DUI screening stop

N801BH said:
An arrest warrant on a house is a FAR cry from a random DUI screening stop..:yes::rolleyes:
Click to expand...

A brief detention generally requires reasonable suspicion.

I'm trying to find out if the police on here think that refusing to answer questions (and I'll concede the basic identification questions are valid) constitutes reasonable suspicion.
 
JeffDG said:
A brief detention generally requires reasonable suspicion.

I'm trying to find out if the police on here think that refusing to answer questions (and I'll concede the basic identification questions are valid) constitutes reasonable suspicion.
Click to expand...

I'm always suspicious of people, which I think comes with the job, but the refusal to answer to me doesn't constitute reasonable suspicion or warrant a detention on a DUI stop.
 
JB1842 said:
As a Fed, I've never done a DUI stop. But resonable suspicion is a very low threshold, so I would think a cop at the checkpoint would try dig deeper and ask questions in an attempt to find PC for the arrest, but that is just my opinion. I could be wrong.
Click to expand...

Reasonable suspicion is indeed a low bar, probable cause is higher an beyond a reasonable doubt is higher still.

What that means to us goes from "let's have a chat" to arrest/search warrant to prison time


On the checkpoints I feel that they are a big step on the way to the Stazi and "papers please" and should not be allowed, but courts and law makers disagree.
 
By the way, I did want to give thanks to the LEOs who've weighed in on this. It is interesting to hear the viewpoint from "the other side" so to speak. Sorry you got some push back, but differences between the police and the policed are only natural for an issue like this.
 
Last edited:
comanchepilot said:
Go google: "Too Smart Police Connecticut"

Its not the only one - but the easiest one to find . . .
Click to expand...
I've heard the "you'll be bored" thing before with folks who have, say, advanced training or degrees or experience. Police aren't the only ones who pull this. I've just never heard someone using an intelligence test in this unique way.
 
JB1842 said:
Depends on the detention. We detain all the people who are in house when we execute an arrest warrant. That usually means to sit on the couch until we are done. Detention doesn't always mean handcuffs and sitting in the back of a squar car.
Click to expand...

Maybe not always, but 99% of the time.
 
Alexb2000 said:
It does seem strange that you find a DUI screening on a public unconstitutional, but have no problem with a home search warrant based purely on hearsay. :dunno:
Click to expand...

What's wrong with hearsay?
 
JB1842 said:
Depends on the questions. Questions on name, date of birth, address, etc., can be asked and answered. If they waive their Miranda Right's they can answer. There is a lot of case law pertaining to what can be asked and answered and the cirumstances surrounding it.
Click to expand...

What?

Ever heard of the right to remain silent? You do not need to be Mirandized to keep your mouth shut . . . lying to a federal law enforcment officer can get you 10 years . . . 18 USC 1001.

There are similar laws in most states - if you say nothing - you cannot be accused of lying. You see - they trip you up in some silly thing - then they get you to talk about what they want to talk about since the penalty for lying is ten times the penalty of the crime they are inquiring about . . .
 
Last edited:
comanchepilot said:
What?

Ever heard of the right to remain silent? You do not need to be Mirandized to keep your mouth shut . . . lying to a federal law enforcment officer can get you 10 years . . . 18 USC 1001.

There are similar laws in most states - if you say nothing - you cannot be accused of lying. You see - they trip you up in some silly thing - then they get you to talk about what they want to talk about since the penalty for lying is ten times the penalty of the crime they are inquiring aboiut . . .

I noticed that not a single LEO on this board answered the question of whether they would personally consider an invocation of rights by a citizen either a challenge to their authority or grounds for further detention .... thats fascinating.
Click to expand...

And what I find fascinating is how you argue that lack of a response should not be incriminating on the street, but in here it is an indictment of our profession :rolleyes:

I didn't read many of the posts in this thread but my answer now is there is a difference between exercising your Constitutional (and for that matter state constitutional) rights, and exercising what you think - often incorrectly - are your Constitutional rights. I've no problem with my fellow man availing themself of the former as interpreted by the courts and various legislatures. I have no patience with those asserting the latter.
 
Last edited:
comanchepilot said:
What?

Ever heard of the right to remain silent? You do not need to be Mirandized to keep your mouth shut . . . lying to a federal law enforcment officer can get you 10 years . . . 18 USC 1001.

There are similar laws in most states - if you say nothing - you cannot be accused of lying. You see - they trip you up in some silly thing - then they get you to talk about what they want to talk about since the penalty for lying is ten times the penalty of the crime they are inquiring about . . .
Click to expand...

I've stopped answering because this is going no where. No matter what my answer is, it's already been said on this board that we will lie, right?

Yes it is suspicious when someone refuses to answer basic questions. Does it rise even to reasonable suspicion and cause me to detain them longer? Absolutely not.

The funny thing is I've met more crooked attorneys who claim to protect our rights than bad cops whose intention is to trample on rights.
 
Last edited:
comanchepilot said:
What?

Ever heard of the right to remain silent? You do not need to be Mirandized to keep your mouth shut . . . lying to a federal law enforcment officer can get you 10 years . . . 18 USC 1001.

