DUI Checkpoint, Cops admittedly ignore rights.

View · by **Collector1337420** on Sun Jul 07, 2013 4:10 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-WMn_zHCVo

"Land of free, home of the brave."

(Law enforcement only)

View · by **BemidjiDweller** on Sun Jul 07, 2013 4:36 pm

I'm glad we don't have to deal with checkpoints here in MN.

View · by **Hmac** on Sun Jul 07, 2013 4:50 pm

I don't know how much it matters, but that was a setup. The driver intentionally crashed the checkpoint party at the behest of the Tennessee Libertarian Party.

View · by **Scratch** on Sun Jul 07, 2013 5:26 pm

What would it have hurt to roll his window down...

View · by **Snowgun** on Sun Jul 07, 2013 5:26 pm

So, could one of the resident net lawyers tell me why these don't violate the 4th A?

View · by **Back In Black** on Sun Jul 07, 2013 5:40 pm

BemidjiDweller wrote:I'm glad we don't have to deal with checkpoints here in MN.

They don't need them. They'll make stuff up just to pull you over. It's happened to me twice.

View · by **Hmac** on Sun Jul 07, 2013 5:40 pm

Snowgun wrote:So, could one of the resident net lawyers tell me why these don't violate the 4th A?

http://www.wate.com/story/22770235/dui- ... eo-youtube

Prominent Nashville criminal defense attorney Rob McKinney viewed the video. He told Nashville's News 2 the driver knew his rights well.

"I think it was a smart young man who wanted to prove a point that he knew his constitutional rights and he wanted to show how things are on the streets," McKinney said.

When asked if the Constitutional rights of the driver were violated, McKinney said, "Not from what I saw there."

McKinney said the driver's Constitutional rights in the video were not violated since officers have a right to ask drivers for their identification. Plus, being detained is also within the officer's legal rights if it's for an investigative purposes.

As for the K9 unit, the officer can only enter the vehicle if the K9 officer detects an alert like drugs. However, McKinney said it's tough to tell in the video if the dog actually detected something or if the handler manipulated to dog to do so. Regardless, McKinney feels the video gives a motorists an idea what their rights are.

View · by **Nalez** on Sun Jul 07, 2013 11:24 pm

Scratch wrote:What would it have hurt to roll his window down...

And give the police another invitation to perform a search?

Think of it - if there is a barrier between the you and the officer; the officer knows you cant go at him with a knife.... At least; thats one thought process.

View · by **Snowgun** on Mon Jul 08, 2013 10:21 pm

Hmac wrote:
Snowgun wrote:So, could one of the resident net lawyers tell me why these don't violate the 4th A?

http://www.wate.com/story/22770235/dui- ... eo-youtube

Prominent Nashville criminal defense attorney Rob McKinney viewed the video. He told Nashville's News 2 the driver knew his rights well.

"I think it was a smart young man who wanted to prove a point that he knew his constitutional rights and he wanted to show how things are on the streets," McKinney said.

When asked if the Constitutional rights of the driver were violated, McKinney said, "Not from what I saw there."

McKinney said the driver's Constitutional rights in the video were not violated since officers have a right to ask drivers for their identification. Plus, being detained is also within the officer's legal rights if it's for an investigative purposes.

As for the K9 unit, the officer can only enter the vehicle if the K9 officer detects an alert like drugs. However, McKinney said it's tough to tell in the video if the dog actually detected something or if the handler manipulated to dog to do so. Regardless, McKinney feels the video gives a motorists an idea what their rights are.

So, it sounds like someone is screwed either way. If the cops can detain you, request ID, and fake a "hit" with the dog for no other reason than setting an "investigational" checkpoint, and then have all the right to go into full blown search mode, then I don't see what rights you really have in this aspect.

What protection did the kid have? Could he have driven off? I dont' think so...he had to talk, get id'ed, even pulled over, taken out of the vehicle, got searched without consent.

Was his only right not rolling the window all the way down?

View · by **jshuberg** on Mon Jul 08, 2013 10:25 pm

It's abuse of power, plain and simple.

View · by **AdamZ82** on Tue Jul 09, 2013 8:05 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nAZC80xgMo

In this case (immigration checkpoint) the driver politely but firmly refuses to pull into the other lane or get out of the vehicle. I wonder how that tactic would have played out at the DUI checkpoint in the original post... I suppose if they would have brought the dog over and it "hit" on the vehicle they would then have PC, so it doesn't really matter one way or another.