Hidden Camera footage through DUI Checkpoint. Officer searches wallet!!

[13sam2lucky]

unbelievable, any person in this thread defending the actions of the police in this case ought to be ashamed of themselves.

[bigredraddish]

say no drive off at worst you blow in the breathalyser and drive off  why you gotta be a dick about it .. then you voluntarily gave your ID ?? you dont have to do that. you got it all ass backwards 0/10 fail

[greggh]

@MrCheckpointcom They never asked you to take the handheld preliminary breath test after you refused the FSTs?

[Katoosha2006]

Sue them. Clearly illegal.

In the future, if told to go to secondary then roll up windows and lock doors and keep key with you.

[lawman0060]

always comply with the officer, it is his job to try and keep everyone safe. you never know who is hiding something and who is dangerous.

[JackMonroe]

@lawman0060 shut up, fool

[skuloop]

@lawman0060 yes do whatever the government tells you, go back to sleep, nothing to see here. the terrorist are hiding in my trash can! call TSA!

[brotherofmusic]

WTF?!?!?!? Since when do cops drive other people's cars? That's outrageous............but another thing I've realized: you don't have to step out of your car if asked like they did (a credentialed lawyer told me that). I would've said I would not like to because I am not in any way violating the law, and I would've drove off.

[MrCheckpointcom]

@brotherofmusic Yeah. Well it was all so intimidating. I know my rights but when I have a light in my eye w/ a cop saying "step out of the car" I guess I caved in... Next time I suppose I wait until they bash my window out. There's footage of that happening to a preacher.

[seanredsky]

@brotherofmusic If an officer is conducting an investigation and as a result, asks you to step out of the vehicle, you are required to comply. But hey, don't take my word for it. Just make sure you save that credentialed lawyers contact information so they can represent you (for a fee of course) when you take their bad advice and are arrested as a result.

[Pafoofnik1]

@seanredsky said: "If an officer is conducting an investigation and as a result, asks you to step out of the vehicle, you are required to comply. "

Have a legal cite behind this law you just made up?

[seanredsky]

@Pafoofnik1 This shows you're a newbie. No case law is required. This is a state issue. How many statutes must you read before realizing that you must comply with law enforcement?

Comply or don't, it's up to you. Try to make your point...i dont care. If you decide not to comply, you go to jail, that's all.

[Pafoofnik1]

@seanredsky: What makes you think I am required to do a thing an officer demands me to do without a statute or case law giving him the authority to do so?

Anyhow, thanks for confirming that you do not have a legal backing behind your guess.

[seanredsky]

@Pafoofnik1 Read your state motor vehicle code. Each state has different motor vehicle laws. Most states have a disobeying, disobeying an officer, compliance with law enforcement required statute. Don't ask generalized questions and expect a pin point answer. I have nothing further, you can and should do yourself a favor and familiarize yourself with your local and state laws.

[Pafoofnik1]

@seanredsky: I ask for proof and all you bring is some more talk?

I'm bound to follow the law, not what seanredsky thinks I should follow.

[Pafoofnik1]

@seanredsky: And I am trying to keep incorrect information from being passed of as the law...

Like the incorrect belief that "If an officer is conducting an investigation and as a result, asks you to step out of the vehicle, you are required to comply. ".

Good luck

[seanredsky]

@Pafoofnik1 Very well. Refuse to comply with a lawful order if that's what you think you should do. Let me know how that works out for you. Better yet, don't bother. Enjoy your visit to jail and your day in court for acting like a moron who listens to wanna be attorneys and thinks he's got things figured out. Unless you've been formally trained by an accredited legal body, I suggest you tread carefully. Otherwise, you'll probably find yourself in some trouble you don't need to be in.

[Pafoofnik1]

@seanredsky said: "Refuse to comply with a lawful order if that's what you think you should do."

Your entire comment is based on a Strawman arguement.

I never said I would refuse to comply with a lawful order. 

[seanredsky]

@Pafoofnik1 You seem to think you get to decide what is and what isn't a lawful order. Your entire argument is based on futile, obtuse and doltish views which have apparently resulted in you falsely believing you've been properly informed.

Just follow the laws in your state and wherever you are at any given time and you'll be fine.