There are similar laws in most states - if you say nothing - you cannot be accused of lying. You see - they trip you up in some silly thing - then they get you to talk about what they want to talk about since the penalty for lying is ten times the penalty of the crime they are inquiring about . . .
Click to expand...

Doesn't always apply if you aren't questioning about the crime itself. It has nothing to do with lying.
 
VanDy said:
A little closer to home for you

edit: link
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news...s-to-lower-test-scores-for-police-exam/nMpwf/
Click to expand...
Really, I still consider myself from Michigan. ;) And besides - that's Dayton. Not Ohio. :yes: (Edit: wtf the comments on the article)

This link is a little different than having a cap on the high end of the test scores.

I had a husband of a coworker get indicted for taking photos of the questions on the city-mandated paramedic exam (not the one you HAVE to take to be a paramedic - more of a local brush-up thing) and handing copies around to his buddies. I also know members of my family who work at hospitals where they all took required FEMA tests as a group.

I guess standards really aren't standards.
 
Last edited:
PPC1052 said:
What's wrong with hearsay?
Click to expand...

Nothing backed up by some collaborating facts.

My point is that people are taking great exception to being stopped on a public road as part of a DUI screening of all drivers on that road. Yet, have no problem if a neighbor doesn't like your red tip photinias encroaching on her driveway so she decides to tell the cops she suspects you're growing dope, resulting in a search of your entire personal residence.
 
JB1842 said:
Doesn't always apply if you aren't questioning about the crime itself. It has nothing to do with lying.
Click to expand...

Not sure I understand . . .

I stick with not answering any questions - who you are is answered with a document. A government issued document. Its the government's document, let them see it.

Now, have you been drinking? Where are going? What have you been doing tonight, etc etc. Its not chit chat.

Thats what I cannot understand - cops do not engage in idle chit chat at a DUI checkpoint. Everything is designed to ascertain your level of intoxication. Been to dinner? Did you drink alcohol? Once you start talking about your evening - then NOT talking and refusing to chat about your night becomes suspicious.

As our LEO's here have said - not cooperating at the outside is not suspicious - even I admit that stopping the conversation 'just when it gets interesting' for the officer is suspicious and grounds for further inquiry.

Like Ron White said - "I had the right to remain silent but lacked the ability to use it."
 
Jalloway502 said:
I've stopped answering because this is going no where. No matter what my answer is, it's already been said on this board that we will lie, right?

Yes it is suspicious when someone refuses to answer basic questions. Does it rise even to reasonable suspicion and cause me to detain them longer? Absolutely not.

The funny thing is I've met more crooked attorneys who claim to protect our rights than bad cops whose intention is to trample on rights.
Click to expand...

Justin - you miss the point - I never said that the police will lie - what I said is that because you can - you cannot be trusted to tell the truth as a group. That is a signifigant difference - you personally might be the officer who is truthful and honest and would not lie to a suspect in order to elicit information - or - you could be the type who would say anything to obtain facts sufficient to arrest and convict. I'm sorry you feel picked upon - but I am not a member of a profession who claims the ability to lie to do my job.

Is it needed at times? I suppose that I will not disagree that in certain situations is a valuable tool - but once you go down the road it teaches me and other intelligent person that your profession cannot be trusted to tell the truth. Can't tell you the times I have heard police say things like 'we have your DNA' which they cannot yet possibly have at that point in an investigation to coerce a statement. Its a lie. A knowing bald-faced lie.

Moving on to basic questions - how about you get a 'citizen' who clearly exercises their right to remain silent. How is that suspicious? I'm sure its not - even if it is annoying.

Crooked lawyers - ah yes - the refuge of everyone who does not understand the law. . . . there are far fewer crooked lawyers than you might believe. Your definition of crooked probably involves taking advantage of the law . . . other people might define that as competent.
 
comanchepilot said:
Not sure I understand . . .

I stick with not answering any questions - who you are is answered with a document. A government issued document. Its the government's document, let them see it.

Now, have you been drinking? Where are going? What have you been doing tonight, etc etc. Its not chit chat.

Thats what I cannot understand - cops do not engage in idle chit chat at a DUI checkpoint. Everything is designed to ascertain your level of intoxication. Been to dinner? Did you drink alcohol? Once you start talking about your evening - then NOT talking and refusing to chat about your night becomes suspicious.

As our LEO's here have said - not cooperating at the outside is not suspicious - even I admit that stopping the conversation 'just when it gets interesting' for the officer is suspicious and grounds for further inquiry.

Like Ron White said - "I had the right to remain silent but lacked the ability to use it."
Click to expand...

If you produce a document, that is answering the questions, I agree with that. If you don't have ID, and I ask you questions about your identity, then those questions don't violate any rights a person has. I even think there is case law supporting that, but I would have to search for it. My experiences are different from a street cop. They question people to make a case. I question people to find the person accused or convicted of the crime.
 
JB1842 said:
If you produce a document, that is answering the questions, I agree with that. If you don't have ID, and I ask you questions about your identity, then those questions don't violate any rights a person has. I even think there is case law supporting that, but I would have to search for it. My experiences are different from a street cop. They question people to make a case. I question people to find the person accused or convicted of the crime.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure you're right....I think you have to answer questions related to your identity. But that's pretty much it...

