• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

How to refuse a DUI checkpoint

In addition to what ellis said, physical evidence from you (i.e. blood samples) are not considered self incriminating.
 
RubbinsRacin said:
Keep an unopened bottle of liquor of your choice under your seat or handy. When cop approaches, keep windows up and doors locked and turn off the car, remove keys. If possible slide over to passenger seat. Then, open the bottle and chug as much as you can tolerate. Make sure the cop sees that the bottle was full and unopened before you chug. Then, feel free to roll down the window or get out and be very polite with the cop. Problem solved.
Click to expand...

Really is a pretty terrible idea. Although it might work by the letter of the law, I would suspect that a large percentage of judges and juries could still find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt there.
 
bojanglefunk said:
In addition to what ellis said, physical evidence from you (i.e. blood samples) are not considered self incriminating.
Click to expand...

Very true, though I think ultimately (at least in TN) you don't have to submit blood/breath, as long as you're willing to accept the other consequences. It doesn't seem to me that its a 5th Amendment protection, though.
 
I used to drink and drive a lot. I got pulled over at least 10 times. No DUI except 1 which was later dropped. My method was simple. Pull myself together and be ridiculously polite to the cop. When asked about if I'm been driving I said I went to dinner and a movie then had a drink afterwards. Once I got pulled over because some asshole kept tailgating me and honking at me. So I motioned for him to pull over (I was hammered) and we got out and I fucking wrecked the guy with a right hook. The cops showed up, asked if I was drinking, I said yes but I'm very scared. Turns out the other dude had an outstanding warrant and the cops asked if I wanted a police escort home. I'm one charming mother fucker.
 
Caturday said:
I used to drink and drive a lot. I got pulled over at least 10 times. No DUI except 1 which was later dropped. My method was simple. Pull myself together and be ridiculously polite to the cop. When asked about if I'm been driving I said I went to dinner and a movie then had a drink afterwards. Once I got pulled over because some asshole kept tailgating me and honking at me. So I motioned for him to pull over (I was hammered) and we got out and I fucking wrecked the guy with a right hook. The cops showed up, asked if I was drinking, I said yes but I'm very scared. Turns out the other dude had an outstanding warrant and the cops asked if I wanted a police escort home. I'm one charming mother fucker.
Click to expand...

Indiana Jones + James Bond + Ferris Bueller = caturday
 
bojanglefunk said:
It is a rule of evidence. It is an exception to hearsay. If you are accused of something that a normal person would respond to and deny, but you remain silent, the witness can testify that you did so and it can be used as an admission by silence.
Click to expand...

craig-james-twitter-profile-pic.jpg
 
DistrictDeacon said:
The cops should probably also set up gun checkpoints. Stop every person walking by to proactively stop people from shooting each other.
Click to expand...

They already do. Try walking through a metal detector carrying a gun to gain access to utilize a county, state, or federal building. Now substitute drunk driving for the weapon and access to utilize a county, state, or federal road for the location and purpose.
 
ellisat2 said:
Usually the license suspension comes from whats called "implied consent." Remember the forms you sign and rules you learned when you got a driver's license? Probably not, since NOBODY pays any attention to them, but in many states the law says that by getting a license you're agreeing to voluntarily submit to a breath/blood test if supported by probable cause. The penalty for violating this "implied consent" is a suspension of your license.

Moral of the story: if you get pulled over in an implied consent state, do the breath/blood if you're not drunk. Even if you're at 0.0, you'll lose your license for a year if you don't do it. On the other hand, if you're shit-ass drunk, you could take your chances and refuse the test. If the cop can't get you convicted on his testimony alone, you'll get off with just the implied consent violation. However, I'd bet on the cop getting you convicted. Seems to work out that way a decent amount.
Click to expand...

What is the probable cause in this scenario of a DUI checkpoint? That you're driving?
 
TownieDeac said:
What is the probable cause in this scenario of a DUI checkpoint? That you're driving?
Click to expand...

The probable cause is that they've observed your actions while sitting behind the wheel of the car and smelled the inside of your car. It's a little known fact, but cops have the keenest sense of smell of all humans. Of course they made these observations at their checkpoint of questionable constitutional legality and common sense, but let's move past that as quickly as possible for the greater good.
 
man, i really hate when the cops try to stop drunk people from driving and when the TSA tries to stop people from taking over/blowing up plans. waaaaaah
 
HeavyPetter said:
The probable cause is that they've observed your actions while sitting behind the wheel of the car and smelled the inside of your car. It's a little known fact, but cops have the keenest sense of smell of all humans. Of course they made these observations at their checkpoint of questionable constitutional legality and common sense, but let's move past that as quickly as possible for the greater good.
Click to expand...

I've never been to a DUI checkpoint. If you say no, that you haven't been drinking, they don't smell booze, see glassy eyes, or whatevs, do they still have probable cause?
 
TownieDeac said:
I've never been to a DUI checkpoint. If you say no, that you haven't been drinking, they don't smell booze, see glassy eyes, or whatevs, do they still have probable cause?
Click to expand...

At that point it's up to the cop whether to go on a fishing expedition or not. Also, if he does actually smell alcohol, from a beer that you drank an hour ago, that puts under the legal limit for DWI, then you're still likely to be subjected to a field sobriety test, etc., even though you have not violated any laws and the cops haven't seen you drive erratically.

At this point, they'll likely search your car too.
 
TownieDeac said:
I've never been to a DUI checkpoint. If you say no, that you haven't been drinking, they don't smell booze, see glassy eyes, or whatevs, do they still have probable cause?
Click to expand...

I've been through several checkpoints and, based on my experiences, if you have a valid license and don't look/smell/act like you've been drinking they send you on your way pretty quickly
 
Thanks for all the responses. Wasn't/still not trying to be dense. I guess I'm not sure what initial provisions they have to set up the DUI checkpoint in the first place. Do they do them on days like NYE, 4th of July, or just randomly? In the case of the latter, I get it from a public safety standpoint, but what about legally, how is this cool?
 
DUI checkpoints as well as breathalyzers are sort of a weird area of the law, and have been addressed in several cases. Personally, I don't think they jive that well with the law, but from a public policy standpoint, it's something that you want to have. I've read one or two of the cases on breathalyzers and I found the arguments to be pretty poor. But nobody is going to argue that we shouldn't get drunk drivers off of the road.
 
I've gotten pulled over a couple of times before (sober) and asked to perform FSTs once. I declined them since I'm not going to incriminate myself for something I haven't done (not doing FSTs is recommended by a DUI lawyer I knew since cops aren't looking to see you pass, but rather to see what you do wrong. I.e. they'll have something you've done wrong no matter how big or small - "the count to 10 actually took 12 seconds"). Did a breath test, blew a 0.0, went on my way.
 
DeaconCav06 said:
DUI checkpoints as well as breathalyzers are sort of a weird area of the law, and have been addressed in several cases. Personally, I don't think they jive that well with the law, but from a public policy standpoint, it's something that you want to have. I've read one or two of the cases on breathalyzers and I found the arguments to be pretty poor. But nobody is going to argue that we shouldn't get drunk drivers off of the road.
Click to expand...

Understandable. Interesting that the law hasn't addressed it clearly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top