Your papers please- DUI checkpoints now general purpose dragnets.

Great Debates
301

Once stopped, I agree it is best to be as polite and obsequious as possible.

But police and court procedures that depend for success on citizens being less aware of their rights than the officers involved are dangerous indeed.

I understand your lay position on what a search is, but is it really aligned with the legal definition of search?

Any Aussie lawyers here to explain?

I am not Alice, I am not_alice.

Are you suggesting that Americans should not be aware of and willing to assert their rights, that we would be better off not aware and not asserting?

Trust me, people knowing and asserting their rights is not the reason cops are militaristic arseholes. They are trained and armed to be that way, and they recruit from a large potential pool of likely candidates. Many of them were in fact,and are still in fact, in the military. So there is that going for them too :slight_smile:

Not to defend cops or anything, but I suppose guns on cops were rare here too when we had the population density of NZ. Probably never none, but island nations tend to be easier to keep guns out of, see Japan for another example. Probably cops everywhere arm for the worst, and if the criminals don’t have guns, they don’t need them either.

OTOH, I don’t have guns, so why should I be threatened by a cop who has one, and wasn’t even on duty when he threatened to shoot me a few weeks ago? Why has 10% of our local constabulary shot a man dead in the last 18 months? Because people like me notice patterns, it is justified? Dude, be serious!

Ah. another example of claimed facts for which you can’t be arsed to even cite your own posts.

While you can’t even get my screen name right, you accuse ME of not reading for comprehension.

Funny stuff!

Then you understand wrong. Who is the one not reading well, or misrepresenting who?

Really. Put down that six pack and go out for a drive, then come back and re-read it :slight_smile:

When you have a chance, ask a local attorney what the legal definition of a search is where you are, and see if it jibes with your lay definition. I predict it won’t.

I guess I will leave it at that, but ask the local attorneys, you will surely find “search” does not mean what you think it means.

302

You’re highly skeptical of what? That I’ve ever manned a roadblock?

I work in a prison. If somebody escapes, we set up roadblocks in the area and search cars. I’ll admit it’s been a few years since I personally manned a roadblock but the procedure is still the same.

In the four escapes I’ve been involved in, we caught all four. Admittedly in only one of them was a roadblock instrumental in the capture.

The evidence that sombody escaped is always clear.

We have the limited authority to issue warrants for escaped or absconded convicts without requiring a court order.

As far as I know, no lawsuits have been filed on any of these escape pursuits.

303

No, that you were in a roadblock in NY looking for Zodiac Killer. I only have a passing knowledge of the case, but I never heard of him being linked to NY. Maybe it was this guy?

I know some prison guards, and guards at other secure facilities. I will ask around how that works here. Haven’t found it yet, but there must be other cases, probably from SCOTUS, that define and limit the authority in such matters. Might it be different from DUI checkpoint, because there is an exigent circumstance, and danger to the public that outweighs the minimal intrusion?

More germane to the topic is, what are you allowed to do when you stop the car? E.g. how much searching can you do and on what suspicion? Plain sight peek in the windows only? Everyone must open their trunk? Do you have power to arrest anyone besides the escapee? Does a driver risk any charges beyond what might be associated with the ostensible reason for the stop, as in DUI checkpoints? So far, you haven’t told us exactly what happens when you stop a car.

So yes, prison escapes might be an interesting related matter, but I bet they operate under a different legal doctrine, and still you must minimize the searching of each car.

304

Sorry for the confusion. When I said I’ve manned roadblocks like that, I meant roadblocks set up to look for a specific criminal in the area, not the Zodiac Killer in particular.

We stop all cars, look inside and visually check all the passengers, and ask them to open the trunk or back of the vehicle so we can look inside any place where a person could hide. We also show people pictures of the escapee and give them a number they can call with any information.

We don’t run plates, ask for identification, or check for any other laws being broken. None of that would have any bearing on the reason why we set up a roadblock and we stay focused on the one crime that we’re supposed to be out there for.

But in theory I can arrest anyone that’s broken a law. We have the same arresting powers that police officers have.

305

Ah I see on re-reading that I lost track of that train of thought. Such is what I get when debating multiple threads at 2AM. My bad.

You ASK them if you can open the trunk, and if they say no, you don’t press it, right?

Because so far, you have just described the Plain Sight Doctrine, and to do more you need consent or reasonable suspicion, right?

If only DUI roadblocks could manage that much to stay focused, then people would not feel like they are pretext stops.

