Interesting issue regarding sobriety checkpoints

[Archangel M]

What example?

What I said was I can walk up to someone and say "Hello sir, how are you today..." I gave no other sentence. I could just as easily add "I am looking for a lost child, have you seen any toddlers in the area?" If the person stops and talks to me I have indeed "stopped" someone.

You are the one bringing your preconception into this discussion.

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

What example?

What I said was I can walk up to someone and say "Hello sir, how are you today..." I gave no other sentence. I could just as easily add "I am looking for a lost child, have you seen any toddlers in the area?" If the person stops and talks to me I have indeed "stopped" someone.

You are the one bringing your preconception into this discussion.

thats fine, you know what I was talking about. If you want to pretend you don' then thats fine.

 

[Archangel M]

Yeah. You want coppers to start every conversation with "Pardon me sir, I would like to talk to you but first let me tell you that I have no reasonable suspicion to detain you so you are free to go at any time. With that being said are you willing to speak to me?"

Whatever.

 

[jks9199]

Can you provide an example of a time that it would be acceptable to make a stop/detain someone without at least RS? I'm having a hard time coming up with one.

Border inspection searches, within a reasonable distance of the border, on roads or reasonably directly related to the border, in areas where there's not an official border crossing.

Checkpoints around a prison, in time frames close to an escape, or as part of a cordon around a just-occurred crime. In this case, you have no particularized suspicion for the vehicles, but there is significant and identifiable public safety concern that would, in my opinion, justify the brief intrusion of a checkpoint.

I can even handle the the checkpoints that MPDC put in place around a couple of communities that had major, consistent, and ongoing crime problems (multiple homicides, rampant drug dealing, and more) in clearly defined communities. They were stopping and identifying everybody entering those communities. The federal ruling said it was unconstitutional, but I personally think that they could raise reasonable argument in their favor. It's not something I'd support as a blanket tactic, but in particular, definable public safety concern, with a narrow and identified focus, I can see it.

 

[jks9199]

You also have to remember that not all "checkpoints" are the same.

DWI CP's require me to stop you for an extended time and talk to you to see if you are drunk. Traffic safety checkpoints only require you to drive really slow past the officer as he looks for things like seat-belt use, child car seat use, registration stickers etc. Whats odd is how many people will come to a full stop, roll down their windows and want to talk to you when you want to keep the line moving.

I like to put license plate readers at the entrance to safety inspections and not really stop people at all until a stolen/suspended/warrant hit pops up.

Not even necessarily driving slowly. The other morning, I had a new hire who hasn't been to the academy yet as a ride-along. It was a beautiful morning, and one thing I was trying to really drive home to him was that cops don't have to sit in a car all day. So... we went to an intersection, got out of the car, and watched traffic for dead tags, expired safety inspections, and other identifiable violations. Incidentally... nobody ran the stop sign while we were standing out there! Nobody was stopped or detained unless I perceived a possible violation. A couple of drivers that just didn't bother to put the stickers on their cars were paused briefly, to show me a registration. Technically, I ran a checkpoint.

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

Yeah. You want coppers to start every conversation with "Pardon me sir, I would like to talk to you but first let me tell you that I have no reasonable suspicion to detain you so you are free to go at any time. With that being said are you willing to speak to me?"

Whatever.

No I don't
but at the same time I don't want Police to walk all over peoples rights and claim ignorance after the fact.

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

Not even necessarily driving slowly. The other morning, I had a new hire who hasn't been to the academy yet as a ride-along. It was a beautiful morning, and one thing I was trying to really drive home to him was that cops don't have to sit in a car all day. So... we went to an intersection, got out of the car, and watched traffic for dead tags, expired safety inspections, and other identifiable violations. Incidentally... nobody ran the stop sign while we were standing out there! Nobody was stopped or detained unless I perceived a possible violation. A couple of drivers that just didn't bother to put the stickers on their cars were paused briefly, to show me a registration. Technically, I ran a checkpoint.

Now this I have no problem with, and it seems to me to a perfect example of good police work.

 

[jks9199]

I can simply walk up to you and say "hello sir, how are you today..." in a LEGAL sense it's not a stop/detention because you have the choice to say "Sorry, I'm late officer..gotta go". But since most people do indeed STOP and talk to me the definition of "stop" here is sort of splitting hairs.

