NSX Prime crack legal team unite!

[Vega$ NSX]

Is this legit???

[shawn110975]

thats funny,

if he answered the question he could leave, but he didnt want to answer the question he wanted to hold the line up and film him not answering.

if this is the case, we all should carry camera's in our cars and refuse to answer any question film it and drive off drunk.

this is hard to say if i want to laugh or get mad.

she should have had him pulled from the vehicle put in the back of a cop car intill he answers the question

[sahtt]

Is this legit???

Good luck. I've been pulled from my car, handcuffed, and put in the back seat of a cop car for less than that (wonder if that would have happened if I was obviously video taping it?). My guess is the officers determined he was likely sober and didn't want to waste any more time with him. I'm not part of the crack legal team but my bet is you do not technically have to answer at a forced stop like that, only if they have reasonable suspicion you did something illegal. For instance, a cop cannot just stop you while walking down the street without probable cause and begin interrogating you.

[SFDreamer]

Interesting. Subscribed to read other input.

[kookoo4nsx]

I have the balls to pull that off but honestly my heart would have been pounding out of my chest. I don't know the individual but I assume he was an attorney.


"she should have had him pulled from the vehicle put in the back of a cop car until he answers the question "
Shawn, what country do you live in? In my country, citizens are innocent until proven guilty and have the right not to incriminate themselves.

[CL65 Captain]

Most states now have implied consent laws and since a drivers license is a privilege and not a right they do not need probable cause to ask you to submit to a DUI test. In fact, your 5th Amendment right does not apply because once again driving is a privilege granted by the state not a right. Therefore, if you refuse to blow it can mean automatic administrative suspension of your license with no "hardship privileges" regardless of your guilt.

Where this came from was people refusing to blow and prosecutors having a tough time with the conviction based purely on officer's testimony. This is a Constitutional end around brought to you by MADD. Refuse to blow and you are still off the streets.

DUI you are considered guilty until proven innocent by a little machine you have to blow into. DUI checkpoints violate your 4th and 5th Amendment rights, even though 6 of the US Supreme Court Justices disagreed.

The Constitution of the United States pretty clearly says that police can’t just stop someone and conduct an investigation unless there are “articulable facts” indicating possible criminal activity. So how can they do exactly that with DUI roadblocks?Good question. And it was raised in the case of Michigan v. Sitz (496 U.S. 444), in which the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed a decision of the Michigan Supreme Court striking down drunk driving roadblocks as unconstitutional. In a 6-3 decision, the Court reversed the Michigan court, holding that roadblocks were consitutionally permissible. Chief Justice Rehnquist began his majority opinion by admitting that DUI roadblocks (aka “sobriety checkpoints”) do, in fact, constitute a “seizure” within the language of the 4th Amendment. In other words, yes, it’s a blatant violation of the Constitution. However….

However, it’s only a little one, and there’s all this “carnage” on the highways MADD tells us we’ve got to do something about. The “minimal intrusion on individual liberties”, he wrote, must be “weighed” against the need for and effectiveness of roadblocks. In other words, the ends justify the (illegal) means….aka, “the DUI exception to the Constitution”.

The dissenting justices pointed out that the Constitution doesn’t make exceptions: The sole question is whether the police had probable cause to stop the individual driver. As Justice Brennan wrote, “That stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving…is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion.” Brennan concluded by noting that “The most disturbing aspect of the Court’s decision today is that it appears to give no weight to the citizen’s interest in freedom from suspicionless investigatory seizures”.

Rehnquist’s justification for ignoring the Constitution rested on the assumption that DUI roadblocks were “necessary” and “effective”. Are they? As Justice Stevens wrote in his own dissenting opinion, the Michigan court had already reviewed the statistics on DUI sobriety checkpoints/roadblocks: “The findings of the trial court, based on an extensive record and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals, indicate that the net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative”.

p.s. The case was sent back to the Michigan Supreme Court to change its decision accordingly. But the Michigan Supreme Court sidestepped Rehnquist by holding that DUI checkpoints, if permissible under the U.S. Constitution, were not permissible under the Michigan State Constitution, and ruled again in favor of the defendant — in effect saying to Rehnquist, “If you won’t protect our citizens, we will”. The State of Washington has since followed Michigan.

BTW: I'm not an attorney and have never had a DUI, but I helped someone else get through the process after she refused to blow. Fortunately, the cop read her the wrong consent law (it was on the video - he read her the CDL consent) and they had to drop the administrative as well as the criminal charges. Neither the prosecutor, nor her attorney caught that. I had to do all the leg work for her attorney and just hand it to him on a silver platter. There are two types of attorneys - those that know the law and those that know the judge. We hired the latter and I did all the work.

[moprblms]

The World's Nicest Cop

reminds me of this

[kookoo4nsx]

Consent to a Breathalyzer is not the same as answering the questions "how are you this evening and have you been drinking"

If they asked the driver to step out and submit, his choice would be limited. Blow or take a ride in a cop car.

I'm not sure why the cop allowed the driver to film the stop. I was under the impression that in some states the cops will grab the phone from your hand and commence beating you down.



