Bogus checkpoint, what would you do?

Ask "Am I under arrest?" followed by "Am I free to go?" If not given clear answers about it, then drive away.
 
I don't know who approved that detail but he needed his head examined. It looked like it was going to be a problem before it started.
 
rscalzo said:
I don't know who approved that detail but he needed his head examined. It looked like it was going to be a problem before it started.
Click to expand...

Being one hour west of Denver, Gilpin County is pretty rural. I would be shocked if the Sheriff himself did not know of this detail.

At least 200 drivers were tested, Enney said. About five motorists later complained, he said.
Click to expand...

200 GD sheep......[thinking]
 
I don't see a need to pull drivers over for a survey that is trying to find out what kind of impact laws and enforcement have on drivers. The answer is simple. Just like any law, there are those that will abide and those that won't. Common Sense rather than the law or fear of it's enforcement tells me not to drink and drive. My Army veteran dad advised my brother as he headed out to Marine Corp basic training, "Don't volunteer for anything, son. You never know what it can lead to".
The witness's testamony indicates that the surveyors were forceful and intimidating. I can readily understand why so many folks complied and complained later. This type of activity should not be allowed on the roadways.
Best Regards.
 
Riverside said:
The witness's testamony indicates that the surveyors were forceful and intimidating. I can readily understand why so many folks complied and complained later. This type of activity should not be allowed on the roadways.
Best Regards.
Click to expand...

The major problem is that sheep do not know their rights and/or do not have the balls to claim them.

The more harrasing the survey team gets, the more scary I get. Some dickhead trying to keep me there while my family wants to go home is really cruising for a bruising.
 
Jose said:
The major problem is that sheep do not know their rights and/or do not have the balls to claim them.

The more harrasing the survey team gets, the more scary I get. Some dickhead trying to keep me there while my family wants to go home is really cruising for a bruising.
Click to expand...

You're right. Most people are taught to comply with the requests of law enforcement or face consequences real or imagined. A sheriff's directive or request for a motorist to pull over and participate in a survey is enough to intimidate a lot of people to comply.
I guess call blocking is forcing "research" groups to come up with another method to hound people.[grin]
Best Regards.
 
Sure... I'd go along with it if they were going to pay me $100.00 for my time . Otherwise, they can go pound sand.
 
I don't agree with any form of random checkpoint, so this would burn my ass extra hot. I would be out of there as soon as I figured out what it was, then every politician who's job I vote for would get a letter.
 
I'd laugh at them, explain that I was a teetotaler and drive away. If they were being really insistent, I'd just let up on the brakes and let the car slowly inch away giving these idiots plenty of time to get their fat feet out of the way of my tires.
 
Riverside said:
You're right. Most people are taught to comply with the requests of law enforcement or face consequences real or imagined. A sheriff's directive or request for a motorist to pull over and participate in a survey is enough to intimidate a lot of people to comply.
I guess call blocking is forcing "research" groups to come up with another method to hound people.[grin]
Best Regards.
Click to expand...

Seems this sort of thing is happening more and more. People are starting to notice.

Let's see:
the kid who got tasered
the guy carrying open in NH
the kid who got stopped by store security at Circuit City
now this one

...all within what, two weeks? Are people starting to get fed up more? Or is it just that NES is turning into a magnet for this stuff?
 
This would piss me off. It's bad enough that they run the real
ones. This is a blatant misuse of public time/money to further
the agenda of some other organization that's not even peripherally
related to the police.

I'd ask: " Is this an OFFICIAL checkpoint? If not, I'm going to
keep on driving if you don't mind; and the sheriff is going to get a
nasty letter in the mail, too. "

-Mike
 
you can bet that the more poeple rewad about this as it is circulating around the less effective those checkpoints will be as more and more people will start to tell them to F--- O--...
 
stoneypete said:
I would never provide a blood sample without a court order. I'd drive away.
Click to expand...
In many states, mine included, you give implied consent for a sample of body fluid during a DUI stop as soon as you sign your driver's license.

You can refuse the customary breathalyzer at the scene, but that just means you will be arrested and taken either to a clinic or to a police post so equipped where they will draw blood, against your will if necessary, all completely legal w/o the need for a warrant or court order.

Just thougt you would like to know.
 
Jose said:
In many states, mine included, you give implied consent for a sample of body fluid during a DUI stop as soon as you sign your driver's license.

You can refuse the customary breathalyzer at the scene, but that just means you will be arrested and taken either to a clinic or to a police post so equipped where they will draw blood, against your will if necessary, all completely legal w/o the need for a warrant or court order.

Just thougt you would like to know.
Click to expand...

Needles make me all.......ooogly......[crying]

LMAO.....

seriously though....that really sucks.
 