[Pafoofnik1]

@seanredsky: I never said I get to decide what is or isn't a lawful order.

I don't, and neither do you.

Statutes and court decisions, however, do decide this.

Which is why I asked you for the legal basis behind your comment that "If an officer is conducting an investigation and as a result, asks you to step out of the vehicle, you are required to comply."

Looks like you won't be providing that proof.

Instead, you are now resorting to ad-hominem attacks.

[seanredsky]

@Pafoofnik1 Look, an officer needs reasonable suspicion to initiate a mv stop. As soon as the officer initiates a stop, an investigation has begun. When an officer approaches a vehicle, if he or she observes something during their investigation which provides probable cause that a crime has been, is being or is about to be committed, he or she may instruct the occupants to step out. If you do not comply, you are disobeying an officer. Simple as that. Know your local statutes. Im done with you.

[Pafoofnik1]

@seanredsky said: "...if he or she...

I find that a person can justify almost any incorrect statement if he introduces an "if" condition after the fact.

[seanredsky]

@Pafoofnik1 IF you want proof of the statute, tell me what state you live in. I'll show you the statute. Otherwise, I have nothing further.

[Pafoofnik1]

@seanredsky: Texas. Remember exactly what you originally said. Remember what you didn't say.

"If an officer is conducting an investigation and as a result, asks you to step out of the vehicle, you are required to comply."



[seanredsky]

@Pafoofnik1 That's not practical kiddo. Statutes aren't written with that language. However, in practicality, if an officer has reasonable suspicion to stop your vehicle, and upon further investigation, and as a result of the investigation, they develop probable cause to believe you're committing a crime, are about to commit a crime, or have committed a crime, they may ask you to step out of your vehicle. Failure to comply is a crime.

[Pafoofnik1]

@seanredsky Round robin. I've already explained the problem with adding "if" this and "if" that to a comment.

[seanredsky]

@Pafoofnik1 Round robin is absolutely correct, and your name is all over it bud. I'm a professional and i am entirely well versed in our local laws. In our state, if an officer has probable cause to believe a crime has been committed, is being committed, or is about to be committed, they have the authority to instruct a motorist and their passengers to step out of the vehicle. I am not familiar with Texas law and as I stated previously, mv law varies from state to state.

[Pafoofnik1]

@seanredsky: Well, if you are so well versed, then why haven't you provided the proof I've asked for?

Why do you keep adding conditions to your original comment? Why not just state that law you said exists and save yourself all that typing?

[Pafoofnik1]

@seanredsky: You're still just talking...

Suffice it to say that I don't imagine you'll be doing much more than.

[Pafoofnik1]

@seanredsky: See ya.

[ShadesofBlue153]

@Pafoofnik1 In the State of Texas, a peace officer has the authority to make a custodial arrest for ANY motor vehicle violation excluding speeding or open container which are both summonses. Failure to comply with ANY peace officer enforcing a mv statute in the State of Texas is an arrestable offense. Based off the conversation between you and seanredsky, it looks like he was attempting to be cordial to someone who simply isn't interested in the facts. It's too bad really.

[Pafoofnik1]

@ShadesofBlue153: Agreed. Of course, that's not what seanredsky said .

He said "If an officer is conducting an investigation and as a result, asks you to step out of the vehicle, you are required to comply."

When did he say anything about being the driver? .

[ShadesofBlue153]

@Pafoofnik1 Do you think maybe that was presumptive? Based off the conversation, it seems like that's probable. Symantecs aside then, i'll take it that you'd agree.

[Pafoofnik1]

@ShadesofBlue153: Exactness needs no presumption. The gentlemen made a statement that he believes was factual. I disagreed and asked for proof.

[Jaaerk]

wait so u just said no to the breathalyzer to be difficult?

[MrCheckpointcom]

@Jaaerk I said yes to the breathalyzer because I had to, it was that or from what they said be be locked up for a few days until my blood results came back.

[DaShiningPrince7]

Look, right or wrong that cop had NO business rifling through that guys wallet. I am all for getting drunk drivers off of the street properly but violating people's rights isn't the way. We all know this isn't a perfectly world and most of the guys that are on the job are class acts, but there are a few that push the limit of what's right or wrong. Those are the the ones that mess things up for the guys who do things by the book.

