Video: 2 idiots at DUI checkpoint [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Video: 2 idiots at DUI checkpoint


Mark9Fogger
05-05-2011, 19:56
http://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/3649327-Video-Cops-smash-window-of-men-who-wont-comply-at-sobriety-checkpoint/

Pepper45
05-05-2011, 20:08
Idiots. This is no different than the open carry clowns. Anytime I see video that starts long before the confrontation begins, I automatically deduct about 75 IQ points from the guy holding it.

collim1
05-05-2011, 20:08
two idiots set out to post a video, that is all

packsaddle
05-05-2011, 20:18
"Am I being detained?"

"Not anymore....jump in these handcuffs right here."

DaBigBR
05-05-2011, 20:34
Wow.

What a couple of morons.

Before you try to beat the odds, make sure you can survive the odds beating you. The presence of the camera, for better or worse, is probably the only thing that kept those two morons from being dragged out through the broken window.

Sharky7
05-05-2011, 20:35
Like broken moronic records. "Am I being detained?" Hey genius, we just boxed you in with patrol cars on both sides and are demanding you exit the car....you are clearly being detained, but we also have told you about 10 times YES you are being detained.

Dragoon44
05-05-2011, 20:58
So what OC event were they headed for?

:rofl::rofl:

MarcDW
05-05-2011, 21:00
Hope they found a new hobby after this!

CAcop
05-05-2011, 21:45
Ignorance is no excuse for the law.

Cochese
05-05-2011, 21:59
Try that as a response to a checkpoint in Mexico. :rofl: You'd have more than a broken window, ****.

Dragoon44
05-05-2011, 22:01
Try that as a response to a checkpoint in Mexico. :rofl: You'd have more than a broken window, ****.

Instead of " Am I being detained??" it will be, "am I being killed?"

IndyGunFreak
05-05-2011, 22:32
That was pretty funny.. he must have asked Am I being detained 7-8x, and he kept getting told yes, and he kept asking like he was gonna get a different answer.

Fireplug
05-05-2011, 23:20
Love how they self-incriminate. Makes our job easier.

Sam Spade
05-06-2011, 10:02
Pity they didn't have guns. Thisd be good for 90, 100 pages easy in CI.

steveksux
05-06-2011, 10:16
"Am I being defenestrated?"

Randy

Dragoon44
05-06-2011, 10:30
Pity they didn't have guns. Thisd be good for 90, 100 pages easy in CI.

Yeah instead of idiots they would be heroes of the republic and super patriots.

IndyGunFreak
05-06-2011, 11:52
Yeah instead of idiots they would be heroes of the republic and super patriots.

To some maybe, but I still like to think the minority who agrees w/ what some of these clowns do, are just very vocal..

Probably wishful thinking on my part though.. :)

Dragoon44
05-06-2011, 11:59
To some maybe, but I still like to think the minority who agrees w/ what some of these clowns do, are just very vocal..

Probably wishful thinking on my part though.. :)

No I agree with you that the majority would not view them as such. but then they are generally the "Silent" majority". it is the vocal fringe element that makes would promote and cherish their activities as recorded.

lawman800
05-06-2011, 13:43
Idiots. No redeeming value whatsoever. They need to be taught a lesson.

Don't try to fight the law. Ain't never going to be pretty.

IndyGunFreak
05-06-2011, 13:56
Something I just picked up on while watching this again... When they asked for the Lt., the Officers said the Lt. just talked to them, they then asked for another Lt. by name (sounded like Arburgo)...

I hope these two clowns aren't related to a police officer while acting like that.

DaBigBR
05-06-2011, 14:26
Something I just picked up on while watching this again... When they asked for the Lt., the Officers said the Lt. just talked to them, they then asked for another Lt. by name (sounded like Arburgo)...

I hope these two clowns aren't related to a police officer while acting like that.

