Police rant.

[JerryBoBerry]

This is one of the reasons I generally loathe police officers. Megalomaniac Assholes like this are usually the type of personality that should NEVER be put in a position of power over someone, they should be shit canned immediately.

 

[SoTxBob]

This rant is pretty typical when they are challenged by anyone that actually knows the law..... If you aren't careful, you might just accidentally see how the good Ol' US of A is becoming more of a police state instead of the 'land of freedoms' we have all been 'taught' it is. :?

 

[God]

This rant is pretty typical when they are challenged by anyone that actually knows the law..... If you aren't careful, you might just accidentally see how the good Ol' US of A is becoming more of a police state instead of the 'land of freedoms' we have all been 'taught' it is. :?

you can thank terrorists for a lot of the increased security.

 

[Rose]

This actually happened a few counties over from me. BJ's done a few caterings for the force there and his comments always were, "I feel bad for whoever they pull over."

 

[Bocefish]

Whenever I see things like this it makes me wonder if they know what their state laws are. DUI checkpoints are illegal in a few states and against some state constitutions. Personally, I think it should be illegal everywhere but sometimes you have to choose your battles.

States in Which Sobriety Checkpoints are Illegal
The states in which sobriety checkpoints are illegal are Alaska, Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

DUI Checkpoints against State Constitutions in Five States
In addition to the U.S. Constitution, each state has its own constitution. If five states - Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island and Washington - DUI checkpoints are not allowed because they violate the state constitutions.

Michigan took the lead in ruling the roadblocks unconstitutional. In Michigan v. Sitz, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that DUI roadblocks were in violation of the U.S. Constitution. The case went up to the U.S. Supreme Court which reversed Michigan's decision, in the ruling which now stands as the basis for allowing sobriety checkpoints in other states.

The U.S. Supreme Court sent the case back to the Michigan Supreme Court, expecting the roadblocks to be allowed. In a brilliant move, Michigan avoided defeat by ruling that DUI checkpoints violated the state constitution.

Sobriety Checkpoints Illegal under State Laws
In Idaho and Wisconsin DUI checkpoints are in violation of state laws. In Idaho, this is laid out in case law. In Wisconsin DUI roadblocks are prohibited by statute.

"Notwithstanding sub. (1), a police officer, sheriff, deputy sheriff, traffic officer or motor vehicle inspector may not stop or inspect a vehicle solely to determine compliance with a statute or ordinance specified under par. (b) unless the police officer, sheriff, deputy sheriff, traffic officer or motor vehicle inspector has reasonable cause to believe that a violation of a statute or ordinance specified under par. (b) has been committed..." WIS. STAT. ANN. 349.02(2)(a).

Reasons Why Sobriety Checkpoints are Illegal in the Other Five States
The state of Alaska says it does not have the authority to conduct DUI checkpoints. In Iowa, the statute that lays out the rules for roadblocks does not authorize DUI checkpoints. The law which allows checkpoints in Montana only allows for safety checks. Wyoming prohibits sobriety checkpoints based on the court's interpretation of the roadblock statute.

Texas is the only state to outlaw DUI roadblocks based on its interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.

Sources
Lawrence Taylor, "Why Are DUI Sobriety Checkpoints Constitutional?" theNewspaper.com.
State Sobriety Checkpoint Laws Governors Highway Safety Association.
Sobriety checkpoints The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety - The Highway Loss Data Institute.
Wisconsin Legislature Data Wisconsin Legislature.

http://voices.yahoo.com/dui-checkpoints ... tml?cat=17

 

[Rose]

Whenever I see things like this it makes me wonder if they know what their state laws are. DUI checkpoints are illegal in a few states and against some state constitutions. Personally, I think it should be illegal everywhere but sometimes you have to choose your battles.

States in Which Sobriety Checkpoints are Illegal
The states in which sobriety checkpoints are illegal are Alaska, Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

DUI Checkpoints against State Constitutions in Five States
In addition to the U.S. Constitution, each state has its own constitution. If five states - Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island and Washington - DUI checkpoints are not allowed because they violate the state constitutions.