You can refuse the customary breathalyzer at the scene, but that just means you will be arrested and taken either to a clinic or to a police post so equipped where they will draw blood, against your will if necessary, all completely legal w/o the need for a warrant or court order.
Click to expand...

I don't believe they can take a sample by force in MA, however, there is an automatic loss of license for a period of time for refusal to submit to the test.

Here's where it gets interesting:

In MA, changes may still be brought without an alcohol test, however, the jury must not be told that you refused the test. The judge will explain that there are many reasons a test result is not available, and that the jury should base its decisions on the available facts, and not draw any conclusion for either side based on the absence of a test. At that point, the jury deliberates the defendant's fate, while they wonder if they would want to face a DUI conviction without being given the chance to prove sobriety via a chemical test (the jury will no doubt wonder why the police did not give a test, even though it is the suspect that refused it).

Bottom line - if someone knows they are guilty, refuses the test and can afford competent legal counsel, they stand a very good chance of beating the charge. When you read about police being arrested for DUI, they very frequently refuse the breath test.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
Bottom line - if someone knows they are guilty, refuses the test and can afford competent legal counsel, they stand a very good chance of beating the charge. When you read about police being arrested for DUI, they very frequently refuse the breath test.
Click to expand...

Dead on but if you're really toasted the booking video will do you in the majority of time.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
I don't believe they can take a sample by force in MA, however, there is an automatic loss of license for a period of time for refusal to submit to the test.

Here's where it gets interesting:

In MA, changes may still be brought without an alcohol test, however, the jury must not be told that you refused the test. The judge will explain that there are many reasons a test result is not available, and that the jury should base its decisions on the available facts, and not draw any conclusion for either side based on the absence of a test. At that point, the jury deliberates the defendant's fate, while they wonder if they would want to face a DUI conviction without being given the chance to prove sobriety via a chemical test (the jury will no doubt wonder why the police did not give a test, even though it is the suspect that refused it).

Bottom line - if someone knows they are guilty, refuses the test and can afford competent legal counsel, they stand a very good chance of beating the charge. When you read about police being arrested for DUI, they very frequently refuse the breath test.
Click to expand...

Another thing to take into consideration is that a 1st time DUI conviction after 5/27/94 in MA carries a potential 2 1/2 year sentence and will result in a lifetime loss of the RKBA at the state and federal level. Doesn't matter what the actual sentence is... just being convicted is enough.
 
JonJ said:
Dead on but if you're really toasted the booking video will do you in the majority of time.
Click to expand...

+1 but remember, Most of the evidence in a DUI trial is supplied by the defendant.

I once had a suspect refuse all tests including field sobriety. Basically the only evidence against him was his operation and what I could observe of his physical incapacities.

At trial, his attorney put on an excellent defense that got him a NG verdict. I did my job by getting him off the road that night. His Attorney did his job by properly representing him. He lost his license to operate for refusal of the BT and paid a very hefty attorney fee so he did not get off free either.
 
I would have closed my window, and started blasting NWA's "f*** the Police" while giving them all the finger, and revving up my engine. [devil]
 
Dead on but if you're really toasted the booking video will do you in the majority of time.
Click to expand...

I know of one police department where the video camera was removed from the booking area because it was being used against police in DUI cases - someone over the limit but not "falling down drunk" would have sobered up a bit and appear coordinated and sober in the video - and thus providing the defense counsel with ammo.
 
MA only allows a blood sample IF the suspected DUI is injured and brought for medical treatment and said treatment REQUIRES a blood sample anyway. Said sample must be taken by a medical staffer and handed to the officer (who witnessed the sample gathering) and treated as evidence, then transmitted to a police lab for analysis.

Very long and convoluted process for your average DUI, so it isn't done very often I would guess. [If the courts would allow the hospital/ER analysis to be used, it would be done a lot more often. But such is not the case.]

I've been "off the road" now for 11 years, so if anything has changed perhaps Jon can jump in with an update if I'm no longer correct.
 
In MA someone arrested for OUI and has been injured and brought to a medical facility are offered a blood test in place of the breathalyser. They may refuse and suffer the same consequences. The accused also has the right to "a reasonable opportunity, at his or her request and own expense, to have an independent test or analysis performed by a person or physician of his or her choosing." That's a rarity.
If the hospital takes blood in the course of treatment of the accused, the Keeper of the Records will be summonsed to provide the results of the blood test.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

What not to do with your new gun.
2
Replies
42
Views
1K
Coyote33
Coyote33
What is your oldest firearm?
2 3
Replies
69
Views
1K
Toast
Toast
what do you all think about plastering your vehicle with pro-gun stickers?
2 3 4
Replies
109
Views
2K
Sterg
Sterg
Can you guys tell me what this is?
Replies
8
Views
647
nordic alien
N
How would you rate KTP trade in pricing?
2
Replies
41
Views
864
PatMcD
PatMcD
Back
Top Bottom