Nah, probably the guy that took their last BS complaint.

rsagona1
05-06-2011, 20:42
I would have said (just to shut them up) my name's XXX, badge number XXX, you ARE being detained and have 5 seconds to do what I say and then I'm pulling you out.

Hack
05-06-2011, 21:12
I would have said (just to shut them up) my name's XXX, badge number XXX, you ARE being detained and have 5 seconds to do what I say and then I'm pulling you out.

FTW! There are those who are extreme, and these are. For all I know they are dangerous criminals. If the law is to show drivers license, (which they should understand the rules for already), then they should simply show it, let the officer do what he needs to do. If they would have cooperated, they would have been set loose to go about their business. I think the officers were professional in how they handled it.

lawman800
05-06-2011, 21:15
Why do you need to show a driver's license? Well... duh... you're driving, asshat!

Hack
05-06-2011, 21:26
Why do you need to show a driver's license? Well... duh... you're driving, asshat!

:rofl: Sometimes things are so obvious as to escape the notice of those with a severe lack of intelligence.:supergrin:

Panzergrenadier1979
05-08-2011, 06:18
This video has been getting a lot of mileage at my station. Good times.

It seemed to me that the passenger was the actual owner of the vehicle and much more vocal then the driver. At one point I swear I can see the driver get the "Oh S**T" look on his face. Perhaps he felt that he'd taken this as far as he was comfortable and now he was past the point of no return. The schmuck with the camera though didn't seem to have any issues with his buddy being in the hot seat.

m2hmghb
05-08-2011, 06:38
Reminds me of the Chris Rock video the way the passenger is going on.

G27Chief
05-08-2011, 07:31
Why do you need to show a driver's license? Well... duh... you're driving, asshat!

They never seem to get that!

harrygunner
05-08-2011, 21:50
According to this website, twelve states disallow DUI checkpoints: http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/checkpoint_laws.html

Like how Texas interprets them as being against the U.S. Constitution.

I don't drink, I'm no fun at parties. But it's a consideration to me (respect for our rights) as I decide where to move to, from California. Idaho is high and now higher on my list.

Aquanewt
05-08-2011, 22:53
harry, Just where in the Constitution does it say you have a right or generally are alowed to drive an automobile? It doesn't. I can see part of your point concerning illegal searches and seizures but we are talking about a licensed privledge. I do not have any 'right' just do what every I want, I'm required to obey the laws that are passed by the legislature from the local all the way to the federal level

Glocker1984
05-08-2011, 23:51
That video was full of "win". LEO's got a little entertainment, asshat's went to jail for being stupid. :supergrin:

Hack
05-09-2011, 00:55
harry, Just where in the Constitution does it say you have a right or generally are alowed to drive an automobile? It doesn't. I can see part of your point concerning illegal searches and seizures but we are talking about a licensed privledge. I do not have any 'right' just do what every I want, I'm required to obey the laws that are passed by the legislature from the local all the way to the federal level

I'm not Harry, but for argument's sake let us begin with Article 1 Section 8 Concerning the Powers of the US Congress, (both houses).

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

Now, truthfully it doesn't mention manner of conveyance at all, nor does it disallow any matter of conveyance concerning conveyance used on post roads. So, it does not allow or disallow the driving or handling of any matter of conveyance including auto mobiles at the federal level. Notice the key wording within my sentence concerning that and how it relates to another part of the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, specifically Amendment X to the US Constitution. The state does have a right to make laws concerning what kind of conveyance, the responsibilities of a user of a conveyance and the rights and responsibilities that go with it. So, if said person is on his own private property with a conveyance, that person can take that personal conveyance to anywhere on his property and not necessarily need a license to drive. But, on the state roads, and roads governed over by the State that person may need a license. I did not take time to look at case law, as I am not ambitious enough to do so, presently.

Navy HMC
05-09-2011, 01:46
I would have said (just to shut them up) my name's XXX, badge number XXX, you ARE being detained and have 5 seconds to do what I say and then I'm pulling you out.

