DUI Roadblock

[osrb]

The other night I was driving home about 11:30 on some back roads that I often take. I noticed a car flashing their lights at me an thought it was just a speed trap. I have learned that in this area not to speed so that was no problem. Well it was not a a speed trap it was a DUI roadblock. Not having time to get my wallet out before getting the cops I pulled up the officer put both hands out of my window and told him that "I have a carry license and I am carrying and I cannot get to my wallet without going near my pistol". At this time he told me to pull over to the side of the road. I pulled over and turned off the engine.

He told me to step out of my vehicle then asked where my pistol was. I told him it was on my hip and my wallet was in the pocket next to it. He had me show him then he let me get my wallet I showed him my carry license, drivers license and insurance card. At this time he thanked me and let me go on my way. While getting back into my vehicle I overheard one of the officers state "That is the proper way to handle as situation like that". All in all I had not one problem. Since I do not drink at all I do not worry about DUI's and I have all my proper information. The officers was very polite even though I could tell that all of them were more on alert.

5 Minutes from stop to go. No problem.

[Justin Thyme]

That's five minutes out of your life that could have been spent watching Dancing with the Stars.... or petting your dog.

I'm just no fan at all of being stopped for no reason other than someone decided a roadblock would be a good idea.

[osrb]

I'm just no fan at all of being stopped for no reason other than someone decided a roadblock would be a good idea.

I personally do not mind them. like I said I do not drink so I never have a problem. I would rather let them do that and catch drunks then end up in the hospital or morgue because they were not checking and I go hit by one. Beside who in their right mind would watch Dancing with the Stars.

If had my wallet out on the seat like I normally do I would only have been there 10 seconds.

[Justin Thyme]

I don't like being searched before entering a stadium to watch a ballgame either. In fact I resent it. I resent being stopped for a license check, a DUI check, a weapons check, any of it. It just bothers me to no end. I don't know why it bothers me so much but it does and I don't intend to pay a shrink to find out why.

[duke]

Kindly detail what part of proving the legal status of driver's license, registration and proof of insurance will in any way prove or disprove a state of intoxication? If nothing then the roadblock is being expanded to more general ‘crime’ prevention.
Where is the articulable reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed by the driver or any occupant?
Out in 5 min. is OK? How long would it have taken had four other CC’s been passengers? Would the extra time still been OK? In your view, orsb, at what point would a suspicionless stop become excessive?
The roadblock stop also provided the opportunity not otherwise permissible, to shine a light into you vehicle looking for anything suspicious. What if you had been transporting a box of collectible spirits bottles to anywhere for any reason? Now could have been charged with violation of the open container law.

I’ll add that I am aware, before some smartass feels the necessity of pointing it out, that the US Supreme Court has sanctioned such roadblocks. That sanction does not in any way require anyone to embrace the concept.

[osrb]

Kindly detail what part of proving the legal status of driver's license, registration and proof of insurance will in any way prove or disprove a state of intoxication?

This one is easy even you should be able to get it. None of the prove or disprove level in intox. But by seeing how people are handling the stop i.e. do they stop long or short, do they handle the vehicle erratically, do they smell like they have been drinking. That is just some of what they are looking at.


If other ppl in the vehicle had their carry license the cops may or may not have cheeked them. Most likely all they would do is verify name and address on both. The people I know that carry would just look at is as part of having the license no more.

As far as a "suspicionless stop" if they ask to search my vehicle without warrant. Yes I have denied cops this in the past. It gets them mad but they cannot do anything about it.

Remember dukie driving is a privilege not a right.

[duke]

I did not ask how to spot an intoxicated driver, but rather how the demand for other travel papers which is always part of the DUI stop can prove or disprove the declared stated reason for the initial stop. ANYTHING that is not directly connected with the discovery of an intoxicated driver is an expansion of the stated purpose.

Again in your view, orsb, at what point would a suspicionless stop become excessive? How much time wasted or how many questions asked? Is there no limit? Or only when asked to consent to a search? It seems that you have not reached that point yet.

Congratulations on refusing to give consent to a more invasive search.

The right of driving as part of the acknowledged freedom of travel has been converted by the legislature to a privilege and issues biforcated by the courts. You address the subject as though I had offered another view. LOL

[Justin Thyme]

driving is a privilege not a right.

I'm not convinced that's so. I have not ceded my right to drive over to the government. Have you?

[BlackFox]

I'm not sure what a good number would be, so I'll just say that probably 98% of all the drivers on the road have license, insurance, current registration, and aren't breaking any laws. So why is it justified to inconvenience the overwhelming majority of drivers in order to try and catch a very few when it would probably net the same amount of arrests by patrolling and looking for weaving and such?