306

As an example: if a DUI checkpoint is set up and the officers see a gun in the car as they make contact, they would be entitled to investigate the weapon and take any action needed. Or if they have a drug dog sniff the car and the dog bingos. The stop was not set up to find guns or drugs; that was secondary to the reason for the stop, which was to examine the driver for impairment.

307

Yes, thank you.

When the statistics of the stop are reported and those sorts of finds far outweigh the DUI arrests, then the issue arises as to what the real purpose is. In my region, that is increasingly the nature of the statistics.

308

[quote=“not_alice, post:305, topic:524494”]

**If only DUI roadblocks could manage that much to stay focused, then people would not feel like they are pretext stops.[/**QUOTE]

OK…I wasn’t going to comment again, but I think you have really identified the problem here.

My experience of DUI checkpoints in NZ and Singapore, and ME’s in Australia are that they really do stay as focussed as that. If you have not been drinking, (and no other crimes are apparent at a glance) then ID is not asked for, plates are not recorded or anything. Hell, they don’t even ask if you are a licensed driver.

This is what we are trying to get across and communicate. RBT / compulsory testing has been in place for around 20 odd years in both countries, and it has not been extended to any other areas, checkpoints have not become general purpose dragnets and people have not been unfairly questioned.

If anything, my guess would be that they have become more efficient and focussed, as the police have gained experience in how to process people for drunk driving faster.

309

[quote=“bengangmo, post:308, topic:524494”]

Welcome back :slight_smile:

Sure, that is the problem with the non-random DUI checkpoints. Well, that and the fact that they are suspicionless searches to begin with.

The problem with RBTs is simply that they are suspicionless searches. That they are “efficient” and “have not expanded (yet)” is of zero comfort to me in this regard. It doesn’t mitigate the search aspect to know that they are polite about it.

Where there are suspicionless searches of people passing a particular place who were otherwise minding their own business, there is a dragnet.

And that was what the OP was asking wasn’t it?

310

[quote=“not_alice, post:309, topic:524494”]

You somewhat redeemed yourself to me in the adoption thread :slight_smile:

As to suspiscionless searches - I would agree that if it is in the US, it would not raise to the standard of “articuable suspicion”. But I would disagree with you on a few points

  1. After 20 years it has not expanded - that DOES make me feel comfortable
  2. The RBT / checkpoints are not totally suspicionless, when then started there was a good proportion of drivers that were drunk at the time, they are run in the late evening (popular time for going home after partying) in areas that were popular outbound routes from bars. At any given time there would be a not insignificant portion of drivers that HAD been drinking to the definition of drunk driving, and an even greater proportion that had been drinking but were not over the limit. If I went and did a search of all the checkpoint reports in the New Zealand papers there would be very very few that did not catch at least some drunk drivers - and even less that got people for crimes other than drunk driving. This is probably part of the reason why they do have popular support. In adition, if they really became all purpose dragnets, you can be VERY sure that the general public would be absolutely up in arms and they wouldn’t last very long. If anything, once the general public gets pissed about something in New Zealand they are MORE active than you 'Mercans
311

[quote=“bengangmo, post:310, topic:524494”]

Uh Ok thanks I guess.

But I don’t think I am in any adoption thread… is there an imposter? Link please :slight_smile:

What I have been saying all along. Glad someone redeemed me :slight_smile:

But I would disagree with you on a few points

I don’t dispute that it makes you and at least 3 of your countrymates here feel comfortable.

But none of you have addressed it yet from a civil liberties point of view, which is closer to where I am coming from.

No one has said you don’t feel comfortable. Some of us have suggested that maybe you shouldn’t. That’s all.

“Reasonable suspicion” means prior to pulling some over, you have reason to suspect that a crime (DUI) is being committed. What you are describing, whatever it is, is not that.

OK. Why can I be VERY sure about that? Is there a history of that happening in the past?

If you say so. But if they are this meek on this aspect, I don’t see them getting upset later if slowly but surely over a period of years or more, the process gets a little more burdensome. Say, record the plate. Check the id. Run the plate. Run the ID. You can wait 30 more seconds, can’t you, to be safe? Drug dogs running around ready to sniff while you breath in the device.

Stuff like that. Added gradually, if you got this far, I don’t think people will object to that kind of chipping away, or by the time they do, it will be too late.