Not an LEO, but have nothing but respect and admiration to those that are. That said, I don't know if I would have given my bage and name at that point, knowing that this will most likely be posted on you tube. I would have thought "Sir, step out of the vehicle and I will gladly show you my badge number and name on my uniform."

Stay safe Folks!

harrygunner
05-09-2011, 02:13
I'm saying twelve states view sobriety checkpoints as being either against state law, the state's constitution or against the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. I want to live in one of those states.

For decades, I've watched California legislators use all kinds of convoluted and twisted thinking to press their agenda. In my opinion, denying that sobriety checkpoints are in conflict with the Fourth Amendment is that same kind of thinking.

Grateful that the United States consists of individual states to accommodate some diversity of thought. I'm thinking I need to be in Idaho. :supergrin:

ricklee4570
05-09-2011, 02:48
I dont know what the law states in this incident. This was a set up for sure. With that said, the first officer was rude when he told them to roll the window down and when asked why he said he would break it. Could have handled that a little bit better.

You could see a difference between the different officers involved.

This could have turned out much worse.

I think it would have if there had not been a camera rolling.

DaBigBR
05-09-2011, 09:09
The United States Supreme Court does not believe that checkpoints are unreasonable.

lawman800
05-09-2011, 09:37
CA is like that. You can drive on your own property all you want but you need a license to go on a public road. Then again if I drove on my property, it would be all of 10 feet and then I'm done.

I'm not Harry, but for argument's sake let us begin with Article 1 Section 8 Concerning the Powers of the US Congress, (both houses).

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

Now, truthfully it doesn't mention manner of conveyance at all, nor does it disallow any matter of conveyance concerning conveyance used on post roads. So, it does not allow or disallow the driving or handling of any matter of conveyance including auto mobiles at the federal level. Notice the key wording within my sentence concerning that and how it relates to another part of the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, specifically Amendment X to the US Constitution. The state does have a right to make laws concerning what kind of conveyance, the responsibilities of a user of a conveyance and the rights and responsibilities that go with it. So, if said person is on his own private property with a conveyance, that person can take that personal conveyance to anywhere on his property and not necessarily need a license to drive. But, on the state roads, and roads governed over by the State that person may need a license. I did not take time to look at case law, as I am not ambitious enough to do so, presently.

Riggs83
05-09-2011, 10:08
These two idiots looked like a couple "street lawyers" who thought by recording this they would get arrested but get paid through some lawsuit. They probably thought this video would be on CNN and involve police brutality or some crap. They clearly were out to be hardass' and they don't know the law. To be honest the police gave them a lot more chances to cooperate then I would have! LOL

harrygunner
05-09-2011, 13:30
The Dred Scott case ( http://supreme.justia.com/us/60/393/case.html ) is an relevant example of how SCOTUS gets it wrong sometime. A state where slavery was legal thought Mr. Scott was property. SCOTUS ruled the state was good to go.

This could be brewing in the mind of a legislator near you:

- There are kidnapped children being transported by car as we speak. The Megan kidnapping (of "Megan's Law") could have been prevented. We need "Cindy Stop" where we set up random road blocks to confirm the identity of any child inside. These stops will be regulated and done tastefully to minimize any inconvenience.

- al Qaeda could be driving to their next attack instead of flying. We need "Taliban Track" where we RFID all cars. Tracking your location will be regulated and done tastefully to minimize any inconvenience.

I joke a bit, but I can't distinguish these hypothetical laws from DUI stops. I'd rather drive soberly about my day, unobstructed in this "land of the free".

I think we need a no-BS assessment of what we are doing in this country, for the sake of safety.

phuzz01
05-09-2011, 13:58
If they won't get out of the car, why go to the trouble of breaking the window and fighting with them? Just call for the wrecker and have them towed right to jail! "Billy Bob, just drop the car in that there sally port...dispatch, I'm clear with services rendered!"

golls17
05-09-2011, 14:38
According to this website, twelve states disallow DUI checkpoints: http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/checkpoint_laws.html

Like how Texas interprets them as being against the U.S. Constitution.

