Filming traffic stops

[JayC]

Most alcohol related fatalities are single car accidents where the driver or the driver and adult passengers are the only victims.  Only about 6.7% (per a 2009 NHTSA PA study) of alcohol related deaths involved a driver over the legal limit killing a person in another vehicle.  I'll agree if you factor in minors death as passengers in the drunks car that number is probably slightly higher.

 

Like you I suspect MADD will continue to try and push the BAC limit down and down until you can't operate a vehicle for 8 hours after having a single beer, even though there is no proof that those drivers pose any increased risk to the public...  but that is what happens when you allow emotion to override logic...  you end up with a good excuse to set up a checkpoint and go on a fishing expedition :)

 

These checkpoints are already at the best of times constitutionally questionable, and then to continue to see (through these videos referenced in the OP's post) that police officers are unable to even abide by the low standards of the checkpoint is what concerns many of us against such checkpoints.

 

When I read the stats I thought the 30% figure was low. Of the fatal traffic accidents I handled or responded to I would say the number caused by drunk drivers was closer to 60%. However, I was in a city and figured the rates on the interstates would be much lower, so maybe that brought it down. But the numbers you are citing are ridiculous.

As I said though, not that it matters; I don’t think 1700 or 10K is okay when proactive Police work can bring them down.

 

[diablo982]

I believe you are the one with fictional numbers and DUI checkpoints don't happen every weekend, most departments do not do but a single one a year. It is the possibility of DUI checkpoints that truly make people not drive impaired. That is why states with DUI checkpoints have a 20% less automobile fatality rate(CDC).
You guys lost all credibility with me when you talked about the intentions and powers of the SCOTUS, they are the final say so. I wasn't going to come back to this thread.

Exactly. Its hard to give credibility to people who acknowledge SCOTUS has ruled on an issue, but "it doesn't make it right." Actually, that's the way our system works. You don't have to like it, you just have to do it or face the consequences. I find those statements just as silly as, "Even though it's not in the Constitution, it's my right to do..." No, unless its protected by the Constitution it is not a "right" and subject to interpretation by laws. Edited September 2, 2013 by diablo982

[bersaguy]

Ok Let me say this. My son was stopped by an off duty LEO because he was following him and the LEO assumed he was drunk(which he was) Even though the LEO was off duty he was still doing his job. When uniformed officers arrived on the scene they requested not ordered but requested he take a breath test and he refused. He was arrested at the scene and taken to jail. He called me to make his bond and even though I love my son I did not bond him out. He knows my thoughts on that issue since my oldest son was killed by a drunk driver. When all was said and done between court costs and lawyers fees that DUI ended up costing him over 5 grand. The only thing I did to help him was I asked a judge friend of mine to arrange for a daylight only DL so he could drive back and forth to work. That was over 10 years ago and i have yet to see him pick up as much as a beer. I feel had I used my pull with judges and lawyers I knew and made it easy on him he would not have learned any lessons. I know it was tough Love but necessary. If your going to drink and drive then expect if caught your going to spend some big bucks to get through it.......JMHO

[JayC]

You've clearly not read the 9th Amendment recently huh?

 

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

And lest there be any question that it really means what it says, we have these letters by James Madison the author of the Bill of Rights:

 

It has been objected also against a Bill of Rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.

 

and

 

The exceptions here or elsewhere in the constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people; or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.

 

and this speech by Madison introducing the Bill of Rights to the first congress:

 

It has been said, by way of objection to a bill of rights....that in the Federal Government they are unnecessary, because the powers are enumerated, and it follows, that all that are not granted by the constitution are retained; that the constitution is a bill of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people; and, therefore, a bill of rights cannot be so necessary as if the residuum was thrown into the hands of the Government. I admit that these arguments are not entirely without foundation, but they are not as conclusive to the extent it has been proposed. It is true the powers of the general government are circumscribed; they are directed to particular objects; but even if government keeps within those limits, it has certain discretionary powers with respect to the means, which may admit of abuse.

 

Also, I'd suggest reading the 10th amendment as well...  You'll also note in both the use of the term 'the people' which means above the government.  

 

 

Exactly. Its hard to give credibility to people who acknowledge SCOTUS has ruled on an issue, but "it doesn't make it right." Actually, that's the way our system works. You don't have to like it, you just have to do it or face the consequences. I find those statements just as silly as, "Even though it's not in the Constitution, it's my right to do..." No, unless its protected by the Constitution it is not a "right" and subject to interpretation by laws.

Edited September 2, 2013 by JayC

[TMF]

I don’t this for sure but I would guess that if your pool is open to the public you would require some type of permit that would allow some government inspection.
Even if it’s not open to the public I know a pool has a lot of potential civil liability.

Your missing my point regarding the 4th Amendment. Fundamentally we disagree what it means.

[DaveTN]

Your missing my point regarding the 4th Amendment. Fundamentally we disagree what it means.

Okay. What do we disagree on? The “unreasonable” part or the warrant part?

[TMF]

Okay. What do we disagree on? The “unreasonable” part or the warrant part?

