DUI Checkpoints- The danger of a police state

[lewin5211]

This vid was great!!! Good Job!!! Its funny even though you were not drunk and because you were standing up for your rights they still have their back up card of obstructing or disorderly conduct... You know the catch all crimes when you piss them off!!! That is what has to stop!!! The problem is cops are allowed to lie!!! That has to stop as well!!

[c208driver]

You started off good. Then you broke down and did what they wanted you to do. It's even worse when you KNOW your rights and you half ass assert them and then you submit. Why did't you submit the audio recording as evidence?? I bet you would've heard from internal affairs if you had real quick.

[greggh]

@c208driver Give him a break. It's a high stress and very intimidating situation. Like everything else it requires practice to do it right. I give him a lot of credit for trying. Most people don't even try to assert their rights. Next time he'll do a lot better.

[PortAVideo]

Ask the people of Germany 1930's and 40's what happens when you just let 'little' things' begin to pile up. They become 'BIG' things and you can be hauled off to jail or worse at a little bureaucrats discretion. Yes, America is getting that way.

[licini7]

cops are such power hungry loser jerk offs

[isdfgbsdf]

This video is the smoking gun that freedom is an illusion in this country. I am going to start a movement of law-abiding citizens to do this at every checkpoint to "choke" the corrupt system and open these departments up to civil law suits.

welcome to the police state.

[MrSoapFactory]

Interesting post. It goes to show that your Police Department has not just one, but two bold-faced liars. They will lie without shame to save their own butts, but will not give an American citizen any courtesy. Very valuable lesson, the only reason for these suspicionless checkpoints is a dragnet to bring in REVENUES (extortion) for cities and states. They are not interested in people's safety, just funding their own incompetence.

[rhizmoe]

@ 5:00 the cops know they're toast

[yandosan]

"If you don't want to provide details (3:11) we're going to assume that you're drunk."

Really? Why? Please elaborate, Mr. Piggy.

[yandosan]

Great job.

You should have taken it a step further.Once they made the arrest and then you blew .00 in the station you would have had a nice lawsuit.

[franksinclair1]

I understand why you were upset, I would be too. but arguing with cops only gives them reason to keep detaining you, and even arrest you. If you simply refuse the tests and remain silent, you are calling their bluff. Because they either have to arrest you (and they have no probable cause to do so) or let you go. All this BS they hurled at you is a bluff to break you and nothing more. I know this is all hindsight, but better to know now than never.

BTW, I've been through this, so i know. ;)

[franksinclair1]

Police officers can legally lie to you in order to get you to answer their questions and take their tests. They do this to get you to incriminate yourself. The best thing to do in a situation like this is to tell them once that you decline to answer any questions and that you intend to remain silent. If they ask you to take any tests, simply decline to take them and do not say another word. If they threaten to arrest you, ask for their names and badge numbers and then remain silent.

[spazmoso]

a dui is the only charge in the united states where ur provin guilty and have to prove ur innocence,its a police state.its a bunch of bullshit

[CComb501]

Yes, that is how it happened. Not enough evidence to convict in a criminal court but becase I refused under the implied consecnt laws the DMV suspended my license at a hearing that I was advised to not attend.Too bad I didn't know what I know now or I would have submitted after I was arrested. you don't usually think about while driving around. yes,there was also some emblishment in the police report to enhance his suspicion claim. The DMV sided with the cop and that's the way the story goes

[SimplyThinkDreams]

@CComb501 You should read the statute on the contractual consent. In Pennsylvania, contractual consent to a breath, chemical, blood, or urine test is only applicable to those who have already been convicted of DUI, those who's license privilege has been suspended, or if the person was involved in a fatal accident. If those don't apply they cannot take your operating privilege for not submitting to the test.