[MrCheckpointcom]

@DaShiningPrince7 What we he looking for in my money department. Good thing Im broke :)

[lycan639]

sobriety checkpoints are nothing but legal plunder, these guys don't give a damn if we are sober or drunk, its an excuse to rob and plunder it's nothing but a shakedown gorilla style, street gangs in blue uniforms they want to see how much they can get away with before we check their asses

[seanredsky]

@lycan639 When you say 'these guys' you are generalizing. Therefore based off your choice of words I assume you're referring to law enforcement in general. If that's the case I assure you that your perception is incorrect. Law enforcement absolutely has the best interests of the public in mind and the DWI checkpoints, when conducted properly, are a significant and effective deterrent utilized by law enforcement to combat the crashes and fatalities caused as a result of impaired driving.

[lycan639]

@seanredsky you're a lie and a sack of shit they don't have our best intrest in mind, and if you want to swallow the puke, go right ahead but we won't. The people are the only sure reliance fir the preservation of liberty. we are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties

[MrCheckpointcom]

@lycan639 Interesting! 

[skuloop]

@lycan639 i concur also would ass revenue generators. but im sure your on the terror watch list now buddy!

[ENDER1477]

why his he driving your car?

[yandosan]

So the asses steal your car if you don't want to answer all their questions?

[TheQueenSherwood]

just being pulled over like that for no reason is against our constitutional rights!

[seanredsky]

@TheQueenSherwood Not according to the US Supreme Court. When conducted properly, DWI Checkpoints are entirely constitutional.

Read "Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz"

[delmarjoe]

@seanredsky Problem is MOST ARE NOT CONDUCTED PROPERLY.

[seanredsky]

@delmarjoe Making such a statement would first require your presence at "Most" DWI checkpoints. If your perception is that most dwi checkpoints aren't conducted properly, that's fine, and that's your opinion to have.

[tomjunk1965]

And always put your keys (after locking up) deep in your front pockets.

Better yet, just say "no thank you, I do NOT consent to this action and do NOT require your services. Good Night" "I'm sorry, I won't be speaking (contracting) with you tonight. Thank you" "Am I free to go now?" etc.... Don't ever talk to them! Then you won't have to abandon your property on the road (salvage vehicle now) and god knows what will happen then!

Good luck brother... ;-)

[seanredsky]

Individuals are free to make their own decisions, however if someone chooses not to cooperate they may find themselves at the checkpoint for much longer than they would have if they simply provided a valid driver's license and had a brief interaction with the officer(s) and stated clearly that they have not been drinking, thereby demonstrating that they are not impaired. If this young man would have locked his vehicle and blocked traffic, it probably would have been towed at his expense.

[MrCheckpointcom]

@seanredsky And that is okay with you? Because I don't want to talk to an officer who asks "how much I have had to drink?" I am arrested! We have RIGHTS!!

[seanredsky]

@MrCheckpointcom First, a motorist doesn't have to go through the check point. (At least not in our state they don't) Check points are clearly marked with signs and cones to alert motorists. Second, if you're not impaired, there's no reason not to comply other than to try to make a point. Several people have tried to make a point, which ultimately lead to several rulings being made by the US Supreme Court which supports the constitutionality of DWI check points when conducted properly.

[tomjunk1965]

gave you a 'qualified' LIKE because you screwed up on several points.... 1) you had your window down WAY too far... 2) NEVER abandon your property! They can plant shit or worse in your "automobile"...3) NEVER offer them your I.D. (you're creating 'joinder' between you and the fiction on that Driver's License) that's when they can act on 'you'....4) you didn't roll up windows and LOCK the car doors (secure your property) before you foolishly abandoned your property on the side of the roadway.

[isair81]

Why would the cop move the car?

If they stopped you, then they must have believed the car was safe where it was!

Also, could you not have locked the door ?

[jaybird321]

Mixed feelings.

I want cops to be professional, but I also dont' want drinking and driving. Why not just cooperate if you weren't doing anything wrong? I know cops can be jerks, but there are also some good cops out there. I can't shake the feeling that the younger generation has such a sense of entitlement that they see past the big picture and potential consequences.

[nick100459]

What's you did is totally right, but remember Cops are out there doing there job to get the drunks off the street, they are protecting all of us.