Both it seems. Being secure in one's papers is part of it as well. I don't agree that questioning, or at least answering questions, is compulsory if no crime is suspected of being committed or observed. Traffic stops are different because the driver has broken the law by speeding or some such offense. If I'm just driving to my house and have not committed any crime nor am I suspected of committing any crime to the point of there existing PC, I don't see why I am forced to hand over my papers or answer any questions. It doesn't jive with the 4A. It is like a cop stopping and questioning a person to see if they murdered someone even though there is no evidence a murder took place nor is there any reason to suspect the person of committing murder. Your justification for this tactic at checkpoints is that there are people out there who drive drunk, and therefore it justifies these slights on the 4A. Well there are people out there who murder too.

[Patton]

You keep saying they assume alcohol involvement in crashes they don't know if alcohol was involved or not. Where are you seeing that? Very very few fatalities would they have to guess. A fatality or serious injury crash is the easiest way to get a BAC. We don't even ask you for a test we just take it. A hit and run would be one of the only fatalities where alcohol involvement would be unknown.

[DaveTN]

Both it seems. Being secure in one's papers is part of it as well. I don't agree that questioning, or at least answering questions, is compulsory if no crime is suspected of being committed or observed. Traffic stops are different because the driver has broken the law by speeding or some such offense. If I'm just driving to my house and have not committed any crime nor am I suspected of committing any crime to the point of there existing PC, I don't see why I am forced to hand over my papers or answer any questions. It doesn't jive with the 4A. It is like a cop stopping and questioning a person to see if they murdered someone even though there is no evidence a murder took place nor is there any reason to suspect the person of committing murder. Your justification for this tactic at checkpoints is that there are people out there who drive drunk, and therefore it justifies these slights on the 4A. Well there are people out there who murder too.

It’s nothing like stopping someone when a murder hasn’t taken place. DUI is an ongoing criminal act. I have never worked a DUI checkpoint, but I don’t think I would need to see your license; a 5 second exchange should be enough to send you to the side or wave you through. Is that not what happens?

 

I don’t say it’s not an infringement, I just agree with Chief Justice Rehnquist that’s it’s a minor infringement that is justified and necessary for some communities.

 

I say all this freely admitting that I am not impartial or maybe even reasonable. I have worked far too many accidents were drunk drivers have killed people or crippled them for life. As I also said we didn’t use them; we did it full time with rolling traffic units.

[TMF]

It’s nothing like stopping someone when a murder hasn’t taken place. DUI is an ongoing criminal act. I have never worked a DUI checkpoint, but I don’t think I would need to see your license; a 5 second exchange should be enough to send you to the side or wave you through. Is that not what happens?

I don’t say it’s not an infringement, I just agree with Chief Justice Rehnquist that’s it’s a minor infringement that is justified and necessary for some communities.

I say all this freely admitting that I am not impartial or maybe even reasonable. I have worked far too many accidents were drunk drivers have killed people or crippled them for life. As I also said we didn’t use them; we did it full time with rolling traffic units.

Yes, of course it's an ongoing criminal act. So is possession of illegal narcotics. Am I open to be stopped and questioned against my will under threat of arrest if I don't answer said questions pertaining to possession of said illegal narcotics even if there is no PC to suggest I may be carrying those illegal narcotics? It doesn't pass the sniff test. I'm not saying this as an advocate for drunk rights. I could care less. I think if a drunk kills a person with their car they should be put to death. It doesn't get much more extreme than that.

I only care about the Constitution. If it means people will die if we don't bend the Constitution I'm okay with that. And before we get into the emotional aspect, such as "you wouldn't say that if it was your wife or kid" lets just not go there. No one knows what I would do or think better than myself.

Now, I say this with the caveat that I feel more strongly about the fact Victoria's Secret airbrushes out the nipples in their catalog than I do about DUI checkpoints. I don't think it is such a big issue that I am some kind of activist about it. I just look at it from the perspective of being unconstitutional based on a simple understanding of our rights, and not significant enough in the cost-benefit analysis to justify such a slight on the 4A. If I happen to get stopped and questioned at a DUI checkpoint I won't be playing roadside lawyer. I will cooperate. I'll just believe that it's bullcrap while I do it.

[JayC]

NHTSA defines fatal collisions as "alcohol-related" if they believe the driver, a passenger, or non-motorist (such as a pedestrian or pedal cyclist) had a BAC of 0.01% or greater. NHTSA defines nonfatal collisions as alcohol-related if the accident report indicates evidence of alcohol present. NHTSA specifically notes that alcohol-related does not necessarily mean a driver or non occupant was tested for alcohol and that the term does not indicate a collision or fatality was caused by the presence of alcohol. On average, about 60% of the BAC values are missing or unknown. To analyze what they believe is the complete data, statisticians simulate BAC information.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_driving_in_the_United_States

 

I don't have a digital copy of a report I received from: National Center for Statistics and Analysis, 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, DC 20590 but here is the critical information describing their method so called 'simulating'.