The reason is because the limit for alcohol in your system is so low, that drivers right around the limit don't weave or cause any dangers, so they have to set up roadblocks in order to get them by unreasonable means.

The roadblock isn't there for the guy that's going to ram into you and kill your family, it's there for the guy that stopped and had a couple of beers with his dinner, and the government wants to take his money.

[osrb]

Congratulations on refusing to give consent to a more invasive search.

Just to be clear. This was not that night. It was many years ago. But still even today I will not let a search happen. If they want to search get a warrant.

[professorx]

Oct 13, 2009 12:43:31 GMT -5 Justin Thyme said:

I don't like being searched before entering a stadium to watch a ballgame either. In fact I resent it. I resent being stopped for a license check, a DUI check, a weapons check, any of it. It just bothers me to no end. I don't know why it bothers me so much but it does and I don't intend to pay a shrink to find out why.

Don't forget Walmart greeters!!!

[Police Moderator]

I did not ask how to spot an intoxicated driver, but rather how the demand for other travel papers which is always part of the DUI stop can prove or disprove the declared stated reason for the initial stop.

The demand for "Travel papers" in not "always part of the DUI stop" at a DUI checkpoint in Tennessee. In fact, no LEO, except members of the Tennessee Highway Patrol (THP), can ask for your driver's license (Or any other documentation) at a DUI Checkpoint in Tennessee unless there is evidence of another crime such as a DUI, Seat Belt Violation or an unlawful object/substance in plain view, etc. As per usual, Duke knows not of what he speaks.

If the THP is not at a Tennessee DUI checkpoint (Which must be announced via the media before the Checkpoint can be set up) then you will not be asked for your DL or any other papers. The "script" (Approved by the Tennessee Supreme Court) is, "Good evening/morning/afternoon, we are checking for drunk drivers" if no crime is immediately detected then the LEO will state, "You are free to go". If you hand the LEO your DL, it will be handed back and then you are free to go.

All checkpoints are posted prior to you entering the checkpoint area and you must be allowed to have a turn off after the signage and before the checkpoint itself. Turning off, as long as it is done legally, prior to reaching the checkpoint is not probable cause for a traffic stop.

I personally, am not a fan of DUI checkpoints as they are proven not to be an efficient use of manpower, but they are good PR and do prevent some DUI trips.

Duke was correct on one point. Rare, but it happens. The Supremes have ruled that DUI Checkpoints are legal, but under severely strict guidelines, as it should be.

[gridbug]

I personally do not mind them. like I said I do not drink so I never have a problem.

Given that reasoning, think how much safer we would all be if they didn't need a warrant to search the homes of suspected criminals.

I have not ceded my right to drive over to the government. Have you?

Since when does the government feel the need for you to cede your rights for something they already decided to control?

[Justin Thyme]

Since when does the government feel the need for you to cede your rights for something they already decided to control?

I've never given government permission to feel one way or another about it so I don't care how it feels.

[duke]

Oct 13, 2009 17:25:23 GMT -5 Police Moderator said:

The demand for "Travel papers" in not "always part of the DUI stop" at a DUI checkpoint in Tennessee. In fact, no LEO, except members of the Tennessee Highway Patrol (THP), can ask for your driver's license (Or any other
documentation) at a DUI Checkpoint in Tennessee unless there is evidence of another crime such as a DUI, Seat Belt Violation or an unlawful object/substance in plain view, etc. As per usual, Duke knows not of what he speaks.

Again PM assumes facts not in evidence. Neither the original post not any post by duke mentions what jurisdiction is being referred to, namely Tenn. as implied by PM for the purpose of throwing written stones.
The restrictions on Tenn. roadblocks are by Tenn Supreme Court and carry no authority in other jurisdictions. See State v. Hicks(2001) stemming from a roadblock on Suck Creek Road near the Hamilton County and Marion County line.

The two most recent roadblocks where I was detained were in GA. I could easily have avoided the last one, but the first referenced was in a hollow with no escape, conducted by the Sheriff's department and the expressly stated only purpose was for driver's license check. However, proof of insurance and proof of registration papers were also demanded. While I had no problems at either, there as a delay both approaching the roadblock and during the demand and proof of innocence phase.

[Justin Thyme]

Georgia is one of the states that requires one to show ID when asked for by the Police. Tennessee doesn't.

[tco4482]

Where was this roadblock located?

[Police Moderator]

I did not ask how to spot an intoxicated driver, but rather how the demand for other travel papers which is always part of the DUI stop can prove or disprove the declared stated reason for the initial stop.

In the above, twice quoted statement, Duke states, unequivocally, that asking for papers is always a part of the DUI stop in a topic discussing "DUI Roadblocks" which is blatantly false on the face of it. I was merely pointing out that in at least one state (Tennessee) this is far from the truth. I referenced Tennessee state law, as that is the law which I am personally familiar with as a result of my employment. Therefore the facts were, indeed, in evidence, placed them by Duke himself/herself. He/she just didn't like it!

