5 Things You Need To Know About Roadblocks
November 21st, 2007 Posted in DUI/DWI, RoadblocksQ. Are roadblocks legal?
A. The US Supreme Court has found roadblocks to be legal for a variety of purposes, the most prominent being so-called “sobriety check points.” There is a longer history of roadblock approvals related to checking vehicles near or at national border crossings.
However, many state courts take a less favorable view of roadblocks based on language in their respective state constitutions. Probably the best example of this is the Michigan case that went to the US Supreme Court, Sitz vs. Michigan, that established the legal precedent for DWI roadblocks.
While the US Supreme Court found DWI roadblocks constitutional under the US Constitution, the case went back to Michigan and the State Supreme court found DWI roadblocks to be in violation of the state’s constitution, and that decision takes precedent, in Michigan, over the decision of the US Supreme Court.
Q. Do I have to answer the questions posed to me at a roadblock?
A. You do not have to answer any questions, particularly questions that would be self-incriminating.
You may be required (forced by threat of arrest) to show your drivers license, vehicle registration, and proof of insurance, if the state requires these items to be present in your vehicle.
However, you cannot be compelled to explain your travel plans, divulge the contents of your vehicle, or in any other way converse with law enforcement officers operating a roadblock.
You can be polite and courteous to the extent of providing the documents you are required to produce. Beyond that, decline to answer any other questions you are asked.
In response to a potentially invasive question you can say something like; “Officer, I know you have your job to do, but I do not approve of roadblocks and I do not wish to have a conversation. I realize I can be required to show you my driver’s license. Would you like to see my drivers license?” End of discussion.
Q. Can they search my car?
A. Your car can only be searched under the following circumstances:
- You voluntarily give the police permission to search your vehicle.
- The Police have a warrant to search your vehicle.
- The police have “probable cause” or “reasonable suspicion” based on a reasonable explanation of why they believe you have illegal items in your vehicle. They must be able to explain what they think they will find and why they think said items are in your vehicle.
If the police use their authority or force to search your vehicle, against your will, and they do not have a warrant or reasonable suspicion to conduct a search they can be (and should be) held criminally and civilly liable for conducting an illegal search. This holds true even if the search reveals the possession of illegal items.
Q. How long can they keep me at a roadblock?
A. One of the consistent rationalizations for roadblocks is that they are minimally intrusive and minimally inconvenient to the motorist. For reasons that escape specific justification the courts seem to find 15 to 20 minutes the maximum amount of time a motorist can be detained by police before the police take formal action against the motorist or allow the motorist to leave.
However, the courts have placed the burden of forcing the issue upon the motorist.
If the motorist does not specifically request to leave, the police can successfully claim the motorist voluntarily remained under their control. Therefore, if the police seem inclined to delay your departure, after they have checked your papers, specifically ask if you may now leave.
If they say “no” you are within your rights to ask for a legitimate explanation for your delay.
If no legitimate explanation is forthcoming you should persist in asking if you may leave. There should be no confusion regarding your intentions and the fact that you are not willingly remaining within control of the police officers.
Q. Can I turn around or turn off to avoid a roadblock?
A. In theory you are allowed to make any legal maneuver, even a U-turn to avoid a roadblock.
In reality, the police operating roadblocks deliberately locate them so it is almost impossible to legally avoid them once you become aware of their presence.
It is also common practice to hold a patrol car in reserve for the specific purpose of harassing motorists who overtly avoid a roadblock.
The National Motorists Association opposes the use of roadblocks, period. The only justification for stopping citizens under a roadblock scenario is to warn them of an unseen peril that could cause injury or death to an unsuspecting motorist.
So-called “sobriety check points,” or seat belt checks, or the myriad of other excuses the government concocts to harass and intimidate its citizens through the use of roadblocks are, in our opinion unconstitutional and in direct contradiction to any honest definition of freedom.
Other Related Articles
- 5 Federal Court Cases That Weakened The 4th Amendment
- The Fourth Amendment Is Dead
- Use This Card To Stand Up For Your Rights At Roadblocks
- Watch Your Wallet When Driving Through These 10 States
- A Blueprint For Reasonable Drunk Driving Laws
To change the picture next to your comments, sign up at Gravatar.com. Each picture is associated with a particular email address. (This is a third-party service not affiliated with NMA.)
