This is how you deal with a DUI checkpoint

[M.D. Rawlings]

The problem with DUI stops, even though they do serve an important and constructive purpose, is they also serve as an incremental component in the emerging American police state -- i.e., the boiling frog principle. Briefly stated, these intrusive checkpoints have the effect of subliminally conditioning the public to the experience of being stopped and questioned.

By itself the DUI checkpoint is nothing but a means of reducing drunk driving statistics. But when viewed in conjunction with the number of SWAT raids taking place in America every day (around 150 and rising), the fact that militarization of American police agencies has blurred the distinction between cops and occupying soldiers, along with the covert introduction of a system of surreptitious surveillance surpassing anything the Soviet KGB had in place, a clear impression is formed that something socially unhealthy is taking place in our Country. It appears that something politically dangerous is being quietly assembled one piece at a time.

Exactly! Excellent post.

 

[mamooth]

Generally, you only have to answer if he can articulate a reason for asking. There are some freedom hating states that require you to respond anyway, but they are still the exception.

States with Stop and Identify Statutes (for walkers)

The ACLU recommends identifying yourself when asked, unless you are a wanted man, even if it's not such a state, since it removes an excuse for an illegal arrest. If anyone would rather tempt fate, they are free to do so.

 

[MikeK]

Generally, you only have to answer if he can articulate a reason for asking. There are some freedom hating states that require you to respond anyway, but they are still the exception.

States with Stop and Identify Statutes (for walkers)

The ACLU recommends identifying yourself when asked, unless you are a wanted man, even if it's not such a state, since it removes an excuse for an illegal arrest. If anyone would rather tempt fate, they are free to do so.

While the very nature of the action offends me I would be inclined to cooperate with police who might stop me and ask me to identify myself as a citizen. This is because I acknowledge such an action as an effective and necessary means of controlling the serious problem of illegal immigration. But if this is the purpose of the stop it should consist of that specific request and nothing more. Furthermore, I believe every U.S. citizen should be required to possess and to carry a government issued biometric citizen ID card.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Generally, you only have to answer if he can articulate a reason for asking. There are some freedom hating states that require you to respond anyway, but they are still the exception.

States with Stop and Identify Statutes (for walkers)

The ACLU recommends identifying yourself when asked, unless you are a wanted man, even if it's not such a state, since it removes an excuse for an illegal arrest. If anyone would rather tempt fate, they are free to do so.

The ACLU also says that police can only compel you to identify yourself when they have reasonable suspicion that you are invoked in criminal activity, hence the illegal arrest phrase in your response.

That makes me right.

 

[bianco]

The problem with DUI stops, even though they do serve an important and constructive purpose, is they also serve as an incremental component in the emerging American police state -- i.e., the boiling frog principle. Briefly stated, these intrusive checkpoints have the effect of subliminally conditioning the public to the experience of being stopped and questioned.

By itself the DUI checkpoint is nothing but a means of reducing drunk driving statistics. But when viewed in conjunction with the number of SWAT raids taking place in America every day (around 150 and rising), the fact that militarization of American police agencies has blurred the distinction between cops and occupying soldiers, along with the covert introduction of a system of surreptitious surveillance surpassing anything the Soviet KGB had in place, a clear impression is formed that something socially unhealthy is taking place in our Country. It appears that something politically dangerous is being quietly assembled one piece at a time.

Seems to have started after 9/11...you know when planes were hijacked and NYC was blown up by Islamic terrorists...and all that was discovered as a result.

Occupying US soldiers, occupying America?
Sounds great, the American People will be safer as a result.

SWAT raids?
Love those SWAT raids, the bad people being hunted down and arrested, to keep the good People safe.

Love those CCTV cameras...should be one every ten yards in the whole country/Western world.
They're wonderful for keeping tabs on the bad people.
The good people have nothing to fear from them.

Gotta keep a close watch on the whole of society, ...lest NYC, Boston be blown up again, and new targets turned into ash or be rendered uninhabitable.

If you're an upstanding citizen and are only talking on the phone about soup recipes, kids sport, new cars, old cars, holiday plans etc...there's nothing to fear from the govt man listening in.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Generally, you only have to answer if he can articulate a reason for asking. There are some freedom hating states that require you to respond anyway, but they are still the exception.

