Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Pulled over and stopped at a DUI checkpoint
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="henschman" data-source="post: 2237542" data-attributes="member: 4235"><p>It seems like the young man in the video was trying to do everything that was legally required of him, and not a thing more. I fully support that; but if that is what he was trying to do, he needs to learn the laws better first. First of all, the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of suspicionless checkpoints, if conducted for compelling reasons of public safety, like stopping DUIs. That means the stop is legally justified, which means the same laws that apply to any traffic stop are in effect. </p><p></p><p>For one thing, on a stop, the officer legally has wide latitude to control the stop, which would include things like having the driver roll down the window, having the driver pull the car over to a particular spot, and having occupants of the vehicle get out. By refusing to do these things, you make yourself vulnerable to obstruction charges. In fact, unless you are trying to be a test case or engaging in civil disobedience, you should do everything they order you to do, even if you think it is illegal. You can certainly protest it verbally, and make sure it is clear that you are doing it against your will, but it is generally smart to go ahead and follow their orders promptly. </p><p></p><p>Also, there is the issue of showing a driver's license. State laws vary to some degree, but generally, every state requires you to show at least a license and insurance on any stop. I am not aware of any state that requires this for regular stops but not for suspicionless ones like a checkpoint. If he was trying to stay within the law, he should have shown his license. </p><p></p><p>Generally, the guy is right that you are not legally required to answer any questions. The exception is that half of the states do have "stop and identify" laws, which require you to tell cops your name and sometimes other identifying info like DOB. These have been upheld by the Supreme Court (at least for mandatory name disclosure). Thankfully Oklahoma does not have any such law. </p><p></p><p>The video also incorrectly states the law on searches when it says "cops can't legally search you without consent." In fact they can search a motor vehicle without either consent or a warrant when they have probable cause a crime is being committed. And as unreliable and prone to abuse as drug dogs are, courts commonly uphold car searches based on them for having probable cause. </p><p></p><p>If the fellow in the video wanted to be as big of a pain in the ass as possible while still staying within the law, he should have probably rolled down the window when told to, pulled over when told to, got out when told to, and shown his driver's license when told to. Other than that, he should have not answered any of their questions, and frequently asked if he is free to go or whether he is still being detained. He should also have given every cop there an earful about how disgraceful and reprehensible it is to participate in something like a suspicionless checkpoint.</p><p></p><p>That is probably the best nonviolent thing we can do about this problem... all of us here who are against this sort of thing should not be shy about our opinions on suspicionless checkpoints and those who participate in them if we are ever caught up in one.</p><p></p><p>Also, several states have outlawed suspicionless checkpoints. We should try to put Oklahoma on that list.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="henschman, post: 2237542, member: 4235"] It seems like the young man in the video was trying to do everything that was legally required of him, and not a thing more. I fully support that; but if that is what he was trying to do, he needs to learn the laws better first. First of all, the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of suspicionless checkpoints, if conducted for compelling reasons of public safety, like stopping DUIs. That means the stop is legally justified, which means the same laws that apply to any traffic stop are in effect. For one thing, on a stop, the officer legally has wide latitude to control the stop, which would include things like having the driver roll down the window, having the driver pull the car over to a particular spot, and having occupants of the vehicle get out. By refusing to do these things, you make yourself vulnerable to obstruction charges. In fact, unless you are trying to be a test case or engaging in civil disobedience, you should do everything they order you to do, even if you think it is illegal. You can certainly protest it verbally, and make sure it is clear that you are doing it against your will, but it is generally smart to go ahead and follow their orders promptly. Also, there is the issue of showing a driver's license. State laws vary to some degree, but generally, every state requires you to show at least a license and insurance on any stop. I am not aware of any state that requires this for regular stops but not for suspicionless ones like a checkpoint. If he was trying to stay within the law, he should have shown his license. Generally, the guy is right that you are not legally required to answer any questions. The exception is that half of the states do have "stop and identify" laws, which require you to tell cops your name and sometimes other identifying info like DOB. These have been upheld by the Supreme Court (at least for mandatory name disclosure). Thankfully Oklahoma does not have any such law. The video also incorrectly states the law on searches when it says "cops can't legally search you without consent." In fact they can search a motor vehicle without either consent or a warrant when they have probable cause a crime is being committed. And as unreliable and prone to abuse as drug dogs are, courts commonly uphold car searches based on them for having probable cause. If the fellow in the video wanted to be as big of a pain in the ass as possible while still staying within the law, he should have probably rolled down the window when told to, pulled over when told to, got out when told to, and shown his driver's license when told to. Other than that, he should have not answered any of their questions, and frequently asked if he is free to go or whether he is still being detained. He should also have given every cop there an earful about how disgraceful and reprehensible it is to participate in something like a suspicionless checkpoint. That is probably the best nonviolent thing we can do about this problem... all of us here who are against this sort of thing should not be shy about our opinions on suspicionless checkpoints and those who participate in them if we are ever caught up in one. Also, several states have outlawed suspicionless checkpoints. We should try to put Oklahoma on that list. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Pulled over and stopped at a DUI checkpoint
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom