The police need to be aware that the times have changed. The police very rightly have dash cams, but the citizenry also has the equivalent, and now they have uninhibited access to mass media as well.
With the militarization of the local police, many are becoming more and more suspicious of what is up with those who have sworn to serve and protect. The police themselves would do well to recognize this trend, and strive to stop any behavior that feeds this growing suspicion.
This video is example one in what the police should not be doing.
How it should be done.
DUI checkpoints are lawful. A traffic stop is not a detention within the legal definition of the word. The dog checked the car but I didn't see it "alert". That's where I think that things begin to get sketchy and it turns into an unlawful search. Case law holds that any contraband discovered would be excluded at trial. Since the motorist was not arrested, those Constitutional safeguards didn't come into play.
ReplyDeleteHowever these sorts of checkpoints began in the late 1970's and they have continued up to the present. So they're not new.
The motorist decided to prod the police and he received treatment that may seem unwarranted, but I didn't see anything that the police did that would be "illegal" in the 70's or now. If they say that the dog alerted, maybe it did?? Either way, that gives them probable cause to search.
Good points all, yet the idea is that they should have an eye on the impression that they make given the times that we live in. The bullying tone of the cops, the demands, and their ultimate admission that the kid was innocent and simply asserting his constitutional rights looks and sounds bad.
DeleteThe comments to the video sometimes blame the kid for "hassling" the cop, yet really he didn't. He simply didn't agree to do everything that they wanted.
The kid probably would have been on his way if he had simply gone along with everything, but then again, he should have the ability to "prod" the police without being rudely ordered to pull over and get out, as long as it is clear that the "prodding" is not in and of itself suspicious of being drunk. The cop should have politely informed the kid of what was and wasn't legally required, as you did above. We should not have to grovel at the feet of the police in asserting our constitutional rights, or risk a long delay and/or needless search, or something worse.
My ultimate point is that the police loudly ordered him about like he was in fact a criminal, for nothing really other than giving them some very minor attitude. The unsaid implication was that something much worse was about to happen if he didn't start cooperating with their every demand, and really, who is to know what an angry, tired cop might do. Not the behavior I want to see out of my police force.
I am not trying to be argumentative. However, the law REQUIRES that the public be notified that there is a DUI checkpoint (lighted signs and cones) and have the ability to turn and take an alternate route to avoid the checkpoint. So he didn't have to drive through it. He could have rolled the window down and he IS required to identify himself and to have a valid driver's license in possession.
DeleteI agree completely that the officers could have handled it more deftly.
Agreed on all points.
DeleteWhen an officer stops you for no reason, except to see if you might be intoxicated, that's way beyond what they're hired to do. That's an unreasonable search, because you haven't been observed breaking any law, and they seize your car - even though it's temporarily - for no other reason than to impeded your travel for their own personal interest.
ReplyDelete