.001—Good Enough for Government Work!

Over the course of a week, a DWI roadblock in Connecticut stopped more more than a thousand cars, issued 29 tickets, towed 15 cars, and made two arrests for drug possession. Ten police officers manned the roadblock.

They made one DUI arrest. For this, the campaign was deemed "a success."

More at Radley Balko's blog.

Comments

[Jennifer]

Drunk-driving checkpoints in Connecticut are infuriating (though not as infuriating as the seatbelt checks).

I know I've told this story here before, but I'll repeat it for those who missed it before: my last experience with a Connecticut drunk checkpoint was at dusk on a Friday summer night; I was driving home from a late night at work. It was spectacularly obvious that I was cold-sober, but the cop did not wave me through but asked questions which were none of his goddamned business without a warrant: Where are you coming from? Where are you going? Have you consumed any drugs or alcohol this evening? Are you planning to take drugs or alcohol later?

[David]

Well, as we know, even one person above the legal limit on the road is one too many. So what they're saying is true, from a certain point of view.

[Jennifer]

Well, as we know, even one person above the legal limit on the road is one too many.

The legal limit is bullshit. If I drank one beer an hour ago I'd probably qualify as "too drunk to drive" right now, despite a complete lack of impairment. (Not that I would drink this early in the morning, but you know what I mean.)

[David]

Jennifer,

I just needed a excuse to throw out the Ben Kenobi quote, and it is descriptive of how these people think. By the way, yours was a pretty much word for word description of my last two stops.

Luckily, even though I went to Danbury a few times during week before Christmas, I missed this checkpoint. It's a good thing too, my girlfriend's parents always serve red wine with dinner, and Sambuca afterward. I'd probably fail the breath test despite being a 215lb man who had maybe 3 drinks over 4+ hours.

[Timothy]

What'll happen if you refuse to answer the questions that are beyond the scope of their inquiry? Same result as refusing a brethalyzer?

[Number 6]

Timothy-I imagine you'd get a ticket for having a burned out glove box light or something equally silly. When I found myself temporarily working in law enforcement (long story), they showed us the California vehicle code, which is the size of a small phone book, and informed us that if we wanted to write someone a ticket, we were guarenteed to find an excuse if we looked long enough.

[Jennifer]

What'll happen if you refuse to answer the questions that are beyond the scope of their inquiry? Same result as refusing a brethalyzer?

At the checkpoint I mentioned above, I was afraid to find out, because this was on a Friday night and the following Monday morning I was slated to leave on my first business trip for my brand-new job.

But if this ever happens again I will simply say in a coldly polite voice (you know, the voice that is SO formal and polite it's actually more insulting than outright rudeness): "I am not drunk or on drugs, and that is all you need to know, officer."

[Stephen Macklin]

I don't know about refusing to answer there questions at a DUI check-point, but having been nailed in a CT seat-belt checkpoint ($70 toward their ticket quota) I can tell you that they don't like it when you question the authority of the state to even have such a law in the first place.

Specifically when the trooper asks if you know why he waved you over to the side of the road don't say something like:

"Because the government believes it has the authority to control every aspect of my life."

Because the trooper might not fully understand the political/philisophical meaning but will likely understand that their authority has been challenged in some way. They don't really like that.

I firmly believe that the only reason I drove away with just my ticket and a stern lecture about obeying the law is that it was starting to rain.

[R C Dean]

I wonder if, in the course of this one roadblock, the CT police managed to violate more people's civil liberties than the NSA managed with its wiretaps of overseas communications.

Just curious.

[Jennifer]

I wonder if, in the course of this one roadblock, the CT police managed to violate more people's civil liberties than the NSA managed with its wiretaps of overseas communications.

Probably not, but at least with the checkpoint you know damned well your liberties have been violated. But nobody can say for sure that their phone calls and e-mails are free from government surveillance.

[Ed]

I was pulled over for speeding (40 in a 30 zone) but he let me go because I was wearing my seat belt. It was a "clickit or ticket" trap. Moral of the story: Speeding is less of a threat to society than driving without a seatbelt. Yep, fucked-up.

[joe]

Let's see, it's been 52 months since 9/11. That's about 1500 days, give or take.

If we assume there was only one phone call monitored without a warrant per day during that time, we're still looking at 50% more searches without a warrant by the NSA. And the NSA employes several thousand people, so one per day is probably much too low.

So I'd have to guess No, RC.

[Johnny]

Stephen Macklin quote from an earlier thread, slightly off topic, but still:

"I'm not aware that anyone had been given or assumed to have carte blanche. Nor have I seen any evidence of any individual's rights being trampled. Nor have I seen any evidence of anything remotely hinting at approaching a 24/7 police state.

