DerekClouser Posted July 8, 2013 Report Share Posted July 8, 2013 Video has gone viral - Over 2 million views in less than 3 days. Thought provoking questions: Should he (the driver) have just cooperated? Boundaries of a DUI checkpoint? Did the police overstep their boundaries? What should happen to the police officers involved? Discuss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redkow97 Posted July 8, 2013 Report Share Posted July 8, 2013 The officer has the wrong temperament for the job. The driver was legally within his rights. The only point I disagree with is that providing identification when asked is (by definition) not an interrogation, nor is it considered incriminating, so there is no reason to refuse providing identification. Otherwise, he was correct. You cannot be detained unless you are suspected of committing a crime, and you have a right to ask (and be told) what crime you are suspected of. The only reason DUI checkpoints fly to begin with is because you implicitly consent to them by driving into them. That's why they have to be announced to be legal. That is NOT consent to a search of your vehicle, etc. The cop was being a jerk and trying to bully the driver into compliance. I think the video would show that the search was bad, and anything they HAD found would have been suppressed in court. The driver should be compensated for any damage done to his vehicle, and the police should use this as a teaching experience for the officer on camera, and everyone else on staff. The only thing they succeeded in doing here is detaining and harassing a law-abiding member of the population that they are supposed to protect. If I were his supervisor, I'd at least give him a slap on the wrist. A week suspension, unpaid or something. But the union would be up the chief's ass for that, so it probably wouldn't happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grapesmuggler27 Posted July 8, 2013 Report Share Posted July 8, 2013 Chris correct me if I'm wrong but the only thing you can be cited for at a dui check point is a dui at least I'm pretty sure that's how it is inOhio. So unless he suspected him of being drunk he should of been sent on his way. As far as the ID goes, you do not have to surrender your ID unless you have commited or suspected of comming a crime. Since this was a dui check point and since all they are allowed to check for is dui and since they never said the think he was ssuspected of being drunk he shouldn't of had to surrender his I'd either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kent2406 Posted July 8, 2013 Report Share Posted July 8, 2013 Here's what Cleveland is doing, http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2013/06/fake_drug_checkpoint_in_mayfie.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerekClouser Posted July 8, 2013 Author Report Share Posted July 8, 2013 Here's what Cleveland is doing, http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2013/06/fake_drug_checkpoint_in_mayfie.html I heard about this on Rover's Morning Glory. I like the idea behind it, but I don't think it is going to work the way they think it will. The money and man power to keep this viable, seems to extremely outweigh the benefit that could be gained. But in my opinion, getting drugs off the street is okay in my book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonik Posted July 8, 2013 Report Share Posted July 8, 2013 I heard about this on Rover's Morning Glory. He is not exactly an unbiased opinion when it comes to cops these days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted July 8, 2013 Report Share Posted July 8, 2013 (edited) Chris correct me if I'm wrong but the only thing you can be cited for at a dui check point is a dui at least I'm pretty sure that's how it is inOhio. So unless he suspected him of being drunk he should of been sent on his way. As far as the ID goes, you do not have to surrender your ID unless you have commited or suspected of comming a crime. Since this was a dui check point and since all they are allowed to check for is dui and since they never said the think he was ssuspected of being drunk he shouldn't of had to surrender his I'd either. they cite people for EVERYTHING at them. if you look at the stats, they usually get like 1 or 2 DUIs . then they write 700 tickets for no front plate, expired tags, etc etc etc its basically just a way for them to stop tons of people that they otherwise would have no good reason to stop, write tickets and generate revenue. the dog is nothing more than a way for the cops to get probable cause to search your car they have none. just like you can see in the video, the handler simply claims that the dog is "alerting" him (because he just told it to sit or something) and boom, they search your car. so curious how they find no drugs or anything though... dog must have been confused apparently. good dog. as for the ID, in ohio at least, if you are operating a motor vehicle, then im pretty sure you're required to produce your license upon request. Edited July 8, 2013 by John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redkow97 Posted July 8, 2013 Report Share Posted July 8, 2013 (edited) Chris correct me if I'm wrong but the only thing you can be cited for at a dui check point is a dui at least I'm pretty sure that's how it is inOhio. So unless he suspected him of being drunk he should of been sent on his way. As far as the ID goes, you do not have to surrender your ID unless you have commited or suspected of comming a crime. Since this was a dui check point and since all they are allowed to check for is dui and since they never said the think he was ssuspected of being drunk he shouldn't of had to surrender his I'd either. I would have to look into it to be sure, but that doesn't sound right to me... If I pull up to a DUI checkpoint completely sober, but the officers hear someone screaming from inside my trunk, I'm guessing the separate probable cause for searching my trunk is still going to hold up in court when they charge me with kidnapping. Now they do need that separate and independent probable cause, but I can still be cited for something other than DUI. In similar fashion, if I am drunk, police are within their rights to perform a search that is "incident to my arrest," which means they can look for evidence to support the charge for which I am being arrested (whatever that charge