[CComb501]

@SimplyThinkDreams I was suspected DUI in CT. and arrested.( I live in Fl.) I refuesed all chemical tests. A DMV hearing follows within 10 days of arrest and the court has empowered the DMV to suspend one's licensce based on lack of cooperation under the implied consent law. Even though I avoided a criminal conviction the DMV still administratively suspended my license for a year and required an IID installed on my vehicle and all the other DUI crap.School,councling, etc. Easy to 2nd guess after

[SimplyThinkDreams]

@CComb50 Bummer. Well at least now you realize the cold hard fact that if you do not know your rights then you don't have any; and, that it is necessary to learn the law and apply it. If you are interested in learning law through your own selt study check out teamlaw(dot)org

[Blit67]

Here's the deal..we as citizens have to be willing to fight our fight after the fact. If an officer is going to force the issue, refuse and allow them to take you in, give the breath test at the station, lodge a complaint, get an attorney and sue the municipality and the officer personally. That officer will think twice the next time. You will not win on the officer's terms. You will win on yours.

[chieftp]

so now they can randomly stop people for no reason and force them to blow into their tube? and if they don't blow into their tube, they get arrested? and charged with what exactly? is this what it's come to in this country???

[CComb501]

@chieftp Yes they can, and if you refuse they will suspend your driver's license for a year of more. Not based on any criminal charge but the Implied Consent law the DMV's have imposed at the urging of MADD. It's an administrative suspension not a criminal one, so even if you are not found guilty you will still lose your license because you refused to consent. Look at your driver's license and see the fine print. Ask me how I know this. MADD is the real enemy here.

[hamer669]

@CComb501: You are a bit misguided. As I said before- implied consent only apples to persons actually lawfully arrested for DUI. The police CANNOT legally force you out of a vehicle and demand a breath test unless there is articulable evidence that you are drunk. This is usually a failed breathalyzer (PAS) test or field sobriety test (FST). If you refuse the PAS and FST, and there is no other evidence like odor, slurred speach, et cetera, there is no evidence to compel a test. No suspended DL.

[CComb501]

@hamer669 I was arrested on the suspecion of DUI and I refused all tests. The DMV still suspended my license for a year, not under any criminal law but under the DMV's administrative sanctions according to the implied consent law in CT. The cop stopped me because he said I was driving erratically. No other witness so I lose either way. Cops can say what they want when it's just one of you and them unfortunately. Unless you have a camera in their face the judge and prosecution will side with them

[hamer669]

@CComb501: Weaving alone is not PC for arrest. There would have had to be articulated facts in his report that lead to PC. If the officer arrested you, there was PC, or he lied. Once you were arrested, you are required to submit to a blood test. If you did not, then your license was suspended for that. What you should have done is refuse the PAS, and take the real test after you were arrested. Your attorney would argue to suppress it due to lack of PC. If there was no PC you would keep your DL.

[chieftp]

"you can't leave your home or travel around unless you blow into my tube. and if you don't blow into my tube, you're going to be arrested."

seriously? is THAT what this country has come to???

[ph7302]

hamer669, just listening to this recording made my pulse race. Think U handled the situation very well. U pushed it far enough and I don't blame U for not wanting to spend the night in jail. You made your point. COPS LIE ALL THE TIME. NEVER, NEVER NEVER TRUST THE POLICE!

[nmbrone]

While watching this video, all of a sudden, I feel less free. The refusal to answer questions immediately meant to the police that you were guilty of something. It's a shame.

[MYCAHONAS]

you are of course right but you should NEVER take the test!!!! let them take you to jail and you will be out before you know it , THEN it will be your turn for justice!

[hamer669]

@MYCAHONAS: Yeah... well... its a lot different when you're the one that will get your car towed and spend 12 hours in the pokey without food. I had $150 worth of parishable groceries in the truck too.

[SimplyThinkDreams]

I still think you have a case against them. They lied about material facts in an attempt to establish probable cause. The detainment was excessively long considering you had not a drop to drink. These checkpoints have been allowed by the courts; however, they must stop every vehicle. Unless they have further probable cause, they cannot detain you to for refusing to answer questions. You obviously complied under duress for your safety. Damages did incur and you should bring an action.

[hamer669]

@SimplyThinkDreams The issue is finding an attorney willing to take it. They all agree I have a case, but the damages are not high enough to warrant the effort on their part.

[yoyo762]

@hamer669 Don't be afraid of the legal system. Its not difficult to file a lawsuit and its not all that complicated.

Read up on filing a case and then do it yourself. At a minimum, you force them to answer and expend money on attorneys. The steps are not hard and most likely, the court will shunt your case over for arbitration and mediation.  Interogertories and depositions are not hard. Go to the courthouse and see how another case is done.