States with Stop and Identify Statutes (for walkers)

The ACLU recommends identifying yourself when asked, unless you are a wanted man, even if it's not such a state, since it removes an excuse for an illegal arrest. If anyone would rather tempt fate, they are free to do so.

Good points.

But only if the request is asserted with an articulated reasonable suspicion under a level of detention or higher in a Terry stop.

Stop and identify statutes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've been stopped on foot in Arizona a few times when carrying a handgun openly. The respective officer never asserted a detention-level Terry stop, though one did ask that I identify myself. I then specifically asked him if he were asserting reasonable suspicion or if this were a casual stop.

"I'm asking you to identify yourself because you have a gun."

"So, this is just a casual stop, right?"

Oops, he already stated it wasn't based on a reasonable suspicion of anything, including the potentiality that I might have another weapon concealed. He grimaced and let me go without identifying myself. It's tricky, especially when you're armed, so be very specific with the officer about why he wants your name or ID. Make him commit. Truth is, I'm sure he would have pressed the point had I not been videoing the encounter, and I strongly recommend letting the officer know up front that you are recording the encounter.

Also, I don't do activism. In all these cases I was merely stopped in a store parking lot heading to my car while carrying, which means, no doubt, someone called about me while I was in the store. I recorded with my cell phone.

What cops typically proffer as a basis for reasonable suspicion in these cases in order to get your name or ID is that they've received a call of public alarm and must investigate and report. It's crap, but if told that while carrying, be polite and give the officer your name. He may not ask for an ID. If he does once you've identified yourself, I would make him state reasonable suspicion in terms of a crime and remind him that's it's legal to carry openly or concealed, for that matter, in the state of Arizona without a permit.

"I'm not responsible for the panicked citizen's ignorance."

But if he still pushes it, let him see your ID. Don't give it to him. That's as far as you can push things in Arizona without getting arrested in all likelihood. In my opinion, the Court's allowance of the lower standard of "reasonable suspicion" is crap, whether it be a de facto violation of the Fourth or the Fifth or not. Unless the cop has probable cause to suspect a crime has in fact been committed by you and what that crime is, he shouldn't be allowed to stop and harass you at all.

Terry is bad law.

A little insider from an Arizonian who has a few friends who are cops. . . .

Arizona is a very gun-friendly state, and lots of folks carry. Most cops in Arizona like folks who carry. They're used to it. Not threatened by it. Cops are required as a matter of policy to Terry stop you or at least drive by and eye you on one of these calls. If it's a "store-call" the more experienced cops have the dispatcher call the store and determine whether it’s an alarmed customer or an employee who called it in. If they can ascertain that it’s the former and a simple carry alarm, most times they’ll simply eye you as you exit the store. If you look okay and obviously didn't rob anyone, that's that. Sometimes they’re eye you to your car, pass by, grab your plate and run it. Comes back clean, that's that. You may not even know you’ve been checked out.

I must have looked dangerous. Must be the beard or maybe the tattoo. LOL!

 

[bianco]

American cops need some new powers.
Cops in Sydney have no such trouble with smart-ass motorists.
If the cops stop you for a roadside alcohol and drug test, and you refuse to take them, they simply arrest you and charge you with high range drink driving...as is the law.

Easy.

btw, the random drug and alcohol test sites the cops set up...are compulsory to stop at if the cops step out with their STOP POLICE sign.

Don't stop, stop short and try to avoid them...the cops have patrol cars ready to chase you.
Don't stop then...it's likely bye bye for you, off to jail.

Wanna drug and alcohol yourself stoopid?
No worries...just don't drive...catch the bus, train, tram, or walk, catch a ride with family or friends instead.

Yes, yes...we KNOW that Australia is degenerating into a police state! In the United States, we have things called Constitutional rights! I understand that the very THOUGHT of freedom terrifies you, but that's YOUR problem! Now tug that forelock, boy!

Australia a police state?
Australia a totalitarian socialist state?

Nah, there sure seems to be some misunderstanding in American about it all.
Actually, only repeat offenders would likely be locked up for DUI convictions and trying to avoids DUI stops...after about the 11th time.
Fines and licence suspensions are the norm.

Constitutional rights?
Freedom?
I have those.

What freedom do you have that I don't?

You can't just do as you please, and must obey all the laws of the land.

 

[bianco]

Generally, you only have to answer if he can articulate a reason for asking. There are some freedom hating states that require you to respond anyway, but they are still the exception.