I don't drink, I'm no fun at parties. But it's a consideration to me (respect for our rights) as I decide where to move to, from California. Idaho is high and now higher on my list.


WI is one of them.

Rumor has it somebody that when the checkpoints were set up, the drunks would turn right around. Well, the cops wised up and started setting up the checkpoints, then pulling the drunks over for illegal U-turn. I guess somebody got mad, took it to court, and now we don't have them here.

Between that and the beer lobby here, it's no surprise... :upeyes:

Hrsuhd
05-09-2011, 22:03
Im confused what makes it a legal stop? Can an officer in Calif. randomly stop a motorist at any time that has not violated any traffic or equipment violations or is it just ok during check points as a preventative measure? Im from Oregon no check points and if on foot casual contact you dont have to provide ID. I understand in this case they were in a vehicle.

Cochese
05-10-2011, 00:28
Im confused what makes it a legal stop? Can an officer in Calif. randomly stop a motorist at any time that has not violated any traffic or equipment violations or is it just ok during check points as a preventative measure? Im from Oregon no check points and if on foot casual contact you dont have to provide ID. I understand in this case they were in a vehicle.

These guys were at a CP.

Sobriety checkpoints are strictly governed by Ingersoll V Palmer.

Check it out, under legality in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_checkpoint

MarcDW
05-10-2011, 00:29
There is a long list of things LEO has to follow, but LEO can make in CA an OUI road block (or what ever other reason the road block is).
So not rolling down the window in an OUI check is not a good way to start your evening!
Oregon might be different.

lawman800
05-10-2011, 00:39
Im confused what makes it a legal stop? Can an officer in Calif. randomly stop a motorist at any time that has not violated any traffic or equipment violations or is it just ok during check points as a preventative measure? Im from Oregon no check points and if on foot casual contact you dont have to provide ID. I understand in this case they were in a vehicle.

DUI checkpoints are legal in CA. But on a rolling stop, I need probable cause to pull you over. It doesn't have to be the real reason but I need a reason. That is, I can pull you over for an equipment violation when my true intent is to check you out for drugs or weapons.

x_out86
05-10-2011, 07:05
Couple of genius's for sure. I like how you can hear them planning it out ahead of time when the driver asks "same thing? I am I being detained?" I have to wonder how many other times they pulled this crap that wasnt taped.

I dont know how much more clear the officers could have been that they WERE being detained, and WERE NOT free to go.

While policy dictates that I produce department ID upon request, it does not say I have to do it at the drop of a hat. If I was dealing with these asshats, I would have gladly shown it to them....once they were in cuffs in the back of my car.

Hope they enjoyed themselves. It cost them a window, attorney fees, and at least a night in jail.

MarcDW
05-10-2011, 07:10
...It cost them a window, attorney fees, and at least a night in jail.

Nah, they made new friends who listen to their story!
Cheaper then a shrink!

Panzergrenadier1979
05-10-2011, 07:39
I can pull you over for an equipment violation when my true intent is to check you out for drugs or weapons.

What is it with folks who decide to go out for a spin in a 19 year-old Buick beater with stolen tags, while DUI, with a DUI related suspended license, in possession of dope, with active warrants in four neighboring counties AND burned out tail lights??!!?? :whistling:

I swear.....they are BEGGING for a traffic stop (and the subsequent warrant check, search incident to arrest, vehicle search warrant etc......) :supergrin:

Morris
05-10-2011, 10:22
I'm thinking I need to be in Idaho.

Do us a favor.

Stay away.

Tilley
05-10-2011, 14:12
Grateful that the United States consists of individual states to accommodate some diversity of thought. I'm thinking I need to be in Idaho. :supergrin:

Bye! :wavey:

harrygunner
05-10-2011, 14:52
What's my offense?

I want to be able to go about my day unobstructed unless I exhibit some kind of criminal behavior. 'Morris' has the word 'Libertarian' in his signature and appears to be objecting to my desire for less government.