Michigan took the lead in ruling the roadblocks unconstitutional. In Michigan v. Sitz, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that DUI roadblocks were in violation of the U.S. Constitution. The case went up to the U.S. Supreme Court which reversed Michigan's decision, in the ruling which now stands as the basis for allowing sobriety checkpoints in other states.

The U.S. Supreme Court sent the case back to the Michigan Supreme Court, expecting the roadblocks to be allowed. In a brilliant move, Michigan avoided defeat by ruling that DUI checkpoints violated the state constitution.

Sobriety Checkpoints Illegal under State Laws
In Idaho and Wisconsin DUI checkpoints are in violation of state laws. In Idaho, this is laid out in case law. In Wisconsin DUI roadblocks are prohibited by statute.

"Notwithstanding sub. (1), a police officer, sheriff, deputy sheriff, traffic officer or motor vehicle inspector may not stop or inspect a vehicle solely to determine compliance with a statute or ordinance specified under par. (b) unless the police officer, sheriff, deputy sheriff, traffic officer or motor vehicle inspector has reasonable cause to believe that a violation of a statute or ordinance specified under par. (b) has been committed..." WIS. STAT. ANN. 349.02(2)(a).

Reasons Why Sobriety Checkpoints are Illegal in the Other Five States
The state of Alaska says it does not have the authority to conduct DUI checkpoints. In Iowa, the statute that lays out the rules for roadblocks does not authorize DUI checkpoints. The law which allows checkpoints in Montana only allows for safety checks. Wyoming prohibits sobriety checkpoints based on the court's interpretation of the roadblock statute.

Texas is the only state to outlaw DUI roadblocks based on its interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.

Sources
Lawrence Taylor, "Why Are DUI Sobriety Checkpoints Constitutional?" theNewspaper.com.
State Sobriety Checkpoint Laws Governors Highway Safety Association.
Sobriety checkpoints The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety - The Highway Loss Data Institute.
Wisconsin Legislature Data Wisconsin Legislature.

http://voices.yahoo.com/dui-checkpoints ... tml?cat=17

I'm pretty sure they're legal in Tennessee.

 

[JerryBoBerry]

Whenever I see things like this it makes me wonder if they know what their state laws are. DUI checkpoints are illegal in a few states and against some state constitutions. Personally, I think it should be illegal everywhere but sometimes you have to choose your battles.

Reasons Why Sobriety Checkpoints are Illegal in the Other Five States
The state of Alaska says it does not have the authority to conduct DUI checkpoints. In Iowa, the statute that lays out the rules for roadblocks does not authorize DUI checkpoints. The law which allows checkpoints in Montana only allows for safety checks. Wyoming prohibits sobriety checkpoints based on the court's interpretation of the roadblock statute.

I've only been stopped at a checkpoint one time and that's 'officially' what it was for. A safety checkpoint. They asked me to turn on my headlights, turn signals and brake lights. Meanwhile they got close enough when asking to smell for alcohol and one officer just watched me, not the lights. This in a state that has mandatory vehicle inspections that check for those things and more every two years to be able to renew car registrations. :naughty:

 

[God]

when i was in the military i saw a tv news segment about police pulling over random cars and asking "do you mind if we search your vehicle?" the tv news segment said "if you say 'no' they cannot search your vehicle." while talking about these searches for almost an hour they said a lot of illegal stuff was found because of some people giving the police permission to search their vehicle.

 

[PunkInDrublic]

 

[Bocefish]

Some K-9s are trained to alert from a specific signal by their trainer, meaning they can just about search any vehicle they want to because the dog will alert on command unbeknownst to the driver. Almost impossible to prove unless you film the same team over and over.

 

[Shaun__]

when i was in the military i saw a tv news segment about police pulling over random cars and asking "do you mind if we search your vehicle?" the tv news segment said "if you say 'no' they cannot search your vehicle." while talking about these searches for almost an hour they said a lot of illegal stuff was found because of some people giving the police permission to search their vehicle.

