken and would not come down, that the door was unlocked and he could open it, or I could if he wanted. This was with the dome light on, engine off, and both hands on the steering wheel.

Anyway, those cops in that video were unreasonable. Sure the kids were being rude, but they could communicate through the window, the officer said himself they did not suspect intoxication, and a license can easily be handed through the space in that window. Nothing they did justified the way they, or their property, was treated.

Hope you wanted an opinion

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

ya I never really thought about sobriety checkpoints before this video, someone else shared it with me on facebook.
I have been through several sobriety checkpoints here in Southern California, and it was pretty much always the same, long row of cones, police cars with lights going, police officers standing out either a. directing traffic slowly through the cones and looking closely at each driver, or b. having each driver stop for a brief moment and asking them how they were doing tonight, and if they had been drinking... I dont think I was ever asked for my license.

as far as these two guys go I think they are idiots, I have seen videos of guys exercising their rights to carry a firearms and video an altercation with police, and I have always felt that the peopel taping were totally justified in their actions and usually the cops were in the wrong, asking for too much, detaining to long, and basically violating the rights of the person to carry a firearm.

this video though, these two idiots were going out of their way to cause a problem, they wanted a problem, they did not want to make a statement about their rights, at least that is how it comes off to me. They sounded like a car full of crows cawing for the officers name and badge number so fast and often that nobody could get a word in otherwise, I would have suspected they were drunk too from their behavior. I would imagine if they have been more calm, rolled the window down and simply talked they would been on their way.

as far as the implications of constutional rights, I believe SCOTUS ruled these checkpoints were legal, I guess I have to think about it to develop my own opinion, but I had never had a problem with them, and was never stopped or asked for my license so I am not sure what I would have a problem with them over.

 

[crushing]

Like most people, I would have been a good little slave at such a check point and showed the authorities my papers immediately without question.

 

[jks9199]

This was essentially a staged arrest. The goal of the two men with the camera was clearly to obstruct the checkpoint (the camera man, at least, is affiliated with an anti-checkpoint organization), and to force the police to take actions that would appear drastic to a casual viewer. I suspect had things gone a little differently, they'd have either aired the video of how they "beat the checkpoint" or the obnoxious cops.

The checkpoint appears to have been lawfully conducted. The officers were within their authority and the scope of their duties. They presented multiple opportunities for the driver to comply, and I think at one point, the driver was on the verge of accepting that he was in a bad place, and going with the program -- but his buddy kept chiming up. After giving the occupants of the car several warnings, they took action to make them comply.

Checkpoints, in general, are a more complicated issue. I'm not completely comfortable with them, and my agency doesn't use them in this context. However, numerous court rulings have held that, conducted properly, they are legal. The minimal intrusion of the checkpoint has been held to be justifiable in regard to the risk of DUI, especially when coupled with the regulations related to motor vehicles. A legitimate checkpoint has to have an "escape" or alternate route where people can avoid it using an alternate route, and the cops can't use the mere avoidance as grounds for a traffic stop. The duration of each stop has to be short, and the grounds for the selection of vehicles have to be defined, and out of the control of the officers actually conducting the stop. (Examples are every third car, or all cars.) I still personally am not sure that they are really reasonable, or that they really serve the purposes assigned to them. I do think they are a great show of force and visible indicator that cops are out.

 

[Empty Hands]

A legitimate checkpoint has to have an "escape" or alternate route where people can avoid it using an alternate route, and the cops can't use the mere avoidance as grounds for a traffic stop.

Perhaps this requirement varies by state, but in the few checkpoints I've gone through, there was no warning beforehand, and cones were used in conjunction with the structure of the streets to prevent cars from turning off before they were able to see the checkpoint. Once in the cones, they channel you straight into the officers. The only way to avoid the few checkpoints I've seen would be to know about it beforehand.

