Militarized Police

[Angel4Truth]

Please explain how an officer can have probable cause for drunk driving on a man who does not drink? Tell us how that happens?

Something you or your husband did when they did the initial check when they came up the car, caused them to believe he had been drinking, and the way you say he was namedropping and most likely loudly and uncooperately complaining, sounds as if he was acting belligerent which is probable cause on a no refusal checkpoint.

Thats why you were detained.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Please tell us why you two should be treated differently than any of the other motorists ....

Because they know a guy named Tim and they are special - it was their anniversary and everyone else are idiots.

 

[Rusha]

Because they know a guy named Tim and they are special - it was their anniversary and everyone else are idiots.

I agree with your previous speculation. They decided to name drop and due to their belligerence, the police had probable cause to believe they were possibly drunk.

 

[Angel4Truth]

I agree with your previous speculation. They decided to name drop and due to their belligerence, the police had probable cause to believe they were possibly drunk.

:thumb: because they wouldn't have been name dropping, if they weren't doing anything but cooperating. The name dropping makes it clear there was belligerence involved, which gave the police probable cause to have a field sobriety test conducted.

 

[bybee]

:thumb: because they wouldn't have been name dropping, if they weren't doing anything but cooperating. The name dropping makes it clear there was belligerence involved, which gave the police probable cause to have a field sobriety test conducted.

They ought to be grateful that we have Police Officers out there risking their lives to help keep us safe.

 

[bybee]

Based on what specifically? Back to reality. Obviously the rude and unprofessional officer was incapable of properly discerning probable cause or even reasonable suspicion. The five other officers at the next stop just waved my husband through after speaking with him briefly.

What did they do with you?

 

[Angel4Truth]

They ought to be grateful that we have Police Officers out there risking their lives to help keep us safe.

Thats what i think, i see nothing wrong with being asked for my drivers license and speaking to an officer for a minute, and with cooperation, im certain that would be all there would be to it, especially since ive been through a few of them through the past few years and it only took a couple minutes.

I would rather do that all day long, then get hit head on by one of the drunks they take to jail when they blow over the limit.

 

[chair]

The whole story is quite silly. The fastest way to get through a police check is to cooperate. And until I see a link to a court ruling that says they can't stop motorists (even random ones) to check if they are drunk, I will believe that the police are in the legal right here.

 

[Tambora]

Please explain how an officer can have probable cause for drunk driving on a man who does not drink? Tell us how that happens?

It's called suspicion.
Suspicion is at the discretion of the officer.
Sometimes their suspicion is right, and sometimes their suspicion is wrong.

There are many things that could cause one to be suspicious.

Like when someone acts frustrated and wants to avoid talking a polygraph test. They could be completely innocent, but it does cause suspicion.

Or when one wants to avoid giving a DNA sample. They could be completely innocent, but it does cause suspicion.

Or when an officer says, "Halt", and the person starts running away. They could be completely innocent, but it does cause suspicion.

Or when a vehicle is driving real slow through a neighborhood that they do not live in. They could be completely innocent, but it does cause suspicion.

etc.
etc.
etc.

So, when one is at a DUI checkpoint and acts in way that the officer thinks they want to avoid it, it can cause suspicion. They could be completely innocent, but it does cause suspicion.

Whether the suspicion turns out to be right or wrong, the suspicion is at the discretion of the officer, not your husband.
Lots of folks are detained on suspicion. Happens all the time.
But suspicion does not equal guilty. The officer was not declaring your husband guilty. He was only being detained on suspicion.


So, here's the deal ......
Either we accept that it is rational for one to be detained on the discretion of officer's suspicions, or we should let all those sitting behind bars, awaiting trial or a judge's decision, loose. After all, they are supposed to be innocent until a trial or Judge deems them guilty.

So, should an officer's suspicion be a legitimate cause to detain anyone?

 

[Christ's Word]

So, here's the deal ......
Either we accept that it is rational for one to be detained on the discretion of officer's suspicions, or we should let all those sitting behind bars, awaiting trial or a judge's decision, loose. After all, they are supposed to be innocent until a trial or Judge deems them guilty.

So, should an officer's suspicion be a legitimate cause to detain anyone?

You are an idiot, most are loose on bond before their trial anyway. Officers that detain on their suspicions that are not found reasonable, and they do it often, are not police officers for long. Duh.

Your problem is you can't or won't distinguish between reasonable suspicion, and just a suspicion. Reasonable suspicion requires evidence or observation of illegal behavior or behavior that is almost always connected with illegal activity. Your are clueless.

 

[Christ's Word]

:thumb: because they wouldn't have been name dropping, if they weren't doing anything but cooperating. The name dropping makes it clear there was belligerence involved, which gave the police probable cause to have a field sobriety test conducted.

As usual you are dead wrong, my husband did not mention anyone's name until after he was detained. You are so full of it. But keep lying and making things up, it is getting entertaining.....