Often if you tell a cop he cannot search your car they will radio ahead to get another to make up a new reason to pull you over, avoiding road blocks will often take you to a waiting line of police cars as well. "Safety" gives cops too much power, but I suspect if they were not allowed to keep what they confiscated for their departments they would stop with most safety checks.

 

[Just Me]

I will play devils advocate here. DUI checkpoints have been ruled constitutional in many states. Driving is considered a privilege and not a right. When you sign your drivers license in the states that allow these checkpoints in many cases you are consenting to them. Every state's laws are different so knowing them is important too. I have no idea what state this video is from so really can't comment on his particular situation.

While the cop was a bit of an angry douche the driver did not help anything by being a dick with not wanting to roll the window down further. The police have a difficult job to do. I doubt this particular cop was the one who decided to put the checkpoint up. How often do the police at these checkpoints have to deal with assholes, I wonder? While we expect our law enforcement to above pettiness and anger, they are human beings just like us, flawed and prone to let a shitty day affect their interactions with the public.

All that being said, you do have rights. It is up to you to know them and assert them. It also means you can choose when to assert them. Here is another video of people asserting their rights at DHS checkpoints. I commend them but I would just have answered the question rather than spend tense uncomfortable minutes asserting my rights. I tend to pick my battles.


As much as I respect the police and the difficult job they have to do, I do recommend never talking to police. That is really a whole other issue.

 

[Zoomer]

Two ways to look at it

1) Cops being dicks.
2) Guy aggravates cops to make the cops be dicks.

Since he had a camera rolling, and concealed, pointing at the window - I'd venture a guess that the guy found out there was a check point, set the camera up, approached it and intentionally decided not to comply to get exactly what he recorded. Kind of set-up, he intended to get a reaction and got one.

The only bits i'd take umbridge with was the dog on the car and obviously the searching. The rest, he sought out a reaction and got one. Whatcha expect True, he should have said "no you're not being detained" if they weren't detaining him. But... who cares?

All of them are dicks in the video, deserved each other

 

[SoTxBob]

you can thank terrorists for a lot of the increased security.

LoL.. Whoda thunk it.... 'God' consuming the same spoon fed pablum the media feeds the sheeple. :thumbleft:

 

[CallMeWilliam]

Two ways to look at it

1) Cops being dicks.
2) Guy aggravates cops to make the cops be dicks.

Since he had a camera rolling, and concealed, pointing at the window - I'd venture a guess that the guy found out there was a check point, set the camera up, approached it and intentionally decided not to comply to get exactly what he recorded. Kind of set-up, he intended to get a reaction and got one.

^^^ This totally....

 

[Rose]

Two ways to look at it

1) Cops being dicks.
2) Guy aggravates cops to make the cops be dicks.

Since he had a camera rolling, and concealed, pointing at the window - I'd venture a guess that the guy found out there was a check point, set the camera up, approached it and intentionally decided not to comply to get exactly what he recorded. Kind of set-up, he intended to get a reaction and got one.

The only bits i'd take umbridge with was the dog on the car and obviously the searching. The rest, he sought out a reaction and got one. Whatcha expect True, he should have said "no you're not being detained" if they weren't detaining him. But... who cares?

All of them are dicks in the video, deserved each other

Actually no. If you look at my post above you will see that this cop is actually like this all the time. That whole force is and there are quite a lot of issues with stops like this. People from my county avoid that county like the plague. Poor BJ has a catering for that force again next week too.

 

[Aella]

And cops SHOULD NOT be dicks and violate your rights REGARDLESS of if they encounter an 'asshole' or not.

Just because somebody is being pissy at them does not magically grant the cops additional power.

 

[Just Me]

And cops SHOULD NOT be dicks and violate your rights REGARDLESS of if they encounter an 'asshole' or not.

Just because somebody is being pissy at them does not magically grant the cops additional power.