 

[jks9199]

Perhaps this requirement varies by state, but in the few checkpoints I've gone through, there was no warning beforehand, and cones were used in conjunction with the structure of the streets to prevent cars from turning off before they were able to see the checkpoint. Once in the cones, they channel you straight into the officers. The only way to avoid the few checkpoints I've seen would be to know about it beforehand.

Some requirements are different in different states, but, as I recall, this requirement comes from the Supreme Court. However, the "alternate route" or avoidance route isn't necessarily immediate or obvious. For example, in one that's routinely set up in my community, you can evade it by turning left about 1/4 mile ahead (out of sight) and driving a circuitous route of side streets that probably would add about 10 minutes to through traffic. But it exists... And they announce the checkpoints in the press several days in advance.

 

[KenpoTex]

-snip-

Should we (LEO's) be allowed to stop cars on the roadways without reasonable suspicion?

No

If you do stop do we have the right to demand anything from you that you are not willing to do (talk to me/roll down the window)? Interesting legal questions.

No

Thats the position we coppers are placed in though. Citizens and politicians demand and pass laws that allow for sobriety checkpoints (DO SOMETHING ABOUT DWI DEATHS!!! WE MUST DO SOMETHING!!!), we are told to conduct them, in situations like this we make decisions on the fly then catch the heat for those decisions later. Thats why we have a thing called qualified immunity.

The thing that gets me (aside from the fact that I believe that checkpoints are unconstitutional) is that saturation patrols are going to be much more effective. You want to catch drunks?...send the 20 guys (or however many) that would be working the checkpoint to the bar-district instead and I bet money that they'll catch more drunks.

(oh, but that would piss off the bar owners and the people who like to drink and drive...like city councilmen and legislators )

 

[jks9199]

Should any stop be permitted without at least reasonable suspicion? No -- and yes. Generally, to detain someone, even briefly, requires either at least reasonable, articulable suspicion or consent. There are some exceptions, though I'm not personally completely comfortable with a checkpoint like this being an exception.

Once a stop is made, do the cops have the authority to demand identification or control the actions of the driver and/or passengers? Yes. Not only to further investigations, or to determine if the driver is licensed, but for sound safety reason.

As to the relative effectiveness of either checkpoints or saturation patrols... I'm on the fence. I've done saturation patrols, and I've seen checkpoints in use (while my agency doesn't use them, I've been through them as a driver, and I've also been involved in mutli-agency operations where checkpoints were an element). Honestly, I think they're all a crapshoot unless you have a well defined bar area or other means to really focus the operation. I've seen saturation patrols stop dozens of cars in a short period, and net a couple suspended drivers but no drunks -- and I've seen them net multiple arrests and about as many DUIs as can be done in the allotted time. Same thing with checkpoints...

 

[KenpoTex]

Should any stop be permitted without at least reasonable suspicion? No -- and yes. Generally, to detain someone, even briefly, requires either at least reasonable, articulable suspicion or consent. There are some exceptions, though I'm not personally completely comfortable with a checkpoint like this being an exception.

Can you provide an example of a time that it would be acceptable to make a stop/detain someone without at least RS? I'm having a hard time coming up with one.

Once a stop is made, do the cops have the authority to demand identification or control the actions of the driver and/or passengers? Yes. Not only to further investigations, or to determine if the driver is licensed, but for sound safety reason.

Agreed...but it only makes sense to me that the stop/detention would have to be legal in the first place.

 

[Archangel M]

You also have to remember that not all "checkpoints" are the same.

DWI CP's require me to stop you for an extended time and talk to you to see if you are drunk. Traffic safety checkpoints only require you to drive really slow past the officer as he looks for things like seat-belt use, child car seat use, registration stickers etc. Whats odd is how many people will come to a full stop, roll down their windows and want to talk to you when you want to keep the line moving.

I like to put license plate readers at the entrance to safety inspections and not really stop people at all until a stolen/suspended/warrant hit pops up.

 

[Archangel M]

Can you provide an example of a time that it would be acceptable to make a stop/detain someone without at least RS? I'm having a hard time coming up with one.