I have not said a word about the two guys in the car one way or the other. Instead I've questioned the existence of DUI stops. Is that the offense?

Is living in California my offense? Are you saying everyone from California is the state's stereotype?

I've voted for candidates who support individual accountability, small government, conservative fiscal and moral values and respect for the Constitution. Invariably, California as a whole, elects the opposite type. After decades, I don't want to be here any more. Does that offend you?

DaBigBR
05-10-2011, 15:18
The Dred Scott case ( http://supreme.justia.com/us/60/393/case.html ) is an relevant example of how SCOTUS gets it wrong sometime. A state where slavery was legal thought Mr. Scott was property. SCOTUS ruled the state was good to go.

This could be brewing in the mind of a legislator near you:

- There are kidnapped children being transported by car as we speak. The Megan kidnapping (of "Megan's Law") could have been prevented. We need "Cindy Stop" where we set up random road blocks to confirm the identity of any child inside. These stops will be regulated and done tastefully to minimize any inconvenience.

- al Qaeda could be driving to their next attack instead of flying. We need "Taliban Track" where we RFID all cars. Tracking your location will be regulated and done tastefully to minimize any inconvenience.

I joke a bit, but I can't distinguish these hypothetical laws from DUI stops. I'd rather drive soberly about my day, unobstructed in this "land of the free".

I think we need a no-BS assessment of what we are doing in this country, for the sake of safety.

The difference is that neither the Taliban, Al Qaeda, or all of the kindappers in the world killed as many people as drunk drivers did in the US last year (almost 11,000, which is actually pretty low).

What's my offense?

I want to be able to go about my day unobstructed unless I exhibit some kind of criminal behavior. 'Morris' has the word 'Libertarian' in his signature and appears to be objecting to my desire for less government.

I have not said a word about the two guys in the car one way or the other. Instead I've questioned the existence of DUI stops. Is that the offense?

Is living in California my offense? Are you saying everyone from California is the state's stereotype?

I've voted for candidates who support individual accountability, small government, conservative fiscal and moral values and respect for the Constitution. Invariably, California as a whole, elects the opposite type. After decades, I don't want to be here any more. Does that offend you?

You're starting to mix individual politics and personal opinion, which will ultimately derail your argument. This really is not a place to make try to make this point, by the way.

jcsd2407
05-10-2011, 17:54
This is just ridiculous!

RottnJP
05-10-2011, 19:01
O.K., ignorant question: Why wouldn't the LEO say,

"My name Officer xxx and my badge number is yy. You are being temporarily detained for a random sobriety checkpoint as specified/governed by DOT HS-807-656. This is a legal detention in this state, zzz, and if you fail to comply you will be removed from the vehicle and may be subject to arrest. Roll down the window now, please, or I will have to break it and remove you from the vehicle..."


Makes it a 30 second video, professionally handled, jerk-off complies or goes to jail.

To me (non LEO) it's fair to ask what the legal basis of the interaction is. As long as there is a legal basis, people don't need to get riled up, swear, etc. Just answer the question professionally, let the person know the consequences of their choice (not really required, but good policy to CYA for the Court of Public Opinion) and then do what you have to do. <shrug> Nothing personal, but if Dude chooses to drive on public roads in a state that permits random checkpoints, he's coming out of the car one way or the other. :whistling:

When the LEO's hem and haw, and don't provide the information they are legally supposed to, it weakens their position. Likewise, don't threaten to break a guy's window, then back off just because it's recorded. These days, a LEO has to assume that every interaction is recorded, and behave accordingly. Then when you get to the point of warning a guy you are about to break his window, it's not a bluff. "This is being recorded." "Great- That means the court won't have any problem determining that I acted within my legal requirements and provided you fair warning in accordance with my department's operating guidelines.... Please look away from the window for your own safety." <smash>

Does that sound hopelessly idealistic to you guys? I just feel like there's so much emotion wrapped up in some of this stuff... These guys are trying to push buttons, but if you have a clear policy and set of guidelines, that have been appropriately vetted, then there aren't really any buttons to push.