While I agree someone being pissy doesn't negate your rights, if you choose to be pissy or try for some youtube fame by recording while you do it, do not be surprised if someone doing the job they were assigned to might have been having a bad day and decides to be a little pissy too.

The point is, his rights were not violated in this video. DUI checkpoints are legal where this was recorded and having a drug dog sniff around the car is legal as well. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/02/scotus-drug-sniffing-dogs/

 

[Just Me]

This video is supposedly from the same DUI checkpoint. I think this guy handled it much better than the first one.

 

[LiLredhairedgrl]

Some K-9s are trained to alert from a specific signal by their trainer, meaning they can just about search any vehicle they want to because the dog will alert on command unbeknownst to the driver. Almost impossible to prove unless you film the same team over and over.

Have you ever heard of Barry Cooper?

‘False positives’ suggest police exploit canines to justify searches

By Daniel Tencer
Thursday, January 6, 2011 18:55 EDT

Ex-cop: Police ‘using dogs to trample our rights as citizens’

A study of “false positives” involving drug-sniffing police dogs suggests some police forces may be using canines to do an end-run around constitutional protections against search and seizure, and may be profiling racial minorities in the process.

A survey of primarily suburban police departments in Illinois, carried out by the Chicago Tribune, found that 56 percent of all police searches triggered by a drug-sniffing dog turned nothing up.

But, perhaps tellingly, that number jumped to 73 percent when the search involved a Latino subject — meaning that nearly three-quarters of all dog alerts on Latinos turned up no contraband. The study covered a two-year period from 2007 to 2009.

Police spokespeople say the numbers are no surprise, because dogs’ noses can sniff the residue of drugs on a person or in a vehicle long after the drugs have been removed.

But civil liberties advocates smell a rat, and say this is evidence that police are using canines to carry out racial profiling and unjustified searches. And dog-training experts say the problem stems at least in part from an almost complete lack of standards for police dogs in the US.

“We know that there is a level of racial profiling going on, and this is just another indicator of that,” Virginia Martinez, an attorney for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, told the Tribune. “People of color are just targets.”

Barry Cooper, a former Texas police officer who has worked with police dogs, told Raw Story that use of canines has “gone out of control in America. They’re using dogs as an excuse to search cars when people refuse consent. The reason it’s like this is because the dogs aren’t always really alerting: it’s actually the cops using those dogs to trample our rights as citizens.”

Cooper said he was recently hired to assess an Arizona police dog handler’s record. “Out of 50 traffic stops, the canine reportedly alerted on every car but four. Drugs were only found on six occasions,” he said.

Lawrence Myers, an Auburn University professor who studies police dogs, told the Tribune that residue from long-gone drugs isn’t the only way a dog can give a false positive. Dog handlers can trigger a false positive from a dog by walking it around a car too many times, or too slowly, giving the dog a cue that a certain behavior is expected.

Myers pointed to the “Clever Hans” phenomenon in the early 1900s, named after a horse whose owner claimed the animal could read and do math before a psychologist determined the horse was actually responding to his master’s unwitting cues.
Cooper told Raw Story that part of the problem stems from a lack of standards for police dogs. “There is no standardized test for these dogs. Anybody could open up tomorrow and start selling dogs to cops.”

The Tribune notes that the legal system offers little remedy for the problem, because while drug seizures end up in court, false positives don’t, leaving little room for judges to rule on the legality of the searches.

Put together, the situation makes for an alarming opportunity to violate individuals’ rights, civil rights activists say.

“We’ve seen a national outcry about being frisked and scanned at airports,” ACLU attorney Adam Schwartz told the Tribune. “The experience of having police take your car apart for an hour is far more invasive and frightening and humiliating.”

– With additional reporting by Stephen C. Webster

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/06/false-positives-police-canines-searches/

And here is an actual article by Cooper...

Never Get Busted: Understanding Police Drug Dogs

Barry Cooper used to be a top-ranking narcotics interdiction agent and police drug dog trainer, but he turned against the drug war when he realized prohibition was a failure. Here, he offers an insider look at police-canine relationships, and explains how drug dogs find marijuana.

