Viral DUI Checkpoint Video....

[Police Moderator]

Sheriff speaks about viral DUI checkpoint video, says deputy found pot in car
Jul. 11, 2013
Written by Becca Andrews

MURFREESBORO — The Rutherford County Sheriff’s Office has responded to MTSU student Chris Kalbaugh’s July 3 video of his verbal altercation with Deputy A.J. Ross with a video of its own — the Tennessee Highway Patrol’s dash camera recording of the incident.

The 27-minute dashcam video shows a confrontation between Kalbaugh, Ross and Deputy Mike Hoekstra regarding marijuana that was allegedly found in Kalbaugh’s vehicle.

Kalbaugh’s six-minute 28-second video went viral after it was posted to libertarianrepublic.com and claims through captions that Ross violated Kalbaugh’s constitutional rights during the altercation. His video, however, does not include any mention of marijuana.

After six days of silence, Sheriff Robert Arnold said Ross and Hoekstra found two marijuana seeds and marijuana shakings, small particles, after Hoekstra’s K-9 "hit" on Kalbaugh’s car.

Read more: Tennessean

There are links to the LE video and the one recorded by the driver in question which was posted on YouTube.

Well, at least I have a Line Up Training video to demonstrate exactly how NOT to do a Safety Checkpoint. I'll put my usual disclaimer up front... I do not speak for any law enforcement agency or entity. I only viewed both videotapes (One of which was edited and the other not edited) and I was not there..... The stop and the rest are on the cops that executed it, not the rest of most of us LE types.

The kid driver did the right thing throughout, as far as I can tell. He was respectful and cooperated to the extent he is required to do by law and under the US Constitution. He actually cooperated more than he should have. He was obviously not intoxicated and that was obvious by the 6th second. Removing intoxicated drivers from the roadway was the purported goal of the Safety Checkpoint that went Constitutionally sideways, right quick.

The Deputy was not a THP Trooper and could not ask dude for his DL. The window was open enough for even a rookie (Or, a even a Sergeant) to detect ETOH emanating from the driver's person, if it was allegedly present or 'contraband in plain view' was noted. If what LE found, based on some very-thin-probable-cause/articulate suspicion, was truly suspected to be pot/pot shake, the illegally obtained 'evidence,' should have been secured and booked into Property/Evidence Division for subsequent testing. But, I suspect, the case would have been thrown out for all the 4th Amendment violations based on the 'Fruits of The Poisonous Tree' Doctrine. I saw no evidence that any illegal substance/activity was in plain view.

Now, two LEOs from Chattooga County, Georgia are now without a job due to the fact they created a website that expressed some of these issues. They weren't forced to resign because they posted this information, but because they failed to jump through the hoops regarding off-duty employment.

I'd post the link to that story, but the Chattanooga TFP would charge you for reading about it.

Me? As soon as I noted that there was no evidence dude was not intoxicated on a chemical substance, he'd have been free to go. Sadly, I bet 2.374 DUI drivers drove by while they were eviscerating the Constitution.

Will we ever learn to not give Duke/Bistro all the ammo they want?

[Warkitty]

I wondered when you would weigh in on this. I admit to being sorely disappointed in the officers up there in M'boro.

[Half-Tard]

The Sheriff of Rutherford County said they found mary jane in his car. Lie #2, if they did they didn't charge him. Dude claims it's not true. Just a serious case of the red ass for that Deputy Fife and Sheriff Andy.

www.wrcbtv.com/story/22823264/driver-who-recorded-controversial-dui-stop-speaks-about-video

[Fredo]

The Deputy was not a THP Trooper and could not ask dude for his DL.

Question: I understand that these "safety" checkpoints have to be conducted under the authority of a state trooper but is it only the trooper that has authority at the scene or does it transfer to the local po po who are manning the site? It would seem kind of silly to have an entire fishing expedition running if one guy had to do all the work to make it legal.

[Police Moderator]

(B)ut is it only the trooper that has authority at the scene or does it transfer to the local po po who are manning the site? It would seem kind of silly to have an entire fishing expedition running if one guy had to do all the work to make it legal.

The authority does not transfer just because a Trooper is there, or in the vicinity, Fredo. It was obvious to any first day FTO that the driver was not intoxicated (On either alcohol or drugs as he did not say, 'Like, Dude, Really?' once and he was wearing his seat belt which was the whole supposed pretext for the 'safety checkpoint.' The driver handled it the textbook way it should have been handled, and, according to the Supremes (Both the Tennessee ones and the Big Ass Supremes) the cop unlawfully 'seized' the driver, without probable cause, in violation of the driver's Constitutional rights.

This case has Section 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871) written all over it. Both the driver, and the cop, are 'persons' as defined by the settled US case law. The cop was acting under 'Color of law' and was a 'state actor.' Several Constitutional rights were violated and those right(s) violation(s) rose to the level of the Supremes.  Those are the four points one needs to hit the Constitutional Lottery, all at the expense of the taxpayer.

Write the driver a check and promote the cop to a Command Staff level position where the only harm he can do is to other cops.

[Police Moderator]

And, further more, most all state Supremes, and the Big Ass Supremes, have consistently ruled that any force used by an LEO, acting under color of law against another person, to commit an unlawful act is 'excessive force.' Since the second tier of the force continuum is verbal orders (The first being the mere presence of an LEO) force was used in this case.

Go figure.

[Half-Tard]

COLUMBUS, Ohio - Defense attorneys are hailing it as a major victory against a machine they believe Ohio should stop using when it comes to determining whether a driver is drunk.

The machine is called the Intoxilyzer 8000, and the state purchased 700 of them.

But a case out of Marietta could put thousands of breath-alcohol tests in jeopardy.

“If you want accurate and reliable science then this machine is not the machine you want to go with, said Defense Attorney Tim Huey.

Early this month, Judge Teresa Liston ruled that "the results of the I8000 are not scientifically reliable and the court, as the gate keeper against unscientific evidence, must prohibit them from being introduced into evidence."

It was a ruling Huey says could jeopardize pending OVI cases.

“Every one of those cases is up for grabs,” he says.

The case pitted state experts versus a team of defense attorneys. Huey says it’s only the second time in state history where defense attorneys were allowed to challenge the machines results.

One of the issues is that the judge found that officers could manipulate the machine's test results.

“The longer you blow, the higher the test result will be,” said Dr. Alfred Stabus, an expert in alcohol breath machines who testified in the case.

Stabus said that the higher the test result, the greater the chance a person could be arrested for OVI.http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/2013/08/21/columbus-ohio-judge-rules-against-breath-machine-tests.html