I believe things are a little different at Federal (Border Patrol) checkpoints near the US/Mexican border. Speifically, I think that you must declare your citizenship, and I believe that they have a right to search your car if they have a reason to conclude that you recently crossed the border (like you tell them your recently returning from Mexico).
In response to g. Anton, I can say (having passed through these roadblock many times) that is frequently not the case. In every instance, the Border Patrol agent looked at me, sometimes asked how I was doing (other times was silent) and waved me on my way. I’m a Caucasian male with an ordinary Ford, so I understand a lack of suspicion to be transporting illegal drugs or immigrants, but I just wanted to point out that clearly the rules are not terribly inflexible. If asked, I assume I’d have to tell them I’m a citizen. In practice, however, I have NO way to prove my citizenship. For that reason, the checkpoints don’t force that particular issue.
You have no way to prove your citizenship? Then you had better get one, since you need to present it at U.S. border crossings. I have had to present a birth certificate re-entering the U.S. from Canada. Starting soon, you will need a passport to re-enter the U.S. If you cross regularly and don’t have a passport, you should apply for one immediately. Due to the new requirement, the process is quite backed up and could take months.
Your wrong on the searching the car part, they can not search your car with just a reasonable suspicion. They have to have probable cause to search your car.
If you have nothing to hide, the best course of action would be just to be nice and smile a littel and just answer whatever questions the officer may have. Chances are, you will be on your way shortly. If you do as suggested above, they will sense a potential problem and start to dig. you DO NOT have to answer any questions, but why make a problem where none exists? Otherwise, the officer may just stroke you for some petty little violation.
Over here in Hawaii the way they work the roadblocks is to funnel and slow each vehicle to walking speed. Cops look for anything illegal on your vehicle (reason to stop) and every 5th or 7th or whatever pre arranged number through the checkpoint gets pulled over for closer scrutiny.
^ I forgot to mention aftermarket accessories like rims/tires, exhaust systems, etc., especially if you have a ‘tuner’ type car is grounds for greater scrutiny everytime.
The “go ahead and search because I have nothing to hide” meme is a very frightening and frankly cowardly way to deal with this issue.
The more of us who voluntarily abdicate our rights for the sake of convenience or safety, the faster will find those rights disappearing.
Rights – like muscles – have to be exercised regularly or they atrophy. And what better time to exercise them than when you KNOW you are in the right?
the autobahn had similar roadblocks leading into the present disaster and design of our interstate into polotics, best to boycott the whole thing.
Jerry, there are border patrol crossings 40 miles north of the border in San Clemente on I-5 and Temecula on I-15. I don’t know about you but I don’t ordinarily carry a pssport.
isn’t the interstate a road block? where is the Highway Patrol? On farm/market roads, in your neighborhood, etc. but you hardley ever see them on the interstate. They want Barney Fiffe’s job, but were they elected for this?
So here they are doing road blocks in you neighborhood and lobbying for Hillary or Bush
What about rolling down the drivers window, is that required ? I’m sure anything you don’t do is going to cause the jack boots to focus thier attention on you. I had a friend who ended up paying $1000 in lawyers fee’s having some other charges dropped when the real issue was he didn’t roll his window down and let the officer smell his breath.
For those who do cross international boarders, you will have to have a passport in the near future. I regularly fly (private pilot) and I can no longer have a passenger coming back into the US without a passport. http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/vacation/ready_set_go/air_travel/documents_needed.xml
also see for more on road travel http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/vacation/ready_set_go/land_travel/
They say 2008 for the passport requirement.
(If there are any pilots remember you have to call US Customs 1 hour before and get the US Customs official initials otherwise the fine can be $5,000. And you thought speeding tickets could be bad).
For those who also boat http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/pleasure_boats/boats/
Seems like every one that’s posted on here is against roadblocks. While I don’t love em myself, just ask someone who’s lost a loved one or friend to a drunk driver about roadblocks!! Maybe until it happens to you, you don’t like em, but I bet after a DWI kills you or your loved ones or friends you will!!!
ric,
The simple fact that a loved on was lost to drunk driver proves that roadblocks are not effective in stopping drunk drivers from killing people.
So the question becomes just how much liberty are you willing to trade for safety? If public safety is the issue, then would you support roadblocks to check for weapons? Child porn? How about testing for adequate sleep? Maybe a little roadside brake inspection? Perhaps roadblocks should be set up to run background checks to make sure no one has ties to al Qeada? How about flu shots?