That's a consensual contact, and one I use a lot. "Hi, how you doing. Mind chatting with me for a moment?" If I don't have grounds to detain someone (look up Terry stop, for those who don't know what I mean), nothing at all prevents me from playing Officer Friendly and chatting with them.

Actually, I'll take a minute here and explain levels of police contacts for those who don't know or understand. The lowest level of police encounter is simple presence. See my post above about people obeying a stop sign. I wasn't enforcing the stop sign (would have taken way too long to run back to my car, get in, and chase someone down!) but my mere presence encouraged people to do the right thing. Above that, we have consensual encounters. I can ask anyone to stop and talk to me, and they're free to say no, unless I have reasonable, articulable suspicion (RAS) to say they can't go. That means specific facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable officer, in the light of training and experience, to suspect that criminal activity is afoot. Things that don't mean anything to you may speak volumes to a police officer; I spent five years investigating criminal street gangs. There are signs that I can pick up on that maybe even my colleagues here like Archangel might not recognize. RAS is more than a hunch -- but it is subjective. Detention here is limited to the time it takes for the officer to either confirm or dispel their suspicions, and the officer can and must be taking steps to do so. Arrest is the highest level of detention; it's based on probable cause (facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable person -- not a trained cop! -- to conclude that it is more likely than not (not absolutely certain, or even beyond a reasonable doubt!) that a particular person committed a particular offense. If you're under arrest -- you cannot leave, and the officer is in control, not you. (Yeah, I've run into a few folks who are confused on that issue.) And that's the two minute primer on police contacts in the US. It is important to realize that things are different in other countries!

 

[Twin Fist]

unconstitutional, IMO

 

[jks9199]

I don't have a problem with any officer walking up to anyone and striking up a conversation. Thats everyday life. What I have a problem with is when a person is obviously uncomfortable with being approached, but is to ignorant of their rights, and to intimidated to say they are uncomfortable and are then subjected to talking to an officer when they have no interest in it. Lets face it, most people do not understand their rights, they dont understand a police officers limitations, and are putting all their faith in the officer having their best interests at heart. In the example you gave the persons best interest is not your concern, your own interests are, and while you could quickly tell the person they have every right to walk away and not talk you, you are in fact abusing your power by keeping this away from them, even if they appear uncomfortable. a slight abuse of power, and obviously something you can argue in a court of law, but to deny you are doing it purposely is insulting. Sure people should be more educated on their rights, and generally speaking about how their country and governments work, but I do not see that happening anytime soon.

But the question becomes just exactly why are they so nervous in the presence of a police officer simply being sociable and friendly... Are they hiding something? Doing recon before committing a burglary? Holding contraband? Playing games? Or just plain nervous because they're being confronted by authority?

The line is simple: As an officer, do you have Reasonable, Articulable Suspicion to detain the person? If not -- if they don't want to talk, they're free to go. You can walk alongside, not interfering with their travel, and try to develop RAS. But you can't detain them. Deciding whether or not you have RAS is sometimes difficult; I had a couple of kids one night not long ago, one could have been drunk or high, or just being an ***. Flipped a mental coin, decided I didn't have sufficient grounds to forcibly detain him when he decided to walk off without providing any ID. That's life sometimes.

Are there cops out there who push the limits and make stops on weak or invented grounds? Yep. And there are repairmen who fix things that aren't broken. And so on...

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

But the question becomes just exactly why are they so nervous in the presence of a police officer simply being sociable and friendly... Are they hiding something? Doing recon before committing a burglary? Holding contraband? Playing games? Or just plain nervous because they're being confronted by authority?

The line is simple: As an officer, do you have Reasonable, Articulable Suspicion to detain the person? If not -- if they don't want to talk, they're free to go. You can walk alongside, not interfering with their travel, and try to develop RAS. But you can't detain them. Deciding whether or not you have RAS is sometimes difficult; I had a couple of kids one night not long ago, one could have been drunk or high, or just being an ***. Flipped a mental coin, decided I didn't have sufficient grounds to forcibly detain him when he decided to walk off without providing any ID. That's life sometimes.

Are there cops out there who push the limits and make stops on weak or invented grounds? Yep. And there are repairmen who fix things that aren't broken. And so on...