States with Stop and Identify Statutes (for walkers)

The ACLU recommends identifying yourself when asked, unless you are a wanted man, even if it's not such a state, since it removes an excuse for an illegal arrest. If anyone would rather tempt fate, they are free to do so.

But only if the request is asserted with an articulated reasonable suspicion under a level of detention or higher in a Terry stop.

Stop and identify statutes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've been stopped on foot in Arizona a few times when carrying a handgun openly. The respective officer never asserted a detention-level Terry stop, though one did ask that I identify myself. I then specifically asked him if he were asserting reasonable suspicion of a crime or if this were a casual stop.

"I'm asking you to identify yourself because you have a gun."

"So, this is just a casual stop, right?"

Oops, he already stated it wasn't based on a reasonable suspicion. He grimaced and let me go without identifying myself. It's tricky, especially when you're armed, so be very specific with the officer about why he wants your name or ID. Make him commit. Truth is, I’m sure he would have pressed the point had I not been videoing the encounter, and I strongly recommend letting the officer know up front that you are recording the encounter.

Also, I don't do activism. In all these cases I was merely stopped in a store parking lot heading to my car while carrying, which means, no doubt, someone called about me while I was in the store. I recorded with my cell phone.

What cops typically proffer as a basis for reasonable suspicion in these cases in order to get your name or ID is that they’ve received a call of public alarm and must investigate and report. It's crap, but if told that while carrying, be polite and give the officer your name. He may not ask for an ID. If he does once you've identified yourself, I would make him state reasonable suspicion in terms of a crime and remind him that's it's legal to carry openly or concealed, for that matter, in the state of Arizona without a permit.

"I'm not responsible for the panicked citizen's ignorance."

But if he still pushes it, let him see your ID. Don't give it to him. That's as far as you can push things in Arizona without getting arrested in all likelihood. In my opinion, the Court's allowance of the lower standard of "reasonable suspicion" is crap, whether it be a de facto violation of the Fourth or the Fifth or not. Unless the cop has probable cause to suspect a crime has in fact been committed by you and what that crime is, he shouldn't be allowed to stop and harass you at all.

Terry is bad law.

A little insider from an Arizonian who has a few friends who are cops. . . .

Arizona is a very gun-friendly state, and lots of folks carry. Most cops in Arizona like folks who carry. They're used to it. Not threatened by it. Cops are required as a matter of policy to Terry stop you or at least drive by and eye you on one of these calls. If it's a "store-call" the more experienced cops have the dispatcher call the store and determine whether it’s an alarmed customer or an employee who called it in. If they can ascertain that it’s the former and a simple carry alarm, most times they’ll simply eye you as you exit the store. If you look okay and obviously didn't rob anyone, that's that. Sometimes they’re eye you to your car, pass by, grab your plate and run it. Comes back clean, that's that. You may not even know you’ve been checked out.

I must have looked dangerous. Must be the beard or maybe the tattoo. LOL!

A bearded, tattooed man with a gun?
Yes, that's probably why.


What's the big objection among People in America to showing a police officer their ID?

Are the cops stealing the IDs and committing identity theft/fraud with them?

 

[mamooth]

A quick note -- decent dash cams now sell for around $53. Okay, $75 if you have to buy a micro sd card as well. This one (model G1W) is fairly well concealed on the rear view mirror, and has good reviews as far as picture and reliability go. It won't show the cop at the side window, but it will get the audio.

G1W | Dash Cam Talk

 

[bianco]

So, basically, y'all are saying that the police in America are the enemy?

 

[George Costanza]

So, basically, y'all are saying that the police in America are the enemy?

As I'm sure one of your most favorite politicians used to say, "You betcha!" Just because cops are nice to you doesn't mean they are good guys. They aren't. I think the situation is best illustrated by the following, which I have up on the wall of my office:

"I am a criminal defense attorney. As such, I am forced to deal, on a daily basis, with some of the worst people on earth - people who have no sense of right and wrong, people who will lie in court in order to get what they want, people who do not care who gets hurt in the proocess. As a criminal defense attorney, it is my job, my sworn duty, to protect my clients from such people by every legal and ethical means possible."

 

[George Costanza]

So, basically, y'all are saying that the police in America are the enemy?