QUOTE=CL65 Captain;1533575]Most states now have implied consent laws and since a drivers license is a privilege and not a right they do not need probable cause to ask you to submit to a DUI test. In fact, your 5th Amendment right does not apply because once again driving is a privilege granted by the state not a right. Therefore, if you refuse to blow it can mean automatic administrative suspension of your license with no "hardship privileges" regardless of your guilt.

Where this came from was people refusing to blow and prosecutors having a tough time with the conviction based purely on officer's testimony. This is a Constitutional end around brought to you by MADD. Refuse to blow and you are still off the streets.

DUI you are considered guilty until proven innocent by a little machine you have to blow into. DUI checkpoints violate your 4th and 5th Amendment rights, even though 6 of the US Supreme Court Justices disagreed.

The Constitution of the United States pretty clearly says that police can’t just stop someone and conduct an investigation unless there are “articulable facts” indicating possible criminal activity. So how can they do exactly that with DUI roadblocks?Good question. And it was raised in the case of Michigan v. Sitz (496 U.S. 444), in which the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed a decision of the Michigan Supreme Court striking down drunk driving roadblocks as unconstitutional. In a 6-3 decision, the Court reversed the Michigan court, holding that roadblocks were consitutionally permissible. Chief Justice Rehnquist began his majority opinion by admitting that DUI roadblocks (aka “sobriety checkpoints”) do, in fact, constitute a “seizure” within the language of the 4th Amendment. In other words, yes, it’s a blatant violation of the Constitution. However….

However, it’s only a little one, and there’s all this “carnage” on the highways MADD tells us we’ve got to do something about. The “minimal intrusion on individual liberties”, he wrote, must be “weighed” against the need for and effectiveness of roadblocks. In other words, the ends justify the (illegal) means….aka, “the DUI exception to the Constitution”.

The dissenting justices pointed out that the Constitution doesn’t make exceptions: The sole question is whether the police had probable cause to stop the individual driver. As Justice Brennan wrote, “That stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving…is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion.” Brennan concluded by noting that “The most disturbing aspect of the Court’s decision today is that it appears to give no weight to the citizen’s interest in freedom from suspicionless investigatory seizures”.

Rehnquist’s justification for ignoring the Constitution rested on the assumption that DUI roadblocks were “necessary” and “effective”. Are they? As Justice Stevens wrote in his own dissenting opinion, the Michigan court had already reviewed the statistics on DUI sobriety checkpoints/roadblocks: “The findings of the trial court, based on an extensive record and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals, indicate that the net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative”.

p.s. The case was sent back to the Michigan Supreme Court to change its decision accordingly. But the Michigan Supreme Court sidestepped Rehnquist by holding that DUI checkpoints, if permissible under the U.S. Constitution, were not permissible under the Michigan State Constitution, and ruled again in favor of the defendant — in effect saying to Rehnquist, “If you won’t protect our citizens, we will”. The State of Washington has since followed Michigan.

BTW: I'm not an attorney and have never had a DUI, but I helped someone else get through the process after she refused to blow. Fortunately, the cop read her the wrong consent law (it was on the video - he read her the CDL consent) and they had to drop the administrative as well as the criminal charges. Neither the prosecutor, nor her attorney caught that. I had to do all the leg work for her attorney and just hand it to him on a silver platter. There are two types of attorneys - those that know the law and those that know the judge. We hired the latter and I did all the work.[/QUOTE]

[NSXTACY111]

Now I'm curious of this because I live in Northern VA. If I was to be pulled over for a DUI and I refuse to blow into the breathalyzer, would I still be convicted just the same as if I was driving under the influence?

What if I had taken medicine that may have unknowingly caused me to slightly swerve just once and I was pulled over? Would I be sent to jail for that after refusing!?

I wish to never get a DUW or DWI...I've seen it ruin lives not to mention endanger them.

[shawn110975]

I have never had a DUI but my old GF did, her mom is a lawyer in boston,
and she was down in florida going to school to be a lawyer.

she got pulled over she did not blow, she went to jail. she was smashed, way past the legal limit.

since she did not blow they had no evidence of her tox level so they had it reduced to a lesser crime. so she has never been convicted of a DUI her insurance stays the same.

WHY blow? why give them another tool to convict you.

first you should never drive after drinking, but if you do. and you get pulled over and you know your not going to pass the blow/breath test dont do it.

dont give them your fingerprint

if you dont blow you automaticly lose you license for a year and you go to jail, but.... when you bond out of jail in 8 hours minimum for DUI in FL

the next day you go down to the DMV and apply for a work permit for a year. if you mess up again in that year you will prob be in deep.

and continue to drive. its a joke.

also when and if you get pulled over they will ask you questions and want you to answer them but they are really tring to smell your breath, so answer the question but look at your steering wheel. so your breath is directed at the steering wheel not their face.