The world of police canines (K-9s) has been shrouded in secrecy and mythology since the first drug-smelling pooch was released to battle drugs in 1969. Authoritarian and tyrannical governments have used highly trained search dogs since the Nazi regime. This article is the first in depth report made available to the public to help lift this heavily guarded shroud, and in it you will learn:

• Why dogs are the preferred law enforcement animals for detecting odors
• Exactly how drug dogs are trained to seek out and find marijuana
• Critical errors made by K-9 teams
• How police manipulate dogs to false alert in order to conduct a vehicle search

continues here>>http://www.cannabisculture.com/node/8634

:geek:

“There is something about the state putting the power to bully into the hands of subnormal, sadistic apes that makes my blood boil.”
― Gore Vidal, Death in the Fifth Position

 

[Zoomer]

And cops SHOULD NOT be dicks and violate your rights REGARDLESS of if they encounter an 'asshole' or not.

Just because somebody is being pissy at them does not magically grant the cops additional power.

Never said they should.


Those who sit there and say "I'm not required" and whatnot are, literally, heads-up-their-own-ass-with-self-righteousness.

So when the behaviour of the cop becomes head-up-his-own-ass-with-authority-power it's amusing

One behaviour deserved the other Call it karma

 

[AmeliaArcana]

ACAB

 

[VeronicaChaos]

And cops SHOULD NOT be dicks and violate your rights REGARDLESS of if they encounter an 'asshole' or not.

Just because somebody is being pissy at them does not magically grant the cops additional power.

Never said they should.


Those who sit there and say "I'm not required" and whatnot are, literally, heads-up-their-own-ass-with-self-righteousness.

So when the behaviour of the cop becomes head-up-his-own-ass-with-authority-power it's amusing

One behaviour deserved the other Call it karma

Exercising your right not to answer any questions is not being self-righteous. It's one of the fundamental rights in the constitution.

The reason you have this right is because cops WILL use anything you say against you in a court of law. It's how the constitution protects the citizens from a police force.

It's not self-righteous, it's smart. And ANY lawyer would agree with that.

These cops KNOW that these people are within their rights. And if they're pissy about the fact that people exercise their constitutional rights then that's their problem.

 

[LiLredhairedgrl]

I agree Veronica. They are the ones in the position of authority and when in confrontation with those people exercising their rights should ALWAYS behave in a respectful manner....who cares if that person has an attitude about it or not---the ones in authority are supposed to be an example and a protector of our rights so should be the bigger person and not resort to that level... I know that if I am being childish or have an attitude and the person I am doing this to is taking it in stride I am less apt to continue behaving badly....

:twocents-02cents:

 

[JerryBoBerry]

Exercising your right not to answer any questions is not being self-righteous. It's one of the fundamental rights in the constitution.

The reason you have this right is because cops WILL use anything you say against you in a court of law. It's how the constitution protects the citizens from a police force.

It's not self-righteous, it's smart. And ANY lawyer would agree with that.

These cops KNOW that these people are within their rights. And if they're pissy about the fact that people exercise their constitutional rights then that's their problem.

I go even further at home. I don't even answer or open the door for them. I don't even acknowledge their knock (peephole). Someone else posted the video from the former DEA agent on how not to get busted. He's got a section in that long video where he states if they can get you to open the door they can get trick you into searching your home almost every time. You're under no obligation to even open the door. Basically if they had any legal right to come into your home they wouldn't be knocking, they'd have the search warrant and knock the door in. So NEVER open the door for a cop you didn't call for.

 

[LiLredhairedgrl]

Exactly. The less chances you give them to push their agenda whether it be getting in your home, your car, your head even, the better chance you have of actually holding them to your rights and avoiding any unnecessary confrontation. The less you expose yourself to them the better...

 

[NataliaGrey]

While I agree that people in power need to hold themselves to a higher regard, I'm not so sure about never talking to a cop.