Marshall?
 
comanchepilot said:
Justin - you miss the point - I never said that the police will lie - what I said is that because you can - you cannot be trusted to tell the truth as a group. That is a signifigant difference - you personally might be the officer who is truthful and honest and would not lie to a suspect in order to elicit information - or - you could be the type who would say anything to obtain facts sufficient to arrest and convict. I'm sorry you feel picked upon - but I am not a member of a profession who claims the ability to lie to do my job.

Is it needed at times? I suppose that I will not disagree that in certain situations is a valuable tool - but once you go down the road it teaches me and other intelligent person that your profession cannot be trusted to tell the truth. Can't tell you the times I have heard police say things like 'we have your DNA' which they cannot yet possibly have at that point in an investigation to coerce a statement. Its a lie. A knowing bald-faced lie.

Moving on to basic questions - how about you get a 'citizen' who clearly exercises their right to remain silent. How is that suspicious? I'm sure its not - even if it is annoying.

Crooked lawyers - ah yes - the refuge of everyone who does not understand the law. . . . there are far fewer crooked lawyers than you might believe. Your definition of crooked probably involves taking advantage of the law . . . other people might define that as competent.
Click to expand...

I'll lie, but never about evidence or to cover up wrong-doing. Sometimes I'll have a informant who'll giveme information that I use to arrest a fugitive. At times a fugitive will ask if my informant gave him up. Am I going to tell them the truth? No. I'll lie to them to protect my informant. I don't think anybody would disagree with that.
 
JB1842 said:
Yep, but it's only 1 "L".
Click to expand...

D'oh!

As I made that statement to a federal LEO, I had no intent to deceive or falsify that document, and as such I make no admissions that might subject me to penalty under 18 USC 1001
 
JeffDG said:
D'oh!

As I made that statement to a federal LEO, I had no intent to deceive or falsify that document, and as such I make no admissions that might subject me to penalty under 18 USC 1001
Click to expand...

Everybody gets it wrong.
 
comanchepilot said:
Crooked lawyers - ah yes - the refuge of everyone who does not understand the law. . . . there are far fewer crooked lawyers than you might believe. Your definition of crooked probably involves taking advantage of the law . . . other people might define that as competent.
Click to expand...

Wow. You are as much of an a$$ as you are arrogant. You have no idea my background or anything about me. With two lawyers in the family, one who was a very prominent attorney, I kinda have an idea what I'm talking about.

Sorry I can't play the "dumb street cop" for you.
 
Alexb2000 said:
Nothing backed up by some collaborating facts.

My point is that people are taking great exception to being stopped on a public road as part of a DUI screening of all drivers on that road. Yet, have no problem if a neighbor doesn't like your red tip photinias encroaching on her driveway so she decides to tell the cops she suspects you're growing dope, resulting in a search of your entire personal residence.
Click to expand...

Well, let me try it this way: What you are describing is not hearsay. People tend to throw up the hearsay canard whenever refering to what someone else says. Hearsay has a specific definition. Not everything that someone says is hearsay, and even in the cases where it is, there are numerous expections that permit hearsay to be admitted at trial.

But my real disagreement with your position is that the logical implication of what you are saying is that police can never get a warant unless they observe the crimimal activity first hand.
 
Last edited:
Jalloway502 said:
Wow. You are as much of an a$$ as you are arrogant. You have no idea my background or anything about me. With two lawyers in the family, one who was a very prominent attorney, I kinda have an idea what I'm talking about.

Sorry I can't play the "dumb street cop" for you.
Click to expand...

Wow, really? I never referenced you at all except in the 'you' as in y'all . . .

You brought up crooked lawyers - I defended lawyers -

So I'm not seeign why I am an azz but I guess you have your reasons . ..

All I object to is people thinking that they know what you know as a cop. You know as well as I that more criminals are convicted with their own words than ever get convicted by good police work . . .
 
PPC1052 said:
But my real disagreement with your position is that the logical implication of what you are saying is that police can never get a warant unless they observe the crimimal activity first hand.
Click to expand...

I don't think that at all, it doesn't make sense.

Look at something like the patriot act and the trend toward less and less factual information being required for a warrant. All I'm saying to those that worry about constitutional rights is that there are better places to focus ire.
 
comanchepilot said:
You know as well as I that more criminals are convicted with their own words than ever get convicted by good police work . . .
Click to expand...
So what? Is that so terrible. If they are guilty of the crime, does it matter whether they convicted themselves, or the police convicted them? I thought that was the goal of the justice system... to get to the truth and convict the guilty, and clear the innocent. I must live in a fantasy world.
 
JeffDG said:
Is someone who refuses to answer questions at a DUI checkstop grounds for "reasonable suspicion"?
Click to expand...

Not in Ninth Circuit Land.

US v. Fuentes: "Mere refusal to consent to a stop or search does not give rise to reasonable suspicion or probable cause."

Not challenged any higher because they got Fuentes on other matters in that case.

--Carlos V.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top