You bet. Allow me to share the following with you, which is up on the wall of my office:

"I am a criminal defense attorney. As such, I am forced to deal, on a daily basis, with some of the worst people on earth - people who have no sense of right and wrong, people who will lie in court in order to get what they want, people who do not care who gets hurt in the proocess. As a criminal defense attorney, it is my job, my sworn duty, to protect my clients from such people by every legal and ethical means possible."

 

[Jarlaxle]

American cops need some new powers.
Cops in Sydney have no such trouble with smart-ass motorists.
If the cops stop you for a roadside alcohol and drug test, and you refuse to take them, they simply arrest you and charge you with high range drink driving...as is the law.

Easy.

btw, the random drug and alcohol test sites the cops set up...are compulsory to stop at if the cops step out with their STOP POLICE sign.

Don't stop, stop short and try to avoid them...the cops have patrol cars ready to chase you.
Don't stop then...it's likely bye bye for you, off to jail.

Wanna drug and alcohol yourself stoopid?
No worries...just don't drive...catch the bus, train, tram, or walk, catch a ride with family or friends instead.

Yes, yes...we KNOW that Australia is degenerating into a police state! In the United States, we have things called Constitutional rights! I understand that the very THOUGHT of freedom terrifies you, but that's YOUR problem! Now tug that forelock, boy!

Australia a police state?
Australia a totalitarian socialist state?

Nah, there sure seems to be some misunderstanding in American about it all.
Actually, only repeat offenders would likely be locked up for DUI convictions and trying to avoids DUI stops...after about the 11th time.
Fines and licence suspensions are the norm.

Constitutional rights?
Freedom?
I have those.

What freedom do you have that I don't?

You can't just do as you please, and must obey all the laws of the land.

You can be jailed for saying the "wrong" thing.

 

[bianco]

All very nice, and I've read about such people, and seen docos on tv/movies about them...but, whom do you call to come and save you, put their lives on the line, when the bad people are smashing down your front or back door and coming in to rape, bash, rob and/or murder you?

 

[bianco]

Yes, yes...we KNOW that Australia is degenerating into a police state! In the United States, we have things called Constitutional rights! I understand that the very THOUGHT of freedom terrifies you, but that's YOUR problem! Now tug that forelock, boy!

Australia a police state?
Australia a totalitarian socialist state?

Nah, there sure seems to be some misunderstanding in American about it all.
Actually, only repeat offenders would likely be locked up for DUI convictions and trying to avoids DUI stops...after about the 11th time.
Fines and licence suspensions are the norm.

Constitutional rights?
Freedom?
I have those.

What freedom do you have that I don't?

You can't just do as you please, and must obey all the laws of the land.

You can be jailed for saying the "wrong" thing.

You mean that I can?

 

[SmedlyButler]

I don't believe this is proper exercise of a constitutional right. This is grandstanding and disregarding fellow citizens right to feel secure in their persons and expect tranquility in their neighborhoods. If you believe in any kind of cooperative community you have to believe with rights comes responsibility. These guy's motives do not justify their jettisoning responsibility, not in my book. Just my opinion.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N30TagPCNE4]I Love This Cop. Best Open Carry Stop Ever - YouTube[/ame]

 

[bianco]

Simple solutions;

. Ban assault rifles, and all auto weapons for the general public.
. Make it compulsory to carry proper ID at all times and show it to a police office when requested.

In the video...smart asses, walking around with an assault rifle slung over shoulder, scaring the public [Sandy Hook etc], and video camera and phone filming the cop/s that will certainly arrive.

And they'd wonder why some cops would take offence at their actions and give them grief.
All they were doing was wasting that cop's time, and the time of the cops etc whom all the frightened citizens were phoning.

 

[SmedlyButler]

Simple solutions;

. Ban assault rifles, and all auto weapons for the general public.
. Make it compulsory to carry proper ID at all times and show it to a police office when requested.

In the video...smart asses, walking around with an assault rifle slung over shoulder, scaring the public [Sandy Hook etc], and video camera and phone filming the cop/s that will certainly arrive.

And they'd wonder why some cops would take offence at their actions and give them grief.
All they were doing was wasting that cop's time, and the time of the cops etc whom all the frightened citizens were phoning.

That's about the kindest label I can come up with.