I've been pulled over for speeding. I broke the law, I could get a ticket for that. Hell, I should get a ticket for that, I was going 65 in a 50. However, I was respectful and honest with the officer, so he gave me a warning. If I had been an blatantly disrespectful, I doubt he would have been so forgiving. Most cops aren't bad people, they're just people.

 

[LiLredhairedgrl]

Oh I totally agree that if I broke the law and the officer wants to write me a ticket that is fine, it is just when they start pushing beyond that to where it conflicts with my rights. I am always gonna be respectful to an officer, I will concede to what is the proper interaction in the situation but too many of those in authority will try to get away with whatever they can without any thought of your individual rights. And yes, I think it is their responsibility to respect these rights whether or not the individual in question is rude in his/her assertion of said rights....

They should be the bigger person and not take advantage of this as an excuse to do whatever it is they want to do--to deny someones rights based on an attitude problem is not just.

 

[Rose]

Exercising your right not to answer any questions is not being self-righteous. It's one of the fundamental rights in the constitution.

The reason you have this right is because cops WILL use anything you say against you in a court of law. It's how the constitution protects the citizens from a police force.

It's not self-righteous, it's smart. And ANY lawyer would agree with that.

These cops KNOW that these people are within their rights. And if they're pissy about the fact that people exercise their constitutional rights then that's their problem.

I go even further at home. I don't even answer or open the door for them. I don't even acknowledge their knock (peephole). Someone else posted the video from the former DEA agent on how not to get busted. He's got a section in that long video where he states if they can get you to open the door they can get trick you into searching your home almost every time. You're under no obligation to even open the door. Basically if they had any legal right to come into your home they wouldn't be knocking, they'd have the search warrant and knock the door in. So NEVER open the door for a cop you didn't call for.

Around here we're taught from a young age that if you haven't called for the cop to call 911 or the local police number immediately and verify that that person is actually who they say they are and they are there on business. There have been more than a few deaths from people not doing that.

 

[AwesomeKate]

I feel for both the police officer and the citizen, and see no foul from either side in this video. The truly foul thing is the system that we operate under and allow ourselves to rely on. Police officers are rewarded when there are instances of "crime" and punished when there are not. These "crimes" are often offenses against the statutes (Vehicle Registration, Checkpoints, ect.) that were put in place for revenue collection, that have no direct victim, and do not pose a threat to society when infringed upon. Police Officers are people who have stresses at their job and a boss telling them to meet a quota. Their uniform doesn't change the fact that they are citizens of our society. They are a part of the people, and just like the people, they are deeply concerned with keeping their job and source of income. The problem is not how poorly they seem to be handling their jobs. The problem is the system that has backed each one of us into a corner and said "Earn me some money, or you can die for all I care."

The officer is in the same position in the hierarchy as each one of us is, except he acts as a different medium of money collection and propaganda enforcement. The outcry against police action on Youtube is incredibly necessary in exposing the system to the rest of society, but it should not act to misdirect hatred onto the singular police officers themselves. The videos should not drive a wedge between those that are protesting and those that are commanded to dress in black and beat them down. It should spark questions as to why Police action seems anti-human most of the time, even though it's being carried out by human beings. Questions like:

"Why would a human being ever want to silence a rally for human rights?"
"Why would a human being who enjoyed smoking pot in high school be arresting me for smoking pot on the steps of the Capitol Building?"
"Why would this human being want to quiet my fight against income disparity when he make a salary just above the poverty line?"

The answer is, because the actions of police officers do not reflect the wants/desires of themselves personally. They are forced to act against their wants/desires, and enforce a regime that enslaves their fellow man and even themselves in order to make a living. It's important to realize that the humans in the uniforms are also having their rights infringed upon everyday that they get up and go be the bullies for the Corporatocracy. They fight against their own people, and for what? So some billionaire can make more profit at the expense of human freedoms.

Everyone should be able to earn an income with honesty and integrity. No one should have to sacrifice their beliefs for a salary. We should fight for the rights of the uniformed citizens as well as those in plain clothes. We can only change the system if we realize we are in the same position as them. We have to stay united! Divide et impera.