Tilley
05-10-2011, 20:00
O.K., ignorant question: Why wouldn't the LEO say,

"My name Officer xxx and my badge number is yy. You are being temporarily detained for a random sobriety checkpoint as specified/governed by DOT HS-807-656. This is a legal detention in this state, zzz, and if you fail to comply you will be removed from the vehicle and may be subject to arrest. Roll down the window now, please, or I will have to break it and remove you from the vehicle..."
These traffic stops are legal in California. It is not my job to explain all the intricate legalities to a citizen: I am NOT a lawyer.

These two buttheads were being passive-aggressive and resisting a police investigation. That is a misdemeanor in violation of California Penal Code 148. If there was a reason for asking these stupid questions, such as if the police officers were in plain clothes in unmarked cars, I can understand. But this was a classic textbook case of interfering with a police officer while he was conducting an investigation.

They wanted a paycheck, money, or attention, who knows why idiots do what they do. I can't complain because without upstanding citizens like these, I would be out of a job.

Do you think if the officers had done exactly as you said, "...My name Officer xxx and my badge number is yy. You are being temporarily detained for a random sobriety checkpoint as specified/governed by DOT HS-807-656. This is a legal detention in this state, zzz, and if you fail to comply you will be removed from the vehicle and may be subject to arrest. Roll down the window now, please, or I will have to break it and remove you from the vehicle...", that these two would have complied? Let me answer for you...NO. Why should they waste time with the arrest. There comes a point where there is no more room for talking and action is called for. You saw it on the video.

RottnJP
05-10-2011, 20:26
These traffic stops are legal in California. It is not my job to explain all the intricate legalities to a citizen: I am NOT a lawyer.

These two buttheads were being passive-aggressive and resisting a police investigation. That is a misdemeanor in violation of California Penal Code 148. If there was a reason for asking these stupid questions, such as if the police officers were in plain clothes in unmarked cars, I can understand. But this was a classic textbook case of interfering with a police officer while he was conducting an investigation.

They wanted a paycheck, money, or attention, who knows why idiots do what they do. I can't complain because without upstanding citizens like these, I would be out of a job.

Do you think if the officers had done exactly as you said, "...My name Officer xxx and my badge number is yy. You are being temporarily detained for a random sobriety checkpoint as specified/governed by DOT HS-807-656. This is a legal detention in this state, zzz, and if you fail to comply you will be removed from the vehicle and may be subject to arrest. Roll down the window now, please, or I will have to break it and remove you from the vehicle...", that these two would have complied? Let me answer for you...NO. Why should they waste time with the arrest. There comes a point where there is no more room for talking and action is called for. You saw it on the video.

But the LEO's wasted a lot of time kind of jawboning- I think what I'm suggesting would have been succinct, to the point, and completely unambiguous & defensible to even the thickest observer...

Admittedly, this is a bit of an academic question on my part with respect to law enforcement... My best comparison with rules, behavior, and application of force goes way back to my college days as a bouncer, but I always tried to give someone the benefit of the doubt while I told them what they had done wrong, and what the consequences would be. Either they sobered up and did what they had to do really quick, or they experienced the consequences that had been explained, and I never had *anyone*, even some schmuck's friends, question my actions.

I don't think an LEO should need to get into the fine points of law, but is it fair to ask that someone knows the legal basis of their actions? As a non LEO, I am expected to be cognizant of the legality of all my actions, and if I unwittingly commit an infraction I will be told in no uncertain terms that ignorance of the law is no defense.

Maybe quoting the DOT regs that were based on case law is too much, if it's common knowledge that checkpoints are legal in the state in question, but no one ever just answered the guy's question about why he was being detained, so he did his broken record thing. You take that away from him if you just answer the question, and move on to what happens if he keeps up the shenanigans.

x_out86
05-11-2011, 19:54
But the LEO's wasted a lot of time kind of jawboning- I think what I'm suggesting would have been succinct, to the point, and completely unambiguous & defensible to even the thickest observer...