312

[quote=“not_alice, post:311, topic:524494”]

Sorry I dunno how to nest posts so you gonna have to put up with answer in this format:

  1. Why shouldn’t we feel comfortable? Our experience has shown that nothing untoward has resulted from RBT, other than
    a) drunk drivers being removed from the roads
    b) People being deterred from drunk driving
    If you would like to dispute this, I would love you to show anything at all that would support your assumption that allowing RBT has led to something worse and more insidious. And please don’t go into Australian free speech - that could equally be linked to any one of 100’s of other law changes…
  2. Well “meek” would be the wrong word to use, that would imply we don’t like it but are too wimpy to do anything about it. In actual fact people do like it, so letting it continue is not a case of “meekness”, and to imply otherwise is bordering on insulting. Just because you don’t like it, please don’t project onto the opinion in our respective countries
  3. As to VERY SURE we would take action, this is based on my own experiences as a New Zealander, as a participant in past protests (public road blocking, barricading a politician in a buidling, student sit ins that made national news). It is also based on my experience that in the last 20+ years, RBT HAS NOT been extended.
  4. I never said it raises to American standards of Articuable Suspicion - I did say that it’s not suspicionless, there is a difference there, maybe a little nuanced for you to grasp, but not totally without reason. If I happen to know, from other data collected that (say for example) 3% of all people driving down Lichfield Street between the hours of 1 am and 3 am on a Saturday Morning (Friday night) are over the legal breath alcohol limit its not totally unreasonable to suspect that any given vehicle harbours a drunk driver. If you were at a gathering, and you knew as a fact that 3% of the participants had Hep C, you would be very careful about sharing utensils right?
313

Uhmm…I should have added.

I think that they WOULD object to that kind of chipping away, and it would NOT be too late.

314

Wow! You moved the goalposts in the very next sentence you set them down.

“Show me you objections, but not the ones you already established”

or

“Show me how our freedoms have been eroded over time, but don’t use actual examples of erosions of freedom”.

That seems fair. :rolleyes:

Dude, if you know of 100s of other examples, then why are you even asking? You should be listing them for us :slight_smile:

Sorry you are insulted. But you said if it got bad enough you would rise up. That tells me you realize the situation is not ideal, even if it could get worse. That you haven’t risen up when rights are first taken away (or not granted when you know of them from elsewhere) is meek IMHO.

And I am going to take back my welcome if you are going to continue to put words in my mouth. You can’t even tell what threads I am on, why should anyone trust your summarizing what I said? Stick to your own thoughts instead of characterizing mine please.

OK I will rephrase: It is my opinion that the social behavior you describe as widespread is meek.

Ha - I thought you might give examples of laws that were once seen as OK, but later became onerous, and the masses rose up and succeeded in getting the law revoked.

We don’t have that standard to begin with. No American here has used that phrase. Please scroll back for a while and find the actual phrase you are looking for. It is not synonymous with this.

  • I did say that it’s not suspicionless, there is a difference there, maybe a little nuanced for you to grasp, but not totally without reason. If I happen to know, from other data collected that (say for example) 3% of all people driving down Lichfield Street between the hours of 1 am and 3 am on a Saturday Morning (Friday night) are over the legal breath alcohol limit its not totally unreasonable to suspect that any given vehicle harbours a drunk driver. If you were at a gathering, and you knew as a fact that 3% of the participants had Hep C, you would be very careful about sharing utensils right?
    [/QUOTE]

So by that theory if anyone anywhere in the country MIGHT be drunk at the present time, I can pull over random people and keep myself busy.

If I say this again, will you read, understand and internalize it please?

We fought a War of Independence precisely because we found precisely that attitude by the officials of our mutual Colonial Patron too much to bear.

Hence our laws are not aligned with that attitude at all, they reject it in our Bill of Rights.

That it made it through YOUR Colonial period and is still in place in the laws of your Independent Country is hardly reason for us to reconsider, because we won’t.

But we are extremely interested in WHY you did not come to the same conclusions we did when faced with a similar background, and when you had the additional knowledge of our Bill of Rights at the time of your independence. At that time, were the issues in our Bill of Rights explicitly considered by your founders?

315

[quote=“bengangmo, post:312, topic:524494”]

Sure I guess. I sure as hell would not take my utensils from some cop though. I will deal with my own.

What is your point?

316

This is close.

A man was arrested and convicted for DUI after being found asleep behind the wheel of an undriven, possibly inoperable vehicle. He was found sleeping in his own legally parked car in his apartment complex parking lot. The Minnesota Supreme Court has upheld the conviction.

317

Yeah, I read the thread, and you know what? That sucks. No two ways about it.

You know what else? My knowledge is by no means expansive, or even comprehensive on DIC convictions in New Zealand, but I have never heard of someone being convincted for being DIC" of a vehicle that could not operate, or that was parked.

I think the police can charge you with such a crime (I would need to check to confirm) if it is obvious that you had no other way to get to the location other than driving drunk, but I also think a common sense approach has been taken in the past.