The sky is not falling."

Interesting.

I however see "carte blanche" in every part of the country as we welcome our "new", "improved" & "modified" Soviet Homeland.

[slightlybad]

Stephen,

You don't have to answer any of those questions. The only thing that you are "required" to do when pulled over is to present license, registration, possibly proof of insurance (depending on what state), and to submit to a breathalyzer if the cop thinks he has probable cause. If you're an asshole about it, the cops will probably do something to fuck with you, however. My response would be to (politely) ask "why do you want to know, officer?" Make them explain why they want to know where you've been/going, etc. I can't think of a reasonable answer to that given the situation.

[R C Dean]

Note that I specified violations of civil liberties. I don't know that every single thing the NSA does is a violation of civil liberties, as assumed by some of the posters above.

[biologist]

I flirted with the idea of spilling alcoholic beverage on myself on New Year's Eve, and driving through every DUI checkpoint I could find, just to mess with them for fun, since I don't actually drink alcohol. I figured I could do the field sobriety tests pretty easily (except reciting the alphabet backwards), but then I decided I'd rather sleep.

Maybe next time.

[biologist]

and, RC, joe specified warrantless wiretaps

[Stephen Macklin]

I understand that there is no "requirement" to answer their questions but it is often the case that if you assert your right to not answer - even if you are not an asshole about it - you will likely face further questioning and delay.

Most people probably answer without hesitation because they don't know any better, or even if on some level they understand that the police are violating their rights they are too intimidated. Either that or they just accept it and answer because it gets them through the roadblock quicker.

[David]

,i>"Because the government believes it has the authority to control every aspect of my life."

Risky move, Steven. That's how people go from a routine traffic stop to being tasered for resisting arrest.

The questions are an opportunity for the driver to do something "suspicious" that will lead to other tests.

For instance, if you hesitate or look like you're making up an answer, you might lying to cover up coming from a bar, or be smuggling 50 kilos of heroin, necessitating a thorough search of your person and vehicle. During this search you'll be repeatedly asked if you are in posession of any weapons (at which point it is advisable to declare the nail clip on your keyring as it can be used to call you a liar later) and reminded that it will go easier on you if you just "tell me where the drugs are.".

[slightlybad]

Yeah, I realize that a lot of people cooperate with this for just that reason. But if you don't assert your rights as a citizen simply for the sake of convenience, then you shouldn't be suprised at creeping government intrusion.

As far as these checkpoints go, my state supreme court has ruled several times that making a legal u-turn to avoid them is NOT probable cause to pursue and pull a driver over. You might want to check your own state law on that score. The cops undoubtedly will stop you for taking such action, but you can beat it in court if you're arrested.

[Jennifer]

I cooperated for the simple reason that, while I was willing to risk a weekend in jail, I couldn't afford to risk the loss of my job.

It's a damned good thing I didn't know about the Danbury checkpoint, because knowing me I would have driven to it for the sole purpose of refusing to answer any questions beyond "Have you been drinking?"

[George]

"What'll happen if you refuse to answer the questions that are beyond the scope of their inquiry?"

You go straight to Guantanamo!

[Stephen Macklin]

Typically the seat-belt checks that I have seen are on an on-ramp to the highway. I have driven past my normal ramp to get to the next one when there is a check going on.

David, I don't often directly challenge their authority for that very reason. I am more likely to comply but also expressing my displeasure. I have not been through one of the DUI check points that involve them stopping and asking questions (for the seat belt ones if they see you wearing it they just wave you through) but I would respond by telling the officer that I was answering his questions even though I believed it was a violation of my rights for him to ask.

I guess I would call it answering it under protest.

[Thomas Paine's Goiter]

This might be my single biggest issue with local governments. I have two checkpoint stories, both asinine.

1. I was returning home from a card game at 3 AM when I came upon a checkpoint. I was sober. That afternoon, I had stopped to get my wife a bottle of wine and it was in a plain brown bag in the back seat. I got the normal questions until the second officer's flashlight hit the bag in the back seat. I was removed from the car and given a breathalyzer FOR AN UNOPENED BOTTLE OF WINE. My car was searced from front to back with everything removed from it. I contacted a lawyer who said I had no recourse.

2. I was moving on a Friday evening. My car was loaded with boxes, including some liquor boxes and and empty cases of beer filled with my belongings. I was stopped at a checkpoint. I was PLAINLY moving as the backseat was filled with stuff and boxes. When the officer saw the liquor boxes, I was asked to step out of the car. The four cops took EVERYTHING out of the car, including the trunk and searched it. After finding nothing, they walked away and I was left to repack the entire car. I wanted to cause violence at that moment. Again, I contacted a lawyer (a different one) and I had no recourse.