[hamer669]

@SimplyThinkDreams The issue is finding an attorney willing to take it. They all agree I have a case, but the damages are not high enough to warrant the effort on their part.

[spazmoso]

@MYCAHONAS ur turn for justice is a im sorry and were(big brother)had to do this to keep u safe.our government has taken all civil liberties from the general public on the premise there keeping u safe

[Katoosha2006]

Okay you made some mistakes. You should NOT have rolled down your window. There is no law requiering you to roll down your window.

Had you left your window up it takes away the avenue for the officer to lie about smelling alcohol.

My advice is to roll the window down only about one half inch.

Second, you should have refused to go to secondary screening and you should have demanded the officer inform you if you are being detained. Then ask "am i free to leave".

[yoyo762]

I'm also amused at how the cop trys to act in the role of your lawyer.

" This will be better for you to do " I guess hes practicing law without a license.

[yoyo762]

I hope you filied a complaint yourself.

If you trusted the cop to file for you, he didn't.

You just impugned his character as a cop. You proved he is a liar.

The biggest weapon a cop has is his word. Once he is a liar, his word means nothing. Hes done as a cop.

On the stand, if asked if he ever lied he would have to say yes, which begs the question of why trust him??

If he said no, this could be introduced as supporting evidence of his character.

[boomslang86]

The will to survive is not as important as the will to prevail... the answer to criminal aggression is retaliation. That is why our masters in Washington are so anxious to disarm us. They are not afraid of criminals. They are afraid of a populace which cannot be subdued by tyrants.

[mikeypx82]

Wow, you kept your cool the entire time. I thought for sure they were going to take you to jail. Good Job!

[smokedaddyo]

these cops are nothing more than treasonous traitors

[whiskeysauer]

He lied because he knows that you DO NOT have to answer any questions. All you have to do as a motorist is provide ID and proof if insurance. Thereafter, you have every right to remain silent. This is an outrage. Anyone who thinks this is ok should now that there are other countries out there that fully endorse these kinds of violations of civil rights.

If you really crave this sort of thing, I urge you to go there and leave us alone here.

[hpmc9]

as much as I admire the guy who did this, it does involve some risk.

if a cop is willing to LIE about smelling alcohol, what's to stop them from dropping some cocaine in your car to 'find' in a search? It's PROVEN that cops have done this before, good luck in court trying to prove your innocence (guilty until proven innocent, and you CAN'T)

[hpmc9]

even if they dont frame you, unless you bought the car new, can you be sure the previous owner didnt have a teenage kid that used drugs (and lost some coke deep in the seats)? I bought a hertz rental car - if any of their renters ever lost a trace of drugs in the seats, it could be found

[hpmc9]

cop clearly LIED about probably cause, no iffs ands or buts

officer, if you ever wondered why the public distrusts you, this video shows you why

you lie about evidence, and you lie about rights. you wipe your feet on the constitution

[SoCalMartialLawAlert]

Call Rule of Law Radio -- either the Rule of Law Radio show, or the Agenda 21 Talk show.

[whiskeysauer]

Wow! This is scary!!! You have to agree to give up your 4th amendment rights to drive No!!!! That is NOT constitutional! I could NEVER be a cop in this country. I could never agree to do this to people.

[RememberSobibor]

Most states make taking a breathalyzer a condition of licensure W/ confiscation of your license being the penalty for refusal.

Arguing W/ the cops is stupid if you talk long enough you WILL say something they can use against you. "Officer i do not consent to any searches, I do not wish to answer any questions W/ out consulting my attorney" and SHUT UP

[hamer669]

As stated many times before, in the State of California, a breathalyser is only required after a lawful arrest for DUI. They must have PC for the arrest before the breath test is mandatory.

[RememberSobibor]

Let me rephrase, most states make submission to a field sobriety test a condition of licensure. Again arguing with the cop was stupid and a very good way to end up in jail.

[hamer669]

Let me rephrase: California DOES have an implied consent law but it only applies once actually arrested for DUI. It does not apply to those suspected of DUI. There is no law in California that requires licensed drivers to submit to a breathalyser. To rephrase directly to your statement: submission to a field sobriety test is NOT a condition of licensure in California.