No I did not say Nervous. I said Intimidated, that is a huge difference.
I am not talking about someone who looks like they are up to no good. Once again I make a comment and you guys want to take it to the most extreme possible circumstance.
Most people are not nervous when a police officer starts asking them questions, but alot of people are intimidated. I think talking to someone and having them tell you they dont want to talk to you and they walk off and you continue to follow them or walk right next to them looking for a reason to detain them is borderline harassment. You either have a reason, or you don't. Following someone and trying to fish for a reason seems like abuse of power once again. Like the time I pulled quickly out of a parking lot, and a cop got behind me, but I was doing the speed limit and nothing was wrong with my car, or me. He followed me for 2 miles before I pulled over, got out of the car and waved him to stop and asked what his problem was and if he wanted to keep harassing me. He gave a stupid response made a U turn and drove away. While he was following me he got pretty damn close on my back bumper a few times, I figured he was trying to get me to speed up and break the speed limit. I consider those borderline bad cops. Go do something else like you mentioned you did with the rookie, go establish a presence, and work preventative enforcement, stop trying to create a crime and find a reason to mess with someone.

 

[KenpoTex]

I can simply walk up to you and say "hello sir, how are you today..." in a LEGAL sense it's not a stop/detention because you have the choice to say "Sorry, I'm late officer..gotta go". But since most people do indeed STOP and talk to me the definition of "stop" here is sort of splitting hairs.

You're absolutely right, the difference is that in a voluntary contact like you mentioned above, people have every right to refuse to speak and walk away...even if they don't know that.

In a checkpoint, once they're in...they're stuck. THAT is what I have an issue with. People being stopped, ID'ed, etc. for no other reason than that they didn't happen to hear a radio announcement two days before (or whatever). It may have been ruled to be an "acceptable infringement" (!?!) but I still have a problem with it.

Like your last post says... you know why people stop its because they are intimidated, I find it insulting that you are pretending to not understand why this happens. It is in fact a bit of an abuse of power.. Mild of course but you are using the intimidation factor to your advantage, I find that a bit sleezy to be honest. Splitting hairs? No I would call it manipulation.

I didn't take anything negative or disingenuous from his post...take it easy man.

 

[Tez3]

Does anyone think that education on not drinking and driving works or that campaigns against drink driving are effective? I don't know what penalties you have for drink driving but should it be classed as a serious crime or as a 'social' one with people saying 'well evreyone does it'? The devastation caused by drinking and driving can be horrendous.

For quite a long time here we've have campaigns etc against it and it seemed to have been working but with more people coming here from Eastern Europe to work we've been having a bigger problem with drunk drivers, their laws being much laxer than ours we've had some very drunk drivers trying to drive and causing bad accidents, even the drivers of the big artic trucks are drinking while driving.

 

[jks9199]

Does anyone think that education on not drinking and driving works or that campaigns against drink driving are effective? I don't know what penalties you have for drink driving but should it be classed as a serious crime or as a 'social' one with people saying 'well evreyone does it'? The devastation caused by drinking and driving can be horrendous.

For quite a long time here we've have campaigns etc against it and it seemed to have been working but with more people coming here from Eastern Europe to work we've been having a bigger problem with drunk drivers, their laws being much laxer than ours we've had some very drunk drivers trying to drive and causing bad accidents, even the drivers of the big artic trucks are drinking while driving.

Good question, Tez. I think it does help, some. DUIs seem to be down in general, at least anecdotally, even as the per se limit has dropped to .08% BAC throughout most of the USA. I think a few things have contributed to that. Education has made people more aware of the consequences, the dangers, and alternatives like cabs or designated drivers. I think that education has reduced societal tolerance, as well. The consequences have increased, especially for repeated offenses. (In VA, a 3rd DUI in 10 years carries a mandatory minimum jail sentence -- and that MUST be served.) There's been more enforcement, and it's been more visible.

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

Good question, Tez. I think it does help, some. DUIs seem to be down in general, at least anecdotally, even as the per se limit has dropped to .08% BAC throughout most of the USA. I think a few things have contributed to that. Education has made people more aware of the consequences, the dangers, and alternatives like cabs or designated drivers. I think that education has reduced societal tolerance, as well. The consequences have increased, especially for repeated offenses. (In VA, a 3rd DUI in 10 years carries a mandatory minimum jail sentence -- and that MUST be served.) There's been more enforcement, and it's been more visible.

Ya I agree with this, I am curious how the ages for duis breaks down. I would be willing to think the most obvious is true... that young people 18-25 probably account for the majority of DUIS, with older people accounting for the majority of repeat offenders.
I wonder if any education is provided in high school in regards to DUIs, the consequences, and long term effects. I am trying to remember what we had when I was in high school, and I really do not remember ever discussing drinking and driving.
You occasionally hear about the person who arrested for a DUI and they have 13 previous ones covering a couple states... I don't think those people will ever change. I think after 3 DUIS a penalty like lifetime exclusion from a driving license would be an appropriate thing.