is). For a DUI arrest, they can look for beer cans under the seat, etc. If they're searching under my seat and find weed or child porn or whatever, that's still going to be admissible in court as long as it is found in a place that was reasonable for the officers to be searching given the DUI charge. That's why cops LOVE to get warrants for drugs, or find probable cause to search for drugs - because they can fit in really small places, which means you can search virtually anywhere. Police are also allowed to perform an inventory search when they impound a vehicle, after you have been arrested and the vehicle has been seized. They usually get warrants for those though, because there's no real rush to search once the vehicle is under police control. He should not be detained without being suspected of committing a crime, period, but it doesn't have to be suspicion of DUI. Their failure to articulate what crime he was suspected of committing is the bullshit part. But all they would have needed to said is that "you're suspected of DUI," and then taken his ID to verify his age. Remember, driving with a .01 BAC is a "DUI" for anyone under 21. I was just saying that it has been held by the supreme court that your ID cannot "incriminate" you, thus you don't need to be Mirandized prior to providing your ID, nor do you have a right to have an attorney present prior to providing your ID. You can refuse to provide an ID if you want, but they're just going to detain you until they determine that you have not committed any crime, including operating a motor vehicle without a license. Edited July 8, 2013 by redkow97 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tpoppa Posted July 8, 2013 Report Share Posted July 8, 2013 This video illustrates my general mistrust, dislike, and lack of respect for police officers. They are more than willing to violate civil rights, and in some cases break the law in order to uphold the law. We basically have a bunch of armed, 'C-' students with badges doing whatever the hell they want to. When they fuck up (like killing unarmed motorists in Cleveland) their supervisors get in trouble. Law Enforcement in this country is long overdue for sweeping reform. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redkow97 Posted July 8, 2013 Report Share Posted July 8, 2013 This video illustrates my general mistrust, dislike, and lack of respect for police officers. They are more than willing to violate civil rights, and in some cases break the law in order to uphold the law. We basically have a bunch of armed, 'C-' students with badges doing whatever the hell they want to. When they fuck up (like killing unarmed motorists in Cleveland) their supervisors get in trouble. Law Enforcement in this country is long overdue for sweeping reform. I don't think ALL cops, or even the majority of cops are "out to get you," but you point out some valid flaws in the current system. Most cops these days have a criminal justice degree, or something similar, but there is still a huge percentage of active-duty officers (and supervisors) who have a high-school education, and 6 months of police academy. What they learn on the job is productive at teaching them how to survive, but counterproductive in teaching them how to be good police officers. On top of that, I think it takes a very specific temperament to be a truly great police officer. That temperament alone is rare. Then you factor in the very average financial compensation police officers receive, and it should not surprise us that our police force is not as highly qualified as we'd like. Know your rights, and be prepared to put up with some harassment for asserting them. Stay calm. Be polite. Choose your battles. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tpoppa Posted July 8, 2013 Report Share Posted July 8, 2013 I don't think ALL cops, or even the majority of cops are "out to get you," but you point out some valid flaws in the current system. Most cops these days have a criminal justice degree, or something similar, but there is still a huge percentage of active-duty officers (and supervisors) who have a high-school education, and 6 months of police academy. What they learn on the job is productive at teaching them how to survive, but counterproductive in teaching them how to be good police officers. On top of that, I think it takes a very specific temperament to be a truly great police officer. That temperament alone is rare. Then you factor in the very average financial compensation police officers receive, and it should not surprise us that our police force is not as highly qualified as we'd like. Know your rights, and be prepared to put up with some harassment for asserting them. Stay calm. Be polite. Choose your battles. My opinion of LEOs is based on my dealings with them over the years (no criminal history here), and a few I know on a personal level. While I know there are 'good cops,' I can't say I've ever met a truly great police officer. I have met a few that seemed like they we more suited to sitting in the backseat of the patrol car. I'm certain that the percentage of 'bad cops' is much higher than anyone is willing to admit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grapesmuggler27 Posted July 8, 2013 Report Share Posted July 8, 2013 Tada http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4511.093 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerekClouser Posted July 9, 2013 Author Report Share Posted July 9, 2013 Tada http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4511.093 That's interesting to know, but it does say secondary traffic violation. So if they find/smell drugs or something along those lines, they could arrest you, but if you didn't have a front license plate they couldn't ticket you unless they cited you for something non-traffic related. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted July 9, 2013 Report Share Posted July 9, 2013 (edited) pretty sure no front plate is a primary offense and you can be stopped for it. that page spells out exactly what "secondary offenses" mean: B) As used in this section, "secondary traffic offense" means a violation of division (A) or (F)(2) of section 4507.05, division (B)(1)(a) or (b) or (E) of section 4507.071, division (A) of section 4511.204, division © or (D) of section 4511.81, division (A)(3) of section4513.03, or division (B) of section 4513.263 of the Revised Code. those sections mentioned are things like temp permit violation, restraint violation, not having your headlights on etc. Edited July 9, 2013 by John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad324 Posted July 9, 2013 Report Share Posted July 9, 2013 pretty sure no front plate is a primary offense and you can be stopped for it. that page spells out exactly what "secondary offenses" mean: B) As used in this section, "secondary traffic offense" means a violation of division (A) or (F)(2) of section 4507.05, division (B)(1)(a) or (b) or (E) of section 4507.071, division (A) of section 4511.204, division © or (D) of section 4511.81, division (A)(3) of section4513.03, or division (B) of section 4513.263 of the Revised Code. those sections mentioned are things like temp permit violation, restraint violation, not having your headlights on etc. it is a primary offense indeed. I know this as I've been stopped a dozen times for it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grapesmuggler27 Posted July 9, 2013 Report Share Posted July 9, 2013 Drugs would fall uner the ovi law Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerekClouser Posted July 9, 2013 Author Report Share Posted July 9, 2013 Drugs would fall uner the ovi law I don't think this is true. You can't set up a check point to search for drugs.You can only set up check points for the 2 following situations: To stop people from driving under the influence of alcohol or to prevent illegal immigrants from entering at the border. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grapesmuggler27 Posted July 9, 2013 Report Share Posted July 9, 2013 (edited) I don't think this true. You can't set up a check point to search for drugs.You can only set up check points for the 2 following situations: To stop people from driving under the influence of alcohol or to prevent illegal immigrants from enterinhg at the border.Its a OVI checkpoint. By ohio law ovi is under the influence of drugs or alcohol http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4511.19 Edited July 9, 2013 by grapesmuggler27 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tpoppa Posted July 9, 2013 Report Share Posted July 9, 2013 Its a OVI checkpoint. By ohio law ovi is under the influence of drugs or alcoholhttp://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4511.19 What is the test to determine if you are under the influence of drugs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grapesmuggler27 Posted July 9, 2013 Report Share Posted July 9, 2013 What is the test to determine if you are under the influence of drugs?I would imagine typical things blood shot eyes, dilated pupils, smell etc...as far as actual test I'm not sure. But if probable cause was there I'm sure there's some test. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tpoppa Posted July 9, 2013 Report Share Posted July 9, 2013 I would imagine typical things blood shot eyes, dilated pupils, smell etc...as far as actual test I'm not sure. But if probable cause was there I'm sure there's some test.You can test to see if drugs have been in you systems in the past 30 days or so. But there's no reliable test to determine if you're currently under the influence of many common drugs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grapesmuggler27 Posted July 9, 2013 Report Share Posted July 9, 2013 You can test to see if drugs have been in you systems in the past 30 days or so. But there's no reliable test to determine if you're currently under the influence of many common drugs.Your right but proove to a court you were not...REASONABLE suspicion plus a positive test would be pretty hard to beat not impossible. Just make it easy don't drink and drive and don't do drugs and drive seems pretty simple Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tpoppa Posted July 9, 2013 Report Share Posted July 9, 2013 Your right but proove to a court you were not...That is exactly the opposite of the basis of our justice system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevysoldier Posted July 9, 2013 Report Share Posted July 9, 2013 You can test to see if drugs have been in you systems in the past 30 days or so. But there's no reliable test to determine if you're currently under the influence of many common drugs. under the influence of alcohol, drugs or a combination thereof. Tests and checks such as horizontal gaze nystagmus, vertical nystagmus, pupil dilation and equal tracking, and the standard field sobriety tests as well as suspect behavior, replies, smell or paraphernalia can all be determined if you are currently under the influence of alcohol or drugs. If they get urine or blood to test for drugs, the amount in your system will show if you were currently under the influence when tested. You can also be charged with being under the influence of the officer has good probably cause to show that you shouldn't have been driving even if the limits are under the standard .08%.an ovi check point is legal(ish) because the powers that be say it is announced and they have the option to go around. But if you go through one and aren't wearing your seatbelt, expect to be cited for it even though it is not a primary offense for ages 18+. Back to the video...yes the guy was legal to only roll his window down that far. Was his behavior a bit suspicious? Sure because that isn't normal. he needs to provide identification either by license, SSN or name and DOB to be identified. He consented to the stop by driving into the check point and therefore must provide ID. He also must exit the vehicle when told, including any passengers as held up by case law. The video doesn't show how the dog "hit" on the car. Just jumping doesn't mean that is his alert. Some dogs sit, lay, bark, scratch, etc. This would be backed up by training records and any other K9 searches. both parties are at fault. Driver for being difficult, officer for being a jerk. The officer could have gone about his interview in a less aggressive and intimidating way and the driver probably would have relaxed on proving a point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gixxus Christ! Posted July 9, 2013 Report Share Posted July 9, 2013 They can actually test the ashes in your ashtray right there at the traffic stop and determine if they're from pot. That's usually a slam dunk ovi case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.