Admittedly, this is a bit of an academic question on my part with respect to law enforcement... My best comparison with rules, behavior, and application of force goes way back to my college days as a bouncer, but I always tried to give someone the benefit of the doubt while I told them what they had done wrong, and what the consequences would be. Either they sobered up and did what they had to do really quick, or they experienced the consequences that had been explained, and I never had *anyone*, even some schmuck's friends, question my actions.

I don't think an LEO should need to get into the fine points of law, but is it fair to ask that someone knows the legal basis of their actions? As a non LEO, I am expected to be cognizant of the legality of all my actions, and if I unwittingly commit an infraction I will be told in no uncertain terms that ignorance of the law is no defense.

Maybe quoting the DOT regs that were based on case law is too much, if it's common knowledge that checkpoints are legal in the state in question, but no one ever just answered the guy's question about why he was being detained, so he did his broken record thing. You take that away from him if you just answer the question, and move on to what happens if he keeps up the shenanigans.
I hear what you are saying...

But I have to agree with Tilley. The officer(s) already tried to explain to them that they were being stopped at a sobriety checkpoint. One of the parts of our jobs that people fail to understand is this...

We dont have to explain our reasons in detail to every bad guy. If we tried to quote state statute and explain it in depth, we would spend 2 hours doing every complaint. Not to mention the fact that it is an officer safety issue. We need to be taking control of the situation and each persons involved.

Our job is not to explain to you state statute line by line. Our job is to know what it says and enforce it. Multiple times the officers tell them they ARE being detained and ARE NOT free to go. It gets no more simple than that. You are being stopped at a legal sobriety check, and I would like you to roll down your window and see your drivers license. All reasonable and lawful requests.

If you are giving a person a lawful and legal order to do something, and they refuse to it is a MAJOR red flag. Why are they not complying? At that point, I dont really care why not. All I care about is that I know that I am acting within my legal authority and scope of my duties. If they dont want to comply that is not my problem. I am willing to give people a little bit of leeway if they are not resisting me physically. However, I WILL NOT repeat myself until I am blue in the face if they are not complying. At that point you are setting yourself or somebody else to get hurt. Its now my job to take control of the situation and finish my investigation, and I will do so.

In regards to him not giving his name and badge number. Like I said in my previous post, I will provide this information upon request. However, it will be done on my time. When you comply with my requests, I will comply with yours. I can guaran-dam-tee that if they would have rolled down the window and shown ID the officer would have gladly given his name and badge number. My safety is paramount, and I will not be distracted by you asking for my name and badge number when you are not complying with simple orders.

If you are polite, I will return the favor. If you are being defiant, I can play at that game too. Long story short, follow the rules and you wont end up in this situation.

MarcDW
05-11-2011, 23:41
They actually made it by now onto FoxNews.
They are members of a anti sobriety checkpoint group who see themselves as heros now.
I am sure we will hear all about this over again at trail.

Streetking
05-12-2011, 03:13
By all means they should have been dragged from the vehicle and beaten severely. Rodney King could provide guidence on the proper response to police transgressions.

ricklee4570
05-12-2011, 03:22
O.K., ignorant question: Why wouldn't the LEO say,

"My name Officer xxx and my badge number is yy. You are being temporarily detained for a random sobriety checkpoint as specified/governed by DOT HS-807-656. This is a legal detention in this state, zzz, and if you fail to comply you will be removed from the vehicle and may be subject to arrest. Roll down the window now, please, or I will have to break it and remove you from the vehicle..."


Makes it a 30 second video, professionally handled, jerk-off complies or goes to jail.