 

On an average, approximately 60 percent of the BAC values are missing/unknown in FARS each year. Invalid inferences can be drawn on the level of alcohol involvement for cases where the BAC is missing as the characteristics of the persons with unknown BACs can be significantly different from those with known BACs. In order to perform complete-data analysis of FARS data with respect to alcohol involvement, the missing BACs need to be simulated (imputation!)

MI is a technique in which each missing value is replaced by m>1 simulated versions and these simulated complete datasets are analyzed by standard methods. These simulated values are actual values of BAC in the plausible range (.00<=BAC<=.94).

 

So you can see they state that in 60% of fatal accidents BAC levels of all parties aren't reported, so they 'simulate' BACs between .00 and .94 for all people involved in that crash, and if the computer 'simulates' a BAC of .01 or higher for anybody involved, then that accident is added to the alcohol related fatalities.

 

As you said, if somebody isn't being measured it's a pretty safe bet the cops involved didn't think any alcohol was involved...  but we look at a 2001 PA study by the NHTSA using this method, they list 575 drivers involved in alcohol related crashes... but when you look into the data only 294 had a BAC of .1 or greater...  Another 62 had a BAC of between .01 and .09 but legal...  So best case you'd called that 356 right?  So how did they come up with other 219?  41 drivers had a BAC of .00 (computer model added them in), 67 drivers had an unknown alcohol level (computer model added them in), 20 people were drunk passengers, 12 were passengers with a BAC between .01 and .09, 18 were passengers with unknown BAC (computer model added them in), 2 were drunk pedestrians, 1 was a pedestrian with a BAC between .01 and .09, and 4 were pedestrians that the computer model added in.

 

The computer model is questionable at best...  It's designed to inflate the numbers beyond what you can prove with hard facts and logic...  As you said the vast majority of these people that didn't get tested or the test results were reported probably had little or no alcohol in their system, because if they did the police would have tested them and made a note in the report?  As you say it's SOP for most departments.

 

You keep saying they assume alcohol involvement in crashes they don't know if alcohol was involved or not. Where are you seeing that? Very very few fatalities would they have to guess. A fatality or serious injury crash is the easiest way to get a BAC. We don't even ask you for a test we just take it. A hit and run would be one of the only fatalities where alcohol involvement would be unknown.

Edited September 2, 2013 by JayC

[tnguy]

I believe you are the one with fictional numbers and DUI checkpoints don't happen every weekend, most departments do not do but a single one a year. It is the possibility of DUI checkpoints that truly make people not drive impaired. That is why states with DUI checkpoints have a 20% less automobile fatality rate(CDC).

You guys lost all credibility with me when you talked about the intentions and powers of the SCOTUS, they are the final say so. I wasn't going to come back to this thread.

 

This guy agrees that authority can't be wrong.

 

[tnguy]

Exactly. Its hard to give credibility to people who acknowledge SCOTUS has ruled on an issue, but "it doesn't make it right." Actually, that's the way our system works. You don't have to like it, you just have to do it or face the consequences. I find those statements just as silly as, "Even though it's not in the Constitution, it's my right to do..." No, unless its protected by the Constitution it is not a "right" and subject to interpretation by laws.

 

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

Poor ol' Nine. Nobody loves him. :cry:

[tnguy]

Both it seems. Being secure in one's papers is part of it as well. I don't agree that questioning, or at least answering questions, is compulsory if no crime is suspected of being committed or observed. Traffic stops are different because the driver has broken the law by speeding or some such offense. If I'm just driving to my house and have not committed any crime nor am I suspected of committing any crime to the point of there existing PC, I don't see why I am forced to hand over my papers or answer any questions. It doesn't jive with the 4A. It is like a cop stopping and questioning a person to see if they murdered someone even though there is no evidence a murder took place nor is there any reason to suspect the person of committing murder. Your justification for this tactic at checkpoints is that there are people out there who drive drunk, and therefore it justifies these slights on the 4A. Well there are people out there who murder too.

 

And there is a reason this is very important. It changes the balance of power with the police who are supposed to be citizens given additional powers to help keep the peace into a new class of people with powers over regular citizens.

 

These are the Peelian principles which were the foundation of modern policing. See how far we've strayed...

 

1. The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
2. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions.
3. Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observation of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
4. The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
5. Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
6. Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient.
7. Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8. Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions, and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.^[2]

 

[diablo982]

You've clearly not read the 9th Amendment recently huh?
 

I understand how you misinterpreted my post so I will try to explain it further. I'm referring to people who don't like a particular "law" and then state
Its a violation of their "rights" when enforced. I may feel its my god-given right to walk down the street with no clothes on, but those pesky indecent exposure laws say differently. As far as I know, nowhere in the Constitution guarantees my stand; even the 9th Amendment. I certainly do have the right to dispute it in court and can take it through the appellate levels hoping someone agrees with me. If SCOTUS would hear me (of course they wouldn't) they would have the final say. Assuming they find indecent exposure laws Constitutional, it no longer matters what I think my "rights" are or if I agree with it. That's the decision.

[Sam1]

here's a great incident on tape that popped up today

 

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2a7_1378137970

 

guy was obviously pushing the cop's buttons, and I think it worked.