I can simply walk up to you and say "hello sir, how are you today..." in a LEGAL sense it's not a stop/detention because you have the choice to say "Sorry, I'm late officer..gotta go". But since most people do indeed STOP and talk to me the definition of "stop" here is sort of splitting hairs.

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

I can simply walk up to you and say "hello sir, how are you today..." in a LEGAL sense it's not a stop/detention because you have the choice to say "Sorry, I'm late officer..gotta go". But since most people do indeed STOP and talk to me the definition of "stop" here is sort of splitting hairs.

Like your last post says... you know why people stop its because they are intimidated, I find it insulting that you are pretending to not understand why this happens. It is in fact a bit of an abuse of power.. Mild of course but you are using the intimidation factor to your advantage, I find that a bit sleezy to be honest. Splitting hairs? No I would call it manipulation.

 

[Archangel M]

I have as much right to walk up to someone and talk to them as anybody else.

As a matter of fact some of the best examples of what you would probably call "good policework" stem from doing just that. If all you want are cops that go to 911 calls and write tickets you will get piss poor police service.

 

[MA-Caver]

Idiots who think they have the smarts to argue law with a trained LEO are just that idiots. They think they may have constitutional rights to refuse compliance but they're just being stupid... first and foremost WHY are you being a jerk to an officer who is doing his job and trying to make sure there are no REAL idiots out there plastered and liable to kill someone who was probably on their way home to their family.

I understand that it is a two way street and that officers do need a show of tolerance... particularly if a motorist states that there is something wrong with the car that they cannot comply as directed, i.e. broken window.

gobbly said: Anyway, those cops in that video were unreasonable. Sure the kids were being rude, but they could communicate through the window, the officer said himself they did not suspect intoxication, and a license can easily be handed through the space in that window. Nothing they did justified the way they, or their property, was treated.

I did not see the cops being unreasonable at all. The kids were being smartasses and jerks thinking they can contest a check point. The officer asked them to roll down their window... they refused... a red flag... WHY? refuse to roll down the window, a simple request not an order. Upon refusal then officers have to be on their guard, is there someone in the backseat with a shotgun, a kidnapping? drug running?
Pointless pushing the envelope of the law... how far can we go? Cops asked them repeatedly to roll down the window and warned them that the window will be broken... the kids don't see anything they're doing is wrong.

Maybe they do have the right to not comply but the officers have the right to find out WHY they are not complying... and thus must do what they can to get the answers. Out on the street is not the place... so take 'em down to the station for questioning with lawyers present.

Stupid kids trying to make a stupid point.

If you've a legitimate reason (however legal or illegal) to argue with a cop who is doing a routine checkpoint... then you're going to get burned... I doubt that the city had to pay for a new window.

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

I have as much right to walk up to someone and talk to them as anybody else.

As a matter of fact some of the best examples of what you would probably call "good policework" stem from doing just that. If all you want are cops that go to 911 calls and write tickets you will get piss poor police service.

My disgust is more with you pretending to not understand why people stop... either in a checkpoint where there are a ton of cones, flashing lights and guys with guns.... and you wonder... geee why are they stopping?? thats insulting.
I also think its a bit sleezy to use the power to intimidate normal citizens.
and please we already get piss poor police service, keep going downt he line your going and we will get piss poor police service and more abuse of power. two things we really don't need.
Besides its been ongoing for a while now that police for the most part have become little more then glorified janitors and tax revenue generators. I would be surprised is more then 15-20% of cops were actually protecting and serving anyone but the politicians, the city coffers, the union, and themselves anymore. You can get pissed about my comment, I could care less, there happens to be plenty of perfect examples out there right now, including hundreds of officers In New York facing charges right now for using their power to "fix" things illegally for their associates...