[lessthn0]

I know this is California, but FL. law :

yes it is a condition of a licensee, but the dmv will also state that if you REFUSE the field sobriety and or breathalyzer they will suspend your license automatically for a year.

[lessthn0]

though, any attorney will ADVISE you to NOT submit to any questions, field sobriety, breathalyzer, blood test, or urine test for your own good. any time a police officer suspects you of being impaired and "impaired being a key word" they have the RIGHT to take you to jail based on their JUDGMENT and ASSESSMENT of you as a civilian. 9/10 times a police officer if you refuse to answer questions, or direction, WILL arrest you.

[RememberSobibor]

And when My BAT comes back 0.0 my UA is crystal clean and my hair folicle test shows I've been clean for a VERY long time the law suits begin. While you're at it feel free to cite the law allowing the police to arrest me W/ out clear PC

[Pafoofnik1]

Just a small but important clarification...

A police officer does not have any rights. He has powers that we allow him to possess.

Any of these powers can be taken away from him by court decisions, or when a majority believe that he should not have it.

(I'll leave it up to RemeberSobibor to attend to the other topic I was going to address. Good luck! I've a feeling you'll need it.)

[MYCAHONAS]

@hamer669 there is no difference at all!

[hamer669]

Well, it has been over 8 months since this happened and I am getting to the point where I am feeling left out of the loop. The BPD has yet to conclude the "investigation". It is getting to the point where I am starting to consider finding a civil rights attorney to file a claim for 4th and 5th amendment violations. If anyone is familiar with this kind of attorney in the 9th circuit please send me a message.

[Pafoofnik1]

A well worded letter to the editor, with some facts to support, can be quite a motivator to get law enforcement talking.

[xmodrelic]

call the ACLU, they can probably help you.

[Feenixaz]

It'd be good to know the Officer's name so if he accuses someone of crimes at least they can show he is a publicly known liar.

You should have taken your keys with you, not that it would have made that big of a difference~

[wilsonpwt]

Thank you for standing up for your rights. I know this is not an easy thing to do nowadays.

Keep in mind, the authority that the U.S. government possesses at our borders now affects two-thirds of the entire population. According to the new government definition, the border is now a 100 mile strip that wraps around the external boundary of the entire United States. This is an expansion of police and national security powers without regard to the effect on innocent Americans.

[Infraggable]

I don't comment often on YouYube. With this caveat, cops are allowed to lie on the job. They can lie as much as need be until they get to the stand. That's where the lies matter. An officer's job is to make arrests. Police are not some higher functioning human beings that are some how more moral at their every day job. Their job is to make arrests. Your rights and so forth are an afterthought. Put away your idealistic thoughts of justice for a moment and see the situation as it is.

[hamer669]

An officer is permitted to lie about things to get an arrest. This applies when talking to perps and saying things like "your buddy just said you did it". It does not apply to statements of PC. In this case his sergeant asked his PC for removing me from my vehicle. This is where he lied, twice. That is illegal because without REAL PC, he had no authority to remove me from the vehicle and take it to be searched.

[kybuRz101]

I was in a similar situation about a year ago. Cops on power trips...gotta love it

[Matthappy420]

Everyone must Refuse! Or the few patriots that do are the targets for the police violating and enforcing unconstitutional laws.

[kaptainsteve]

EVERYONE should refuse to answer any and all questions (except for their name and providing driver's license and ins. card) at these checkpoints as is our CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DO SO. Remember the 4th Amendment????

[SimplyThinkDreams]

Watery eyes does not establish probable cause; neither is it reasonable suspicion. Additionally, officers who claim they smell alcohol on your breath are lying. Alcohol is odorless! It is impossible to detect alcohol on the breath by smell. Also, breathalyzers are have an error percentage of about 20 percent. Anyone who knows that law and the limitations of breathalyers should never lose in court even if they were drinking.

[Marksnotebook]

@kaptainsteve Madd has brainwashed so many people. And Madd's leader went to work for a beer company. Sheep sheep sheep

[TheDudeRulez09]

Hamer669, thank you for doing this, it shows what we as citizens of the US need to do daily. We have become so complacent that we allow infringements of our rights everyday of our lives because it is "easier" to go along with them, this small action of going along programs us to accept a torrent of other infringements ranging in size, til we finally become sheep being herded to slaughter. Humanshot, while being half arsed in his statements is about 80% sheep. Please continue to resist!