 

[bianco]

Yes, yes...we KNOW that Australia is degenerating into a police state! In the United States, we have things called Constitutional rights! I understand that the very THOUGHT of freedom terrifies you, but that's YOUR problem! Now tug that forelock, boy!

Australia a police state?
Australia a totalitarian socialist state?

Nah, there sure seems to be some misunderstanding in American about it all.
Actually, only repeat offenders would likely be locked up for DUI convictions and trying to avoids DUI stops...after about the 11th time.
Fines and licence suspensions are the norm.

Constitutional rights?
Freedom?
I have those.

What freedom do you have that I don't?

You can't just do as you please, and must obey all the laws of the land.

You can be jailed for saying the "wrong" thing.

Only if say I a White person physically assaulted and verbally racially abused a non-White person [or a non-White person did the same to a White person] for example.

Racist verbal abuse is a crime...1975 Anti Discrimination Act, and 1975 Race [anti-racism Act].

It would depend how bad the racist verbal abuse were to be.

You're not allowed to do this, for example...

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITG6H7BHBvU [/ame]

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

States with Stop and Identify Statutes (for walkers)

The ACLU recommends identifying yourself when asked, unless you are a wanted man, even if it's not such a state, since it removes an excuse for an illegal arrest. If anyone would rather tempt fate, they are free to do so.

But only if the request is asserted with an articulated reasonable suspicion under a level of detention or higher in a Terry stop.

Stop and identify statutes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've been stopped on foot in Arizona a few times when carrying a handgun openly. The respective officer never asserted a detention-level Terry stop, though one did ask that I identify myself. I then specifically asked him if he were asserting reasonable suspicion of a crime or if this were a casual stop.

"I'm asking you to identify yourself because you have a gun."

"So, this is just a casual stop, right?"

Oops, he already stated it wasn't based on a reasonable suspicion. He grimaced and let me go without identifying myself. It's tricky, especially when you're armed, so be very specific with the officer about why he wants your name or ID. Make him commit. Truth is, I’m sure he would have pressed the point had I not been videoing the encounter, and I strongly recommend letting the officer know up front that you are recording the encounter.

Also, I don't do activism. In all these cases I was merely stopped in a store parking lot heading to my car while carrying, which means, no doubt, someone called about me while I was in the store. I recorded with my cell phone.

What cops typically proffer as a basis for reasonable suspicion in these cases in order to get your name or ID is that they’ve received a call of public alarm and must investigate and report. It's crap, but if told that while carrying, be polite and give the officer your name. He may not ask for an ID. If he does once you've identified yourself, I would make him state reasonable suspicion in terms of a crime and remind him that's it's legal to carry openly or concealed, for that matter, in the state of Arizona without a permit.

"I'm not responsible for the panicked citizen's ignorance."

But if he still pushes it, let him see your ID. Don't give it to him. That's as far as you can push things in Arizona without getting arrested in all likelihood. In my opinion, the Court's allowance of the lower standard of "reasonable suspicion" is crap, whether it be a de facto violation of the Fourth or the Fifth or not. Unless the cop has probable cause to suspect a crime has in fact been committed by you and what that crime is, he shouldn't be allowed to stop and harass you at all.

Terry is bad law.

A little insider from an Arizonian who has a few friends who are cops. . . .

Arizona is a very gun-friendly state, and lots of folks carry. Most cops in Arizona like folks who carry. They're used to it. Not threatened by it. Cops are required as a matter of policy to Terry stop you or at least drive by and eye you on one of these calls. If it's a "store-call" the more experienced cops have the dispatcher call the store and determine whether it’s an alarmed customer or an employee who called it in. If they can ascertain that it’s the former and a simple carry alarm, most times they’ll simply eye you as you exit the store. If you look okay and obviously didn't rob anyone, that's that. Sometimes they’re eye you to your car, pass by, grab your plate and run it. Comes back clean, that's that. You may not even know you’ve been checked out.

I must have looked dangerous. Must be the beard or maybe the tattoo. LOL!

A bearded, tattooed man with a gun?
Yes, that's probably why.


What's the big objection among People in America to showing a police officer their ID?

Are the cops stealing the IDs and committing identity theft/fraud with them?

"Show me your papers" in the absence of real probable cause is fascist crap. It's none of the cop's business who I am, and in spite of what the Court foolishly argued, such information can be abused by anyone, including by cops, in any number of ways. Happens all the time.