 

[Archangel M]

Slight tangent but interesting read on police contacts:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/archives/p_debour.htm

we must recognize the multiplicity and complexity of tasks assumed by the police. As public servants, the police perform the lion's share of services expected of local government. Among other functions, the police in a democratic society are charged with the protection of constitutional rights, the maintenance of order, the control of pedestrian and vehicular traffic, the mediation of domestic and other noncriminal conflicts and supplying emergency help and assistance (see ABA Standards for the Urban Police Function 1.1, subd b; see, also, La Fave, "Street Encounters" and the Constitution: Terry, Sibron, Peters and Beyond, 67 Mich L Rev 40, 61-62). To consider the actions of the police solely in terms of arrest and criminal process is an unnecessary distortion. We must take cognizance of the fact that well over 50% of police work is spent in pursuits unrelated to crime (see, generally, Wilson, Varieties of Police Behavior, at p 19; Misner, Enforcement: Illusion of Security, 208 The Nation 488; Bercal, Calls for Police Assistance, 13 Am Behavioral Scientist 681). Consequently unrealistic restrictions on the authority to approach individuals would hamper the police in the performance of their other vital tasks. This is not to say that constitutional rights to privacy and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures must be abandoned to accommodate the public service aspect of the police function. The overriding requirement of reasonableness in any event, must prevail.

Generally, in the performance of their public service functions, not related to criminal law enforcement, the police should be given wide latitude to approach individuals and request information. For instance, no one would quarrel with a police officer's right to make inquiry of passers-by to find the parents of a lost child. We have consistently recognized the obligation of policemen to render assistance to those in distress (e.g., People v Mitchell, 39 NY2d 173, and authorities cited therein). However, when police officers are engaged in [*219] their criminal law enforcement function their ability to approach people involves other considerations and will be viewed and measured by an entirely different standard of reasonableness. Unfortunately, there is scant appellate authority on this subject,[1] even the majority of the Supreme Court in the Terry trilogy explicitly avoided resolving the constitutional propriety of an investigative confrontation (Terry v Ohio, 392 US, at p 19, n 16, supra.;, but see the separate concurrences of Justices Harlan and White, who maintained that there is no doubt that a policeman can address questions to anyone on the street, at pp 32, 34). Nevertheless the practical necessities of law enforcement and the obvious fact that any person in our society may approach any other person and attempt to strike up a conversation, make it clear that the police have the authority to approach civilians. While the extent of this power may defy precise definition it would be unrealistic to say it does not exist at all.

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

If you've a legitimate reason (however legal or illegal) to argue with a cop who is doing a routine checkpoint... then you're going to get burned... I doubt that the city had to pay for a new window.

I imagine it would be cheaper for them to actually pay to replace the window then to deal with the court costs. I am sure these two knuckleheads are planning on trying to sue. I would hope a judge who has an ounce of sense would say, no lawsuit. we will replace the window now have a nice day.. and call it a day. otherwise how many thousands, or tens of thousands of dollars are going to be spent fighting some lame lawsuit over this?

 

[Archangel M]

Can you provide an example of a time that it would be acceptable to make a stop/detain someone without at least RS? I'm having a hard time coming up with one.

He asked. I answered.

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

Slight tangent but interesting read on police contacts:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/archives/p_debour.htm

I don't have a problem with any officer walking up to anyone and striking up a conversation. Thats everyday life. What I have a problem with is when a person is obviously uncomfortable with being approached, but is to ignorant of their rights, and to intimidated to say they are uncomfortable and are then subjected to talking to an officer when they have no interest in it. Lets face it, most people do not understand their rights, they dont understand a police officers limitations, and are putting all their faith in the officer having their best interests at heart. In the example you gave the persons best interest is not your concern, your own interests are, and while you could quickly tell the person they have every right to walk away and not talk you, you are in fact abusing your power by keeping this away from them, even if they appear uncomfortable. a slight abuse of power, and obviously something you can argue in a court of law, but to deny you are doing it purposely is insulting. Sure people should be more educated on their rights, and generally speaking about how their country and governments work, but I do not see that happening anytime soon.