 

[Angel4Truth]

You are an idiot, most are loose on bond before their trial anyway. Officers that detain on their suspicions that are not found reasonable, and they do it often, are not police officers for long. Duh.

Then you are suing them? Have you had the job yet of those who forced you aside because of your husbands belligerent behavior?

 

[Christ's Word]

Then you are suing them? Have you had the job yet of those who forced you aside because of your husbands belligerent behavior?

My husband was never belligerent, you just made that up. He was ordered to the side before he said anything, you are just an idiot.

Of course we are not going to sue them, that is ridiculous. The first order of business is that my husband is going to talk to the Chief of police. If he does not get satisfaction there, we will fix the problem by funding an election for mayor, and change the mayor and the Chief out. I think the Chief is a pretty good guy though, I will wait and see what he says.

 

[Angel4Truth]

DUI checkpoints: With a portable and quick alcohol breath test, the police can test all drivers (if the law permits), and process the cars one by one as in a conveyor belt. When there is no quick test, a more complicated routine is necessary. Upon suspicion, the stopped driver is required to exit the vehicle and take a roadside sobriety test that requires the demonstration of both mental and balance skills. If the officer determines based on his observations during the tests, the driver is then required to take an alcohol breath test (referred to as a Breathalyzer test in the United States). It is important to note that you can not pass or fail a field sobriety test as they are not "pass-or-fail", they are only meant to aid the officer in determining if you are impaired based on observations of the subjects performance of these tests. Being subjected to perform this test is not prohibited by the fourth amendment of the United States Constitution if the law enforcement entity posts or announces in advance that these checkpoints will occur and at what location

On no refusal weekends like the 4th of July, this is massively advertised in advance - so no you have no right to refuse, and its perfectly legal and on suspicion alone when the checkpoint officer comes up and thinks more involved sobriety check is need, his suspicion is all that is needed to pull you to the side for a field test, just like you have been told already.

Seems you're the idiot who doesn't know the law CW.

 

[Angel4Truth]

My husband was never belligerent, you just made that up. He was ordered to the side before he said anything, you are just an idiot.

Of course we are not going to sue them, that is ridiculous. The first order of business is that my husband is going to talk to the Chief of police. If he does not get satisfaction there, we will fix the problem by funding an election for mayor, and change the mayor and the Chief out. I think the Chief is a pretty good guy though, I will wait and see what he says.

LOL you do that. Let us all know how you get that officer fired too

 

[Christ's Word]

On no refusal weekends like the 4th of July, this is massively advertised in advance - so no you have no right to refuse, and its perfectly legal and on suspicion alone when the checkpoint officer comes up and thinks more involved sobriety check is need, his suspicion is all that is needed to pull you to the side for a field test, just like you have been told already.

Seems you're the idiot who doesn't know the law CW.

Most normal folks cite a source when they post ridiculous opinions like that, and different states have different laws, you need to get a clue.

 

[Christ's Word]

LOL you do that. Let us all know how you get that officer fired too

Only an idiot like you would get into a legal battle, when in a small town like ours, a political solution costs 1/5 as much. Elections in towns our size are a lot cheaper than to fund than a law suit, but you are entitled to your childish naive viewpoint. It shows you have no real political experience.

 

[chair]

Here is the Wikipedia article about the legality of these Random checks.

A few excerpts:

...
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” This fundamental right has a tense relationship with sobriety checkpoints. At a sobriety checkpoint, drivers are necessarily stopped without reasonable suspicion, and may be tested summarily and without probable cause. Thus the Constitution would prohibit people from being stopped without a search warrant or at least without probable cause that they have committed a crime; however, the warrant requirement only attaches should the search be unreasonable and the Supreme Court, as shown below, decided that such stops are not unreasonable under certain circumstances....

The Michigan Supreme Court had found sobriety roadblocks to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, by a 6-3 decision in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990), the United States Supreme Court found properly conducted sobriety checkpoints to be constitutional.

In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote, "In sum, the balance of the State's interest in preventing drunken driving, the extent to which this system can reasonably be said to advance that interest, and the degree of intrusion upon individual motorists who are briefly stopped, weighs in favor of the state program. We therefore hold that it is consistent with the Fourth Amendment."​

I marked one sentence in bold.

The point is: The Supreme Court found that these checks are in fact constitutional.

Are we done here?

 

[Christ's Word]

No, because you glossed over the "done properly" portion of the decision. Not to mention Rehnquist has been wrong on more than one occasion. The Michigan Supreme Court got it right, and the U.S. Supreme Court got it wrong. Also you never addressed the points made in the dissenting opinion, the decision was NOT unanimous.

 

[Christ's Word]

Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote, "In sum, the balance of the State's interest in preventing drunken driving, the extent to which this system can reasonably be said to advance that interest, and the degree of intrusion upon individual motorists who are briefly stopped, weighs in favor of the state program. We therefore hold that it is consistent with the Fourth Amendment."[/INDENT]

Since you brought it up, please explain how it advances the State's interest in preventing drunk driving, by detaining a person who does not drink?