I was in South Dakota visiting relatives, our flight was late and we ended up on the road in
a rental car at 4AM, cop pulls us over and make me sit in his passengerseat of the cop car and he asked me questions, what he was doing was smelling my answers. as I had not been drinking he told me what he was doing.

just remember dont answer to their face. answer loud and clear to your steering wheel

and always keep some strong chewing gum in the car to help hide the smell.

this is all just info.

NEVER NEVER drive drunk

[sahtt]

Officers in Austin, by some temporary statute enacted by the local judge, are allowed to enforce mandatory on-the-scene blood drawing (statute may not be the correct term) during certain times of the year, such as July 4th, New Years, etc. This was put in place because of how easy it is to get out of the full repercussions of a DUI by simply refusing to blow.

The mandatory blood draws have slowly become an extremely controversial issue as of late. Try to imagine an at least somewhat intoxicated person, probably a man, being forced to take a syringe and have blood drawn against his will on the side of the road at 3am. Not pretty. Then again, I understand their desire to try to put these people away; there is no simple solution.

[moprblms]

Officers in Austin, by some temporary statute enacted by the local judge, are allowed to enforce mandatory on-the-scene blood drawing (statute may not be the correct term) during certain times of the year, such as July 4th, New Years, etc. This was put in place because of how easy it is to get out of the full repercussions of a DUI by simply refusing to blow.

The mandatory blood draws have slowly become an extremely controversial issue as of late. Try to imagine an at least somewhat intoxicated person, probably a man, being forced to take a syringe and have blood drawn against his will on the side of the road at 3am. Not pretty. Then again, I understand their desire to try to put these people away; there is no simple solution.

This could hold very dangerous to your civil Liberties I was watching the news and a senator wanted backing to pass a bill on mandatory collection of DNA if arrested no matter how small the legal infraction.

[Aluminsx]

The World's Nicest Cop

reminds me of this

This video concerns me because the police officer (while nice) did not do a complete investigation. Apparently they were getting calls regarding this person walking down the street with an exposed firearm. The police officer approaches the subject and attempts to identify him and takes the gun away. After the discussion the PO does not get the subjects name and returns the firearm. At least that's how it appears. It's basically a Catch22 for the cop. He could take the weapon away with the stipulation that the person who owns the pistol can get it back if he goes to the station and provides the necessary documentation but then he is violating the subjects rights (if the law in the area this was filmed has very loose gun regulations).

Playing devils advocate here but if the guy with the gun went down the street and shot up a daycare center and turned out to be a wanted felon who had just murdered his wife and girlfriend the cop would #1. feel like crap #2. be destroyed in the media. In New York you need a permit to carry a pistol so if you did not produce the permit, which would have all your information on it, you would be arrested for Criminal Possession of a Weapon and brought to jail.

[steveny]

Nothing good will come from alcohol.

[Dhalsim]

reminds me of this




https://www.checkpointusa.org/blog/

[Mugenlude]

This video concerns me because the police officer (while nice) did not do a complete investigation. Apparently they were getting calls regarding this person walking down the street with an exposed firearm. The police officer approaches the subject and attempts to identify him and takes the gun away. After the discussion the PO does not get the subjects name and returns the firearm. At least that's how it appears. It's basically a Catch22 for the cop. He could take the weapon away with the stipulation that the person who owns the pistol can get it back if he goes to the station and provides the necessary documentation but then he is violating the subjects rights (if the law in the area this was filmed has very loose gun regulations).

Playing devils advocate here but if the guy with the gun went down the street and shot up a daycare center and turned out to be a wanted felon who had just murdered his wife and girlfriend the cop would #1. feel like crap #2. be destroyed in the media. In New York you need a permit to carry a pistol so if you did not produce the permit, which would have all your information on it, you would be arrested for Criminal Possession of a Weapon and brought to jail.

As you pointed out in your post, in NY this isn't going to fly, but in other less restrictive states that isn't the case. So this would be very state specific.

For instance, in Wisconsin the open carry of a firearm (loaded or unloaded) is not in and of itself considered Disorderly Conduct, therefore, you can not receive a citation for just walking down the street... and unless the police officers has reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS) that you have a committed a crime you aren't required to answer any questions or provide your name. The police officers can ask you all the questions you want, and you are free to answer them if you want, but aren't required to do so.

Now if they have RAS that is a different story, if they did have RAS you would be detained... you here the people on the videos asking if they are being detained for that reason. If you are being detained, time to zip it because whatever you say is only going to be used against you in my opinion (and many others).

[moprblms]

Officers in Austin, by some temporary statute enacted by the local judge, are allowed to enforce mandatory on-the-scene blood drawing (statute may not be the correct term) during certain times of the year, such as July 4th, New Years, etc. This was put in place because of how easy it is to get out of the full repercussions of a DUI by simply refusing to blow.

The mandatory blood draws have slowly become an extremely controversial issue as of late. Try to imagine an at least somewhat intoxicated person, probably a man, being forced to take a syringe and have blood drawn against his will on the side of the road at 3am. Not pretty. Then again, I understand their desire to try to put these people away; there is no simple solution.

LoHud (@LoHud)
3/3/12 2:40 PM
NY weighs expanding DNA bank to all criminals lohud.us/znQOdI