Wide-net trolling by law enforcenment is a very slippery slope and it’s really disturbing to see so many Americans willing to give up real liberties for even the illusion of security.
How effective was george bush against the waco highway patrol road blocks in neighborhoods (they don’t do interstates anymore) all we got was a new law on 9-11-01 that sticks a breathalizer on a DPS permanenet record and you can’t cross into Canada. You lost $400 grand on that deal because all he was doing is wait on the highway patrol. His, (and Cheneys) felony DWIs were forgiven by Baylor Law, but yours will never be now ala carte the new 9-11-01 law he signed.
If one road block nets one DWUI and takes that intoxicated person off the streets, is that not worth 5 or 10 minutes of your time? Or think of the drunks that would not be caught if there was not check points at all. And how many of these drunks would end up in an accident and hurting or killing someone?
ken writes:
“If one road block nets one DWUI and takes that intoxicated person off the streets, is that not worth 5 or 10 minutes of your time?”
In a word, no. It is not just MY time but thousands or tens of thousands, perhaps millions of people who lose time to checkpoints or stops manufactured “just to take a closer look.” All that time costs money, lost productivity, and is an opportunity cost for law enforcement: time spent doing that can never be regained to be applied to more critical needs. Yes, of course, they find the occasional criminal but given today’s definitions of “crime,” that doesn’t say very much.
Even more disturbing is not the cost in time but the immeasurable damage done to the liberties that made this nation great. Perhaps a little reading of Benjamin Franklin is in order.
“Or think of the drunks that would not be caught if there was not check points at all. And how many of these drunks would end up in an accident and hurting or killing someone?”
Checkpoints don’t catch the target (the target that LE should go after) population but do manage to nab a few social drinkers who exceed the much too low threshold, turning their lives upside down. Laws are not benign creatures without consequences and we must be very careful how we apply them.
It is ironic that many have opinions about subjects that you may not have any direct knowledge about. I too am not a big fan of road blocks, however not only do they catch drunks on our roads, but they also do catch many criminals. There are multiple tactics that LE uses in order to protect the general public. This is just one that usually does not tie up normal resources.A roadblock is one small tactic that LE uses to enforce the law. Driving is a privilege, not a right, remember that! Too many people think that using the telephone or driving is a right, when in fact they are quite wrong.
In Blue writes:
“It is ironic that many have opinions about subjects that you may not have any direct knowledge about. I too am not a big fan of road blocks, however not only do they catch drunks on our roads, but they also do catch many criminals.”
We all have opinions. The question that we should be directing at those opinions is “how well informed is this opinion? How well does it fit and explain the available evidence? How well does it act as predictor of future behavior?”
“There are multiple tactics that LE uses in order to protect the general public. This is just one that usually does not tie up normal resources. A roadblock is one small tactic that LE uses to enforce the law.”
Roadblocks are trolling across a wide population. Law enforcement should be targeting specific populations because their resources (public resources paid by us taxpayers) are limited. Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in awhile.
“Driving is a privilege, not a right, remember that! Too many people think that using the telephone or driving is a right, when in fact they are quite wrong.”
No, you are quite wrong. According to the US Supreme Court, in Bell v. Burson (1971), a driver’s license is an amalgam of pure right and pure privilege. While not everybody can hold one – the blind, for example – once obtained, it cannot be revoked without due process of law. Many states ignore this, using inferred consent, to revoke licenses for all kinds of non-driving-related events.
Freedom is dangerous. You can either accept the risks that come with it or eventually lose it all step-by-step. Each step will be justified by its proponents as a minor inconvenience that will help make us all “safer.” Personally, I’d rather have a slightly more dangerous world that respects freedom more.
How about this? Take away the cars of all cops on traffic patrol and station them at Road Blocks. Drivers may have to stop once in a while but the highways would be much more pleasurable to drive.
ken says:
“If one road block nets one DWUI and takes that intoxicated person off the streets, is that not worth 5 or 10 minutes of your time?”
Would a random search of your house for child porn be ok? It would only take a few minutes and if it keeps even one kid from being molested wouldn’t that be worth it?