[GarrettProperties]

Nevermind, I figured it out. I just wondered because I was sure the cop said Rosedale Hwy. Were they chips or BPD? I have friends and family in both, so it would be interesting to know what Sgt. that was.

[hamer669]

It was a joint task force between the BPD, Kern County Sheriff, and the California Highway Patrol. I filed complaints with both the BPD and the CHP. CHP claimed none of their officers were involved. It is over 8 months now and the BPD still lists the investigation as "pending" and refuses to give any background.

[GarrettProperties]

Great job Hamer. What city was this in?

[noodles297]

The cops are often times wrong, but I just don't see the point in refusing to do things and cause everybody even more trouble. Second, just because the officer doesn't tell you his reasons for pulling you out of the car the first time doesn't mean that he didn't think he smelled it earlier, it just means that he probably didn't feel like explaining to you his reasons. Third, arguing with officers on the street will get you nowhere except show that you don't want to do what they say to do.

[hamer669]

DId you listen to the recording? He lied to his sergeant about the PC. When he discovered in the light that my eyes were fine, his PC changed to he smelled alcohol. All I did in this case was I refused to answer police questions. Any attorney will tell you that is a good idea.I am free to use the roadway without intrusion from the government. I committed no crime, and there was no PC. Rather than lie, the officer had no choice but to let me go.

[Bugbus]

Kudos for standing up for your rights. Drinking and driving is bad. DUI checkpoints are worse. The ends do not justify the means. Pretty soon the government will be monitoring all our phone calls and internet traffic. Oops guess that already happened.

Don't let the government scare you into giving up your freedoms!

I will not give up my freedoms out of fear of terrorists or drunk drivers.

[HumanShot]

You have no right to drive drunk. And if you are pulled over for any cause whatsoever they have the right to see your license. And if they smell alcohol then you will submit to the DUI tests, or you will be arrested.

That is reality. If you chose to try to fight those realities, make sure you have the cameras rolling so we can laugh at you getting owned.

[hamer669]

Your assumption is wrong sir. I had not had a drink in 2 weeks and there was no alcohol in the vehicle. The officer lied about his PC for the stop. First it was red/watery eyes, then it was he smelled alcohol that was not present. If he lied about that, how many other things has he lied about?

[Nousides]

You are welcome to your fantasy, but DUI checkpoints are legal in California, and have been upheld as constitutional by the supreme court (Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990)).

"Implied Consent - Anyone granted the driving privilege is presumed to have given consent to law enforcement to conduct chemical testing of the motorist's blood or breath"

So if the police want to test you, they are going to. Either roadside or at the station.

[Nousides]

Now if they lied, and you can prove it, then you may have a case. But the fact is they CAN pull you over at a checkpoint without probable cause at a properly run checkpoint.

You can refuse the roadside tests, at which point they can arrest you and obligate a blood test at the station.

[hamer669]

Arrest you with what evidence? There must be evidence. Without an incriminating statement, symptoms of alcohol intoxication, or other probable cause there is no cause to arrest. Without an arrest, no chemical test can be forced. They can pull you over without PC. They can detain you for a short period of time without PC. If you then refuse to speak and there is no PC they MUST let you go. Not only did they force me to take the PAS, they denied my request to take a blood test.

[Nousides]

Quit being intentionally obtuse. It isn't clever, it is obvious & stupid.

If you refuse a roadside test, that is all the evidence they need to take you in and test you.

Don't bother arguing with me. Argue with the Supreme Court. It is up to you to come to terms with reality.

[hamer669]

"If you refuse a roadside test, that is all the evidence they need to take you in and test you."

I am not being obtuse. The plain and simple fact is that you are flat wrong. Talk to a CALIFORNIA DUI attorney. I know what I am talking about.

[alohawg]

He proved his point with the law while you proved to be wrong and agenda driven, like a cop.

I applaud this man, we need more like him and less like you.

[HumanShot]

Nah, the checkpoints are constitutional, and if you are pulled over for any offense whatsoever, you have given prior consent for them to check your license. Suspicion of your impairment is probable cause for them to apply tests for DUI.

You are free to your delusions to the contrary. It won't change your DUI experience when you get pulled over and arrested & then convicted of DUI should you choose to drive impaired.

[progrockxyzzy]

What an utterly baseless statement. He committed no "offense" prior to being pulled over, nor was their any "suspicion" of his impairment prior to being detained. In what do you base you assertion that these checkpoints are constitutional? Because they aren't against the law? That would be truly delusional.

[1A1ANONYMOUS1A1]

YOUR A SHEEP

[hamer669]

Implied consent refers to people who have been arrested for DUI. If one has been arrested for DUI, he has given implied consent to take a CERTIFIED test. This means a CERTIFIED breathalyzer at the station or a blood test at the hospital. In order for one to be arrested for DUI there must be probable cause. To get probable cause the police use VOLUNTARY sobriety checks, or VOLUNTARY hand-held breathalyzers. Without physical symptoms or other PC for arrest, chemical tests cannot be forced.

[hamer669]

I am not splitting hairs. Implied consent only applies to those that have been arrested for DUI. There must still be probable cause to make an arrest. Refusal of a PAS test is NOT probable cause. Receiving a driver's license does not give implied consent upon demand. It gives implied consent upon ARREST. There still must be that PC to arrest BEFORE the test can be forced. Please talk to a DUI attorney before you post again otherwise you will be posting in ignorance.

[Nousides]

"Implied consent only applies to those that have been arrested for DUI."

That is not what the law says. The law says "Anyone granted the driving privilege is presumed to have given consent"

You are welcome to your delusions. Enjoy arrest!

[hamer669]

You are quoting the CHP website. Let me quote California LAW: CVC 23612. (a)(1)(A) A person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to have given his or her consent to chemical testing of his blood... if lawfully arrested for an offense...in violation of Section 23140.

(C)testing shall be incidental to a lawful arrest...having reasonable cause to believe the person was driving a motor vehicle in violation of Section 23140.

As you can see implied consent only applies after a lawful arrest for DUI.

[Nousides]

Or lawful arrest for ANY offense relating to a vehicle.

[hamer669]

They cannot force a chemical test for "any vehicle offense". You are changing your story from "all licensed driver's must submit" to "people arrested of a vehicle offense". Which is it? Once again, you are mistaken. Implied consent only applies once lawfully arrested for VC 23140, 23152, or 23153, NOTHING else. Please read VC 23612 entirely before commenting. Now who is being "intentionally obtuse?"

[oldclips]

First off excellent post. You handled yourself well. It is scary to realize they would say they smelled alcohol on you. People think if you are not drinking you have nothing to worry about. Little do they know? I personally am surprised they were as nice to you as they were. Do you feel comfortable telling us what city this was in.

[hamer669]

I have not yet decided what to do with regards to the anonymity. I am currently working with the Internal Affairs department regarding this incident. If it is not handled to my satisfaction I will make it very public. I at least must give them an opportunity to right the situation under the cloak of anonymity. We will see what comes back from IA before I make it completely public. This involved three law enforcement agencies and is a bit complicated.

[hamer669]

Please guys, No more profanity and "f-da police" crap. Cops are individual people; as such there are good ones and bad ones. The actions of this officer are probably due to a lack of training. My goal is education, not sensationalization.

[mikegigabyte]

your lucky they didnt plant anything in your car, was your car in sight the whole time and were they going through it.

[dfthompson]

"This has nothing to do with your rights."

Right - they stop people with no probable cause, ask them questions, submit them to tests, and threaten them with arrest, but it's nothing to do with people's rights! Cops are mutts.

[hamer669]

I don't know.  The police say yes. My attorney says no. I have yet to hear of any case law on the matter. I guess if you want to be stubborn and not get out, you can get tazed and beaten into submission and then fight it out in court. :) I chose to get out of the vehicle.

[andrewjarvi]

When an officer asks you to get out of your vehicle, do you need to comply?

[alabama2780]

yes, but get out and close the door behind you. short of something in plain sight they have no right to search you or your vehicle, whether you are in it or not.