 I want to comment on a video that was posted, and the title was Fourth of July, DUI Checkpoint, Drug Dogs Search Without Consent While Innocent, and it was a pretty interesting video. It involves a young man who set up a camera in his car, pulled up to a DUI checkpoint, and he rolled his window down this far and started talking to the officer, and he had been drinking, had done nothing wrong, and he basically was seeing what his rights were. And it kind of gets out of hand. The officer, and I get it, they have a tough job, but really get snippy with the kid. The kid asks, am I free to go? He makes him pull over. He keeps asking, am I being detained? The cop's just yelling at him. They bring a dog over. They touch the car here and here, and the dog jumps up and scratches the car here and here. Basically, it appears that the officer's telling the dog to get fake hits that he's smelling drugs. And then they pull the kid out. They search everything in the car and boom, they finally find the camera and they pull it down. And they ultimately release this kid after searching his car and after seizing him. It's funny because one of the two officers, and one of the dogs says it wasn't a very strong hit. And when they find the camera, you can see that their demeanor changes immediately. I wanted to comment on this video because under the case of Michigan Department of State Police versus SITS, S-I-T-Z, and it can be found at 496 US 444, it's a 1990 US Supreme Court case, they address whether these checkpoints are valid and legal. And they held they are if there is a substantial government interest rationally related to the law. And here there is. You don't want people driving drunk and injuring others on the road. We can all agree on that. They say that the momentary stop is negligible and that brief questioning to gain reasonable suspicion is okay. Now here's where I have the problem with what the officers did. This gentleman rolled his window down about this far. He can clearly hear the officer. The officer can clearly hear him. There's your brief questioning. And he says, okay, sir, roll your window all the way down. He goes, no, I'm okay. I can hear you. It's down far enough. He goes, no, you need to roll it down. He goes, no, I don't. I can hear you. What would you like? And that's when the officer seizes him and says, pull off the road now. They start yelling at each other, or actually the officer starts yelling at the kid. He finally says, okay, I'll pull over. And then they get him out and they really put him through the ringer. The bit about bringing the dog over, that is an unreasonable search in my opinion. I believe the seizure was unreasonable, the fake hit, and it got out of line. The officer clearly said, okay, sir, we're here to determine if you've been drinking or driving. Have you been drinking? No. Have you taken any drugs? No. Have you been breathing through the window so I can smell whether you've been drinking? Great. Can I look at your eyes through the crack here really quick? Great. And let him go on. Clearly he was not impaired, and that's how this should have gone down. I think it's important for people to test law enforcement and monitor them to a degree. I believe this kid was pretty respectful and he wasn't really out of line and he wasn't pushing the buttons. And I think it's a good video and a good lesson to a lot of the police forces. I think if somebody rolls their window down that far, they can handle it a little bit differently and probably a little more professionally. But that's what I think. Tell me what you think.