[Stephen Macklin]

Unfortunately the courts have become just as much a part of the problem and legislatures.

If the Supreme Court can rule that BCRA a law made by congress quite that clearly abridges freedom of speech passes muster on the first amendment what hope would there be for any recourse from a DUI checkpoint.

[Larry N. Martin]

I wonder how upset an officer would be if you replied, "Yes, I've been drinking iced tea."
😉
I've also come across people who think that open container laws apply to any type of open container, not just alcohol.
:-/

[Larry]

I was stopped in a Connecticut DUI checkpoint around 1990 or so. I did decline to answer questions such as where I was coming from (I said, "back there") and where I was going (I said "up there"). I think I came across as annoyed, but I wasn't a complete assshole and I hadn't been drinking. The police were polite and let me go.

I called the police the next morning to complain about this violation of my 4th amendment rights and asked about the random questions. Basically it boiled down to the fact that they can get incriminating information from you. If you're in Danbury travelling north and you tell the cops you're on your way to Ridgefield, that's good cause to investigate further.

I hesitate to generalize, but I think you'd be okay if you were sober, polite, and you said something like, "officer, I know you're just doing your job, but I'd prefer not to answer any questions."

[Duh.]

I wonder how upset an officer would be if you replied, "Yes, I've been drinking iced tea."

Easy answer:

If he's already looked at your driver's license and your address suggests to him that you are rich enough to afford a lawyer much better than the D.A., he'll think it's funny and send you on your way, even if you're drunk.

If he hasn't done that, and you're not drunk, he'll be just "upset" enough that you will be beaten unconscious in the street by him and three of his buddies, then jailed until you're released uncharged minus all the cash in your wallet, and when your expensive lawyer goes a-hunting, there will be no record of your detainment.

Not that these exact scenarios are what happened to me. They're crazy libertarian myths. And honestly, my casual, lighthearted responses to the police queries didn't include the words "iced tea," so you can safely dismiss these paranoid fantasies.

[Jennifer]

I hesitate to generalize, but I think you'd be okay if you were sober, polite, and you said something like, "officer, I know you're just doing your job, but I'd prefer not to answer any questions."

Not if you're dealing with the type of cop who assumes that all citizens are required to obey all cops without question, and sees no difference between a murderer and a perswon who merely refuses to answer illegal questions.

[Stephen Macklin]

Jennifer is right - a lot of what happens upon the cop you happen to be dealing with. When I was a wise ass to the cop at the seat belt stop (see above) I was luck that is was starting to rain and the cop hated being there as much as I hated him being there.

On another day, with a different cop the story could have ended differently. There are cops - and politicians - who believe that they are the law.

[Stephen Macklin]

EDIT: a lot of what happens DEPENDS upon the cop you happen to be dealing with.

[zeiner]

"There are cops - and politicians - who believe that they are the law."

Well put Stephen Macklin.

[Ken]

The police do whatever they want and then they lie about it afterwards - sorta like criminals.

But then "Every cop's a criminal..."

[James]

You don't want to get into a political discussion with a guy who's got a gun and a badge. It's just not a fair fight. If you want to stand up for your rights, you call the law enforcement agency or your local politician, or both, the next day and let them know how you feel about checkpoints.

The sap out there on the road in the middle of the night doesn't want to be there any more than you, but it's his job. He's not going to report to his superiors that the good citizens were pissed. Essentially, there's nothing he can do about it. It's like arguing politics with a death camp guard. Even if you win, you still got to go to the showers.

If everyone who bitched about the cops jammed the citizen feedback lines of the mayor's office they'd do a lot more good than hassling the cops out on the street. Or, if you really want to hassle the cops, you get more people together and make a week of it, like our revolutionary brothers in France did recently.

Regarding this particular checkpoint, I think that ten cops spending a whole week and only making three arrests counts as a considerable victory for the libertarian cause. If they had spent their time hassling pot smokers they might have shoved dozens of innocent people in jail. We should be happy.

[D-FENS]

Specifically when the trooper asks if you know why he waved you over to the side of the road don't say something like: "Because the government believes it has the authority to control every aspect of my life."

Damn you, Stephen, I just got soda out my nose!

Priceless.