To me (non LEO) it's fair to ask what the legal basis of the interaction is. As long as there is a legal basis, people don't need to get riled up, swear, etc. Just answer the question professionally, let the person know the consequences of their choice (not really required, but good policy to CYA for the Court of Public Opinion) and then do what you have to do. <shrug> Nothing personal, but if Dude chooses to drive on public roads in a state that permits random checkpoints, he's coming out of the car one way or the other. :whistling:

When the LEO's hem and haw, and don't provide the information they are legally supposed to, it weakens their position. Likewise, don't threaten to break a guy's window, then back off just because it's recorded. These days, a LEO has to assume that every interaction is recorded, and behave accordingly. Then when you get to the point of warning a guy you are about to break his window, it's not a bluff. "This is being recorded." "Great- That means the court won't have any problem determining that I acted within my legal requirements and provided you fair warning in accordance with my department's operating guidelines.... Please look away from the window for your own safety." <smash>

Does that sound hopelessly idealistic to you guys? I just feel like there's so much emotion wrapped up in some of this stuff... These guys are trying to push buttons, but if you have a clear policy and set of guidelines, that have been appropriately vetted, then there aren't really any buttons to push.

Good post. It is called called being professional.

Some in the law enforcement profession think they are all mighty and dont have to stoop to the level of actually having to be polite and treat people with dignity. It is a shame. They are the 10%.

Now, there are some in law enforcement that want us to believe that the 10% doesnt exist. And they will aggressively oppose this viewpoint and defend ANY action that ANY cop does.

Panzergrenadier1979
05-12-2011, 06:47
By all means they should have been dragged from the vehicle and beaten severely.

Considering that this didn't happen....what's your point?

Rodney King could provide guidence on the proper response to police transgressions.

Please, by all means, if you ever need a police officer to come to your aid, don't call 911, call Rodney King.

Kegs
05-12-2011, 07:11
Idiots. No redeeming value whatsoever. They need to be taught a lesson.

Don't try to fight the law. Ain't never going to be pretty.

I disagree. That is solid entertainment. It ought to be on COPS where all of America's finest police work is exhibited on national television.

Panzergrenadier1979
05-12-2011, 07:21
Good post. It is called called being professional.

Some in the law enforcement profession think they are all mighty and dont have to stoop to the level of actually having to be polite and treat people with dignity. It is a shame. They are the 10%.

Now, there are some in law enforcement that want us to believe that the 10% doesnt exist. And they will aggressively oppose this viewpoint and defend ANY action that ANY cop does.

In post #55 Tilley answer the original question that you are referring too. If you didn't get a chance to do so, you should read it especially the last paragraph.

Personally, the most common red flag that I encounter on a daily basis is a person who hamstrings a traffic stop by refusing simple requests. Eg; refusing to roll down their window or refusing my request for their license & registration until I explain exactly what the nature of my stop is....etc. Essentially, folks who's mission is to refuse or try to barter with me over each and every LAWFUL request that I give to them.

By the way, I'm a "please sir/ma'am" & "thank you sir/ma'am" kind of guy (I spent 15 years in customer service work prior to becoming LE). I usually have a big smile on my face and 90% of my traffic stops end with a warning only. This friendly/professional attitude does not seem to affect, in any way, the folks who have an ax to grind or those who are resisting arrest etc.

Morris
05-12-2011, 09:55
This friendly/professional attitude does not seem to affect, in any way, the folks who have an ax to grind or those who are resisting arrest etc.

Truth.

Polak
05-12-2011, 22:47
I would have thought they were high. Reason enough.

Navy HMC
05-13-2011, 02:25
Well, in thte state of Kansas (also known as "Do-Dah!") these are legal and after the years of EMS where I've seen the results of alcohol and driving I'm glad they are. I have to agree that both the guys in the video are dirt bags and was pleased that they got their wish. I did find myself a bit enraged bytheir actions as well. My partner, does however hates it when we're on duty and go through a check point: Usually about the time he rolls the window down for the officer, I'm yelling "He's got Weed!" or the time the deputy jokingly asked if we had any drugs or narcotics and I said "Yes!" Got to have fun when you can.