Duke is fine with splitting hairs as long as he is the one doing the splitting and LE are the ones getting their hair split. When someone calls him out on his evident errors, he cries foul. I "implied" simply what Duke posted.

there (w)as a delay both approaching the roadblock and during the demand and proof of innocence phase.

A delay the Supremes have ruled "reasonable". The Fourth Amendment does not banish all searches, just "Unreasonable" searches and seizures.

The Supremes get to decide what is reasonable and what is not. Not I, nor Duke, have that power.

If one wants to read what the Tennessee Supreme court found regarding that particular roadblock, read Tennessee v. Hicks. Don't take Duke's word, or mine for that matter, on it.

[Tsavodiner]

The reason is because the limit for alcohol in your system is so low, that drivers right around the limit don't weave or cause any dangers, so they have to set up roadblocks in order to get them by unreasonable means.The roadblock isn't there for the guy that's going to ram into you and kill your family, it's there for the guy that stopped and had a couple of beers with his dinner, and the government wants to take his money.

It's there for the guy that had a couple of beers, drove off, dropped his cigarette/CD/glasses/sparechange/squirrel in his pocket/answered his cell phone/YOU, rammed and killed you and your family.

Oh, I'm sorry, did I include and extra YOU?

[osrb]

Where was this roadblock located?

Hogan Rd in Rossville

[BlackFox]

Oct 14, 2009 20:16:33 GMT -5 Tsavodiner said:

It's there for the guy that had a couple of beers, drove off, dropped his cigarette/CD/glasses/sparechange/squirrel in his pocket/answered his cell phone/YOU, rammed and killed you and your family.

It seems that if you were trying to catch people that were swerving while reaching for something they dropped in the floorboard while driving, a roadblock is about the most ineffective means I can think of.

Lets be honest. A roadblock is for people like me that occasionally have a couple of beers on the way home. You could tailgate me the whole way home, and I would never give you a reason to turn on your lights, but if I roll up on a roadblock, I'm a child killer.

[Conservator]

amen. I passed a breathalizer when stopped on my way home from a Bravo game a couple months ago. Cobb Co. sheriff thought he had caught himself a child killer. I think he was sad that I wasn't.

lesson learned: don't say "I had a couple of beers at the game, but that was a while ago", for in this case, the truth will get you pulled out of your car and harrassed/questioned.

[Justin Thyme]

Don't say anything. Be polite, be cooperative and keep your mouth shut. You will never talk yourself out of trouble when stopped, you'll only talk yourself into trouble.

[BlackFox]

Yep, when I was on the Grand Jury a few years ago, I was amazed at how many times that someone would get pulled over on the interstate(where 99% of all the DEU arrests come from= profiling), and give consent to search even though they had drugs in the vehicle. I can only assume that they thought the officer would cut them some slack. WRONG!

[rstewart]

Did they actually give consent to search of was that the party line from the 10th Judicial Drug Task Force? I've often wondered about that. I read they were stopped for following too closely or some such bullshit and then gave consent to search. Next stop was the Bradley County Federal Prison. I wonder if one can be ticketed for following too closely in a traffic jam? Afterall you are bumper to bumper, can't get much closer without hitting the car in front of you.

[BlackFox]

Oct 15, 2009 9:51:35 GMT -5 rstewart said:

Did they actually give consent to search of was that the party line from the 10th Judicial Drug Task Force?

You just have to take them at their word since there is no defense. I was surprised at how few times they had to bring out the dog.

[duke]

Official stats on THP roadblocks officially referred to checkpoints for 2008



Only a small percentage less than 10% of vehicles are detained.

[duke]

Official reports by the THP for 2008
Citations issued.




Only a very small percentage of vehicles passing through a checkpoint are cited for the stated purpose of the checkpoint.

[Police Moderator]

Only a very small percentage of vehicles passing through a checkpoint are cited for the stated purpose of the checkpoint.

And some serial killers were caught not by getting caught in the act, but by illegally parking while committing the act.

Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[gridbug]

If you don't pay your taxes are you as bad as Al Capone?

Isn't there some degree of fraudulence if you establish a roadblock with the stated objective of catching people for A when your real intent is to look for B, C, and D? For several years DUI has been seen as a particularly bad crime and therefore it is OK to go after drunk drivers with greater vigor. Not all that many people would get their feathers ruffled over DUI checkpoints. But if the greatest number of convictions is for registration violations, isn't that roadblock really more to stop people and ask for their "papers"? If that was admitted openly as the reason don't you think more people would get upset over the roadblocks?