[rob]

I was once pulled over for drinking a bottle of IBC Root Beer (looks kind of like a beer bottle). The upshot was that after pulling everything out of my car, I was left without a ticket. (Florida)

Of course, I've also been pulled over in heavy morning traffic that made it completely impossible for me to be driving the 80+ mph that the cop claimed. Did I mention I was ordered out of the vehicel at gunpoint? Yeah, that'll wake you up faster than a triple espresso. (Virginia)

Then there's the sniff-test stop I've been pulled over for several times. If you're driving after dark, apparently you've probably also been drinking, since only drinkers stay up past sun-down. When they stick their head in the window and smell nothing but the fast food I'm taking home with me, it's "drive safe" and away I go. (Utah)

Of all the pointless, interfering stops, how many do you think actually net a violent criminal? I'm guessing it's probably negligible...

[jaydee77ca]

I would love to get pulled over in some beaten, worthless car and have this conversation:

Officer: "Are there any drugs in the vehicle?"
Me: "Yes."
Officer: "Where are they?"
Me: "I'm not telling."

And then watch as they rip the car apart trying to find them, haha.

I guess I'd probably get charged with a false complaint or wasting the time of a police officer or something stupid like that. Of course no mention would be made of the officer wasting MY time with stupid questions.

[Jennifer]

Jaydee--

Keep a little tin of aspirin in your car. Then, when the cops finish tearing your car apart, give them a look of wide-eyed innocence and say, "Oh, I didn't know you meant ILLEGAL drugs!"

[Michael A. Clem]

Interestingly, the police who have pulled me over have been most deferential and polite when it was work-related. Once, when I was a courier and was stopped for speeding (I didn't get a ticket), and once, going home after work late at night (I worked fast-food then).
I wonder why?

[Larry A]

I always remember the night when my little brother hit a DUI check. He was on the way home from being in a play at the local little theater, still dressed as an 1800s Russian soldier including makeup and a saber.

They let him live.

[Stevo Darkly]

A police officer asks: "Do you know why I pulled you over?"

What you should say: "Um, probably so it wouldn't be so windy while we're talking!"

Ha ha. OK, not really.

(Credit: Bruce Baum.)

[Brian Courts]

When you consider that the vast majority of those ticketed, arrested or having cars impounded, were not drunk it becomes clear that roadblocks are a just a tool in law enforcements ever insatiable desire for more power to search anyone, anytime, for any reason. This is much like the subway searches we discussed on here a while back and many other provisions of the PATRIOT Act, such as sneak-and-peak searches. The method by which the police get this extra power is consistent and insidious. The public becomes enflamed by a perceived dire threat that is so dangerous, we are told, as to threaten the very fabric of society (drunk driving, crack, meth, drugs in general, terrorists, etc). In this state the public becomes very susceptible to political claims that the government needs some extra power to fight this threat. Of course we are told it is just for this one, narrow, very important threat, and clearly any good American must admit the threat is worthy of surrendering a little freedom to help combat it. But of course this ratchet only goes one way - the threat is not only never sufficiently mitigated but the power is used in any way law enforcement wants:

Drunk driving road blocks? Who cares that we didn't catch any drunk drivers because look at the drugs, seatbelt-scoffs and expired tags we caught! Sneak-and-peak searches? Yes, yes, we didn't use them against terrorists, but look at this tunnel we found that was used to bring drugs into the country!

When you see the pattern is it any wonder most of us were so skeptical of the subway searches in that discussion a few months back?

Speaking of subway searches, it kind of makes me wonder if Eve Holbrook ever drives around looking for a police checkpoint so she can volunteer of her "own free will" for a sobriety check or to have her car searched because it gives her "a sense of comfort" as a good citizen.

[Windypundit]

[Let me try this without the link...]

"There are cops - and politicians - who believe that they are the law."

I am beginning to believe that there's really only one crime committed by most people who get arrested after a street stop: Misdemeanor Disrespect of Cop.

Some cops seem to believe that anyone who pisses them off, annoys them, or refuses to cooperate must be punished. So if someome makes a fuss, the cop will try to find a reason for an arrest.

The converse is also true: You can reduce your chance of being arrested by being polite. Here's a somewhat disturbing example of someone who probably digs a hole for herself by being rude to a cop:

http://www.filecabi.net/host/file/gavemea20/wmv

It shows a cop who gets into a dispute with a fast-food drive-thru cashier over the change. Because she's rude to him, he goes all cop and arrests her. Granted, she responded to the officer unwisely, but it doesn't change the fact that he basically pepper sprayed a 17-year old woman and hauled her off to a cage over a $10 dispute and some rude behavior.

(Yes, I realize that having to be polite to the minions of the state to avoid cage time is a sign of creeping totalitarianism.)