Why spend 30 minutes on the street? , when you can answer their questions in 2 minutes and go on with your business.

[sennett24]

There are several alternative motives for cities to run checkpoints. Not only are they considered unconstitutional in half the countries states but they also are paid by privately owned tow truck companies. More cars impounded more money made, I think you would be surprised to the amount of cars impounded for other reasons than DUI.

Type into google.. "San Diego checkpoints make millions 10 news".

[SpotLightPhotography]

You are a great citizen ... keep fighting for our rights... I have liked your Fb page ...

[ambesa1]

good job!!!..checkpoints are really meant to get unlicensed or suspended drivers off the road more than dui. check points are intrusive!

[MrCheckpointcom]

Thanks for the feedback, however please look at this article that came out yesterday by 10 news. "police are impounding more cars from sober drivers than drunken drivers at sobriety checkpoints" (San Diego) @619fishtale

[619fishtale]

@MrCheckpointcom : Are the cars being impounded due to license/registration issues ? - couldn't find the article you mentioned --

[619fishtale]

@MrCheckpointcom (took my negative tone out) they are getting drunks/druggies off the road -- good for me and my family -- 100% support it --

re-read your CA supreme court basis - Ingersoll vs Palmer (1987)

don't wind up getting taken out by a drunk trying to prove something that's for our collective benefit (like the non-helmet wearing motorcycle guy)

[Pafoofnik1]

@619fishtaleL: Exactly how would looking through the driver's wallet determine sobriety?

[619fishtale]

@Pafoofnik1 : I'm not a lawyer or a cop --- but wouldn't it fall under probable cause ? -- window was rolled up and not exactly acting like a "normal person" given the circumstances .... i avoid them - they are posted before hand -- and if i happen to drive through one -- ID / registration / window rolled down - yes sir / no sir and i'm out of there in less than a minute --

There are ten other states to live in that don't allow them --

[Pafoofnik1]

@619fishtale: If this is a DUI checkpoint, then the only action officers should do is determine sobriety and look for plain sight law violations. ( 531 U.S. 32 (2000)).

Since the contents of the wallet were not in plain sight, the plain sight action does not apply, leaving only the sobriety determination. That's why I asked the question of what would he be looking for to determine sobriety.

Refusal to roll down a window is perfectly legal, so cannot be the basis for probable cause of DUI.

[619fishtale]

@Pafoofnik1 (not sure what happened to my last post) I don't think Plain sight would apply -

V C Section 23612 Implied Consent For Chemical Testing - give officers the right to arrest you for failure to do BAC or blood test -- his initial refusal to do so was moving him down the path of being arrested.

also, When he allowed the officer to move his car -- wouldn't that be consent ? directly/indirectly



[619fishtale]

if they are looking at his "fluttering eyes" one would look in a wallet as it was out in the open (not in a glove box) for contraband such as, coke/speed

how about we all get bus passes and forget the driving thing all together ?

[Pafoofnik1]

@619fishtale: You are correct, since the contents of his wallet are not in plain sight, then the officer has to rely only on trying to determine sobriety. This is why I asked my original question.

The rest of your comment is immaterial to my question as it delves into issues not related to my question. For example implied consent does not give authority to search a wallet. Neither does an officer taking it upon himself to move a car.

[MrCheckpointcom]

@Pafoofnik1 The Officers already had my drivers license. There was absolutely no reason to go through every card and inside the two different sections where money is stored (no money was in wallet at the time). I was also originally even detained not because I wouldn't answer his questions (5th amendment) but because he "got a whiff of alcohol" when I spoke with him through the window.

[Pafoofnik1]

@MrCheckpointcom: Agreed about the no reason to search without consent or probable cause.

I sure wish we could drag these officers that 'get a whiff of alcohol' then find nothing in front of a judge to explain their failure, then watch as they write me a check to cover my time and expenses for their olfactory shortcomings.

[poweredbyevil5150]

That's some BS right there. Cops always think that they're above the law. Get a lawyer and uphold the constitution.

[MrAugust85]

dude for real. cops around here especially sd are corrupt as fuck and like to get away with everything they possibly can.

[97RAVINEAVE]

Dude , get a lawyer , or call the ACLU or both