 

[OKenpo942]

Ya I agree with this, I am curious how the ages for duis breaks down. I would be willing to think the most obvious is true... that young people 18-25 probably account for the majority of DUIS, with older people accounting for the majority of repeat offenders.
I wonder if any education is provided in high school in regards to DUIs, the consequences, and long term effects. I am trying to remember what we had when I was in high school, and I really do not remember ever discussing drinking and driving.
You occasionally hear about the person who arrested for a DUI and they have 13 previous ones covering a couple states... I don't think those people will ever change. I think after 3 DUIS a penalty like lifetime exclusion from a driving license would be an appropriate thing.

I don't know about other agencies, but we are starting this next school year with a program to educate the sophomore classes at all of the high schools in the county to educate them on such things as DUIs, what to do if involved in a collision, roadside etiquette when stopped, etc. We in our agency have seen a definite decline in the driver's education and respect of our young people, so we are taking a proactive position on it. We'll see how it goes as this is our first go 'round.

James

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

I don't know about other agencies, but we are starting this next school year with a program to educate the sophomore classes at all of the high schools in the county to educate them on such things as DUIs, what to do if involved in a collision, roadside etiquette when stopped, etc. We in our agency have seen a definite decline in the driver's education and respect of our young people, so we are taking a proactive position on it. We'll see how it goes as this is our first go 'round.

James

I would think a better approach would be in how it will effect them directly from the costs associated, what they will personally lose, and how it will effect them directly.
I think that the whole how to act, what to do in case it happens, etc is fine, but I think alot of them will glaze over that and not connect why it would have any importance to them..but kudos for starting a program, it has to start somewhere.

 

[jks9199]

There are extensive programs, including periodic staged crashes at the schools, both high school and many colleges. Again, I think it helps, a little. There was a stretch a couple years back where I arrested more so-called designated drivers than solo drunks! We don't seem to be seeing that as much lately.

 

[Tez3]

Do you have television and poster campaigns? We've had some very hard hitting ads on television showing the consquences of drink driving and some very graphic posters. This is a couple of the 'milder' ones.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFWdaUr4t0s&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GX1q66ruuBM&feature=related

 

[gobbly]

I did not see the cops being unreasonable at all. The kids were being smartasses and jerks thinking they can contest a check point. The officer asked them to roll down their window... they refused... a red flag... WHY? refuse to roll down the window, a simple request not an order. Upon refusal then officers have to be on their guard, is there someone in the backseat with a shotgun, a kidnapping? drug running?
Pointless pushing the envelope of the law... how far can we go? Cops asked them repeatedly to roll down the window and warned them that the window will be broken... the kids don't see anything they're doing is wrong.

Maybe they do have the right to not comply but the officers have the right to find out WHY they are not complying... and thus must do what they can to get the answers. Out on the street is not the place... so take 'em down to the station for questioning with lawyers present.

Stupid kids trying to make a stupid point.

I'm definitely not defending the kids actions. However I think the officers there could have conducted themselves with more decorum. I personally see this as the officers letting themselves be goaded into what the kids had planned from the start. They were very careful to use language and conduct themselves in a way to minimize the chance of being successfully prosecuted, and offices continued to escalate the situation faster than I would have felt comfortable with. I also do not see any indication that the officers suspected danger, or felt threatened by the kids, I certainly think the officers felt the kids were a pain in the ***, not a threat. I can only respond to what's on the video, and rose colored hindsight, of course.

Last summer there was a car blocking the road down the street from my house. The person inside was responsive, but wouldn't get out or move the car, so someone called the cops. For the next 2 hours the cops worked diligently to try to gain access, or get the person to come out. It appeared that the driver had some sort of psychological issue or something, and they were concerned about hurting them, or them hurting themselves if they started breaking in. At one point the person backed up a few feet, almost hit an officer, and hit 2 cop cars (another cop used the chance to sandwich the car in with his own so it couldn't move anymore). In the end they broke the window, hours later, with 8 cop cars there and 2 fire trucks.
Not the same situation at all, and frankly, I think they were far too lenient in that situation, but it made me confident that my local LE we're a bunch of hot heads who would shoot from the hip and ask questions later.