[ChrisO]

Add:

1. Local politicos who run on law 'n' order platforms and are never penalized for being 'hard on crime',

2. John Wayne wannabes who are either too out of shape or too dumb to make it into the military and become cops (especially of the donut-gobbling traffic cop variety),

3. A handful of violent thugs driving around out there who make every traffic stop into a potentially deadly encounter for a cop,

4. The increasing possibilities of 'revenue enhancement' in traffic law, and

5. Shrill nanny-state pressure groups for whom even one tragic death shows an obvious need for the police state.

Mix, and serve. Welcome to America's Highways.

[Eric the .5b]

Yes, I realize that having to be polite to the minions of the state to avoid cage time is a sign of creeping totalitarianism.

I usually disagree with this sort of argument, but in this case, I think it's a fair cop.

*ba-dum-bum*

[Windypundit]

Specifically when the trooper asks if you know why he waved you over to the side of the road don't say something like:

"Because the government believes it has the authority to control every aspect of my life."

Heh. The cop probably doesn't want to be there either, so you could try commiserating: "Because the mayor wants to look tough on drunk drivers?"

On the other hand, to him, that may sound like "Because you're a powerless flunky who has to do every stupid thing you're told." Nobody wants to hear that, and he does have power over you.

[Malcontent]

And the Cops wonder why they are not well recieved anymore. I used to respect all policeman, but have little or no use for them anymore. They are out to arrest and/or tickets for quota's.

For some more thoughts on the DUI nonesene, visit http://www.ridl.us, they have some great statistics about the exagerated DUI fatalities. It's pretty much an eye opening experience.

[io1029]

Holy fuck. That poor girl in the video should get to beat the piss outta that cop then he should get fired. I mean seriously, what-the-fuck!?

She was 100% right, her manager backed her up, all she did was cuss at him... she gets MACED? How did he even have the right to go back there... have the right/reason/suspicion to arrest her?

And they say he was "cleared of any wrong doing" and she gets $60k? I swear, if shit like that happened to me I'm pretty sure I'd go over the edge and seriously hurt the cop sometime after I got out of custody. I'd use my $60k to cover my legal expenses afterwards. Not only for myself but that guy is obviously a threat to the citizens of the city.

[crimethink]

Yet another reason why many jurisdictions forbid officers to exchange money with civilians while in uniform, along with concerns about the appearance of bribery.

[Lowdog]

Yup, that's about the attitude of most cops. I say fuck 'em!

I wonder what he was thinking he could arrest her for anyway? The manager even checked the register and says there were no twenties in the drawer.

It's exactly that kind of shit that makes people hate cops.

[Bobster]

Brian Courts at 3:50 PM nailed it.

I have never had the bad luck to experience a checkpoint but my mom was.

My mother is a big time believer in checkpoints. Mainly because she thinks prohibition should never have been stopped. She is also a big time recycler and collects empty cans from several of her friends and from work.

A couple of years ago she was driving through a checkpoint (seatbelt, drunk driving, smart mouth, whatever) and the cops noticed that she had several trash bags in the back seat of her car. They asked her what was in them and she said "aluminum cans for recycling." One of the bags was clear plastic and the cops spotted empty beer cans in it. After dumping out all the bags they found over 50 empty beer cans. They busted her for open container! No lie, my mom who swears she has never had a drink in her life (liar!), was busted for open container! That's all it takes in Ohio, an empty can in the car. In fact, if you have a six pack with one missing (a five pack?) can then you can be busted for open container.

Mom still thinks checkpoints are a great idea but she wishes they would only bust bad guys. Talk about missing the point. By law SHE IS A BAD GUY!

[Mad Scientist]

Things not to say during a traffic stop:

1. I can't reach my license unless you hold my beer. (OK in Texas)
2. Sorry, Officer, I didn't realize my radar detector wasn't plugged in.
3.Aren't you the guy from the Village People?
4. Hey, you must've been doin' about 125 mph to keep up with me. Good job!
5. Are You Andy or Barney?
6. I thought you had to be in relatively good physical condition to be a police officer.
7. You're not gonna check the trunk, are you?
8. I pay your salary!
9. Gee, Officer! That's terrific. The last officer only gave me a warning, too!
10. Do you know why you pulled me over? Okay, just so one of us does.
11. I was trying to keep up with traffic. Yes, I know there are no other cars around. That's how far ahead of me they are.
12. When the Officer says "Gee Son....Your eyes look red, have you been drinking?" You probably shouldn't respond with,"Gee Officer your eyes look glazed, have you been eating doughnuts?"

Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week.