To Ric, I’ll take that bet. I have lost a member of my family and I will never accept your idiotic logic that running roughshod over peoples rights somehow makes it better. Did you read about the officers in Oregon who were getting awards for their prowess at making OUI arrests until they found out that the people they were arresting weren’t drunk? The worst part is that they really didn’t lie. People were being taken in under arrest on “probable suspicion” for reasons as asinine as the officer concluding they had bloodshot eyes. They were all released because none of them had been drinking but those officers were “expected to make arrests”. Now they’re stuck with arrest records the state refuses to erase.Does this save your loved ones? Did you read about the Texas officers who set out to frame a lady friends estranged husband for oui so they could get in her pants? Does this save your loved ones? Did you view the video tapes of the Missouri officers at the sobriety checkpoint telling the young completely sober motorist how they could find(make up?) a reason to lock him up because he didn’t think it was any of their business where he was going? The tape was made by the young man while the officers tapes were “accidentally” erased. Will this save your loved ones?In the early 1990’s I read about a poll taken in Russia that found about 50% of the Russian people would have supported Stahlin if he were alive. They must have been that 50% that didn’t lose a loved one to government run amok. Supporting and endorsing lying, false arrest reports and perjury by officers and mabye even giving them awards for it won’t be likely to save anyone.In a society where it’s becoming the rule rather than the exception that officers personally profit from the citations they write turning a blind eye to injustice will accomplish nothing more than to ensure that your remaining loved ones grow up living with tyranny safe from everyone but their “protectors”.
Don’t take Hubcaps analogy lightly. A few years ago one Michigan fire chief(the village of Oxford) actually pressed his village council to require everyone in his community that owned a firearm to be required to register with the village and then be subject to warrentless inspections by the fire department. The Township of Columbia in Michigan recently considered a police proposal to require every business in the township to place a key in a lock box that local police would have a key for so they could gain entry to the building. when the legality of such an ordinance was questioned they sought to require it only of those businesses that had “hazardous materials” on the premises. Only when the local fire chief pointed out that that could be something as ridiculous as a bottle of bleach was the proposal dropped. In another Michigan community the police were recently stopped from showing up( not being called but just showing up) at local high school students homes during parties and ordering these kids to take breathylizers. The case reached the Michigan Supreme Court when they started getting the names of students who had been there and left and going to their homes and forcing them to take breathylizers(this story was carried in newspapers throughout the state). In Virginia police were stopped by courts from walking into bars and ordering patrons to submit to sobriety tests in the bar and ticketing them for public intoxication if they failed. This story was also carried on several national networks. It didn’t matter to those police that implied consent(the requirement to take a sobriety test)as well as the 0.08 standard only applies when you are operating a motor vehicle.
To James Young. I don’t see how you get “amalgam of pure right and pure privilege” out of Bell v. Burson. Suggest you read it again. The decision was,
“We hold, then, that under Georgia’s present statutory scheme, before the State may deprive petitioner of his driver’s license and vehicle registration it must provide a forum for the determination of the question whether there is a reasonable possibility of a judgment being rendered against him as a result of the accident.”
This has nothing to do with the right to hold a license. It has everything to do with due process before suspending driving privilege. Thus the statement in the decision “before the State *may deprive* petitioner of his driver’s license.” (emphasis my own)
I agree 100% that freedom is scary. Just remember that 100% freedom is anarchy. Balance is the key. This country was established on the principles of freedom, not anarchy. One of the first things our forefathers did was to put laws into place. The great thing about this country is that we can have an impact through our government to affect change. You must choose to do so and you must have the backing of a preponderance of citizens.
I have never heard of or encountered an arbitrary “roadblock” here in Wisconsin. You can be sure that I and others here would complain loudly about being stopped without “Probable Cause” that a crime has been committed. The police are our paid public servants, not our paid public oppressors. I do not pay taxes to be oppressed by police.
“I don’t see how you get “amalgam of pure right and pure privilege” out of Bell v. Burson.” — jk
“This is but an application of the general proposition that relevant constitutional restraints limit state power to terminate an entitlement whether the entitlement is denominated a ‘right’ or a ‘privilege.’” — Justice William Brennan
“We hold, then, that under Georgia’s present statutory scheme, before the State may deprive petitioner of his driver’s license and vehicle registration it must provide a forum for the determination of the question whether there is a reasonable possibility of a judgment being rendered against him as a result of the accident.” – Justice Brennan
“This has nothing to do with the right to hold a license. It has everything to do with due process before suspending driving privilege. Thus the statement in the decision “before the State *may deprive* petitioner of his driver’s license.” — jk
I think we agree, since my whole point is that states may not simply revoke licenses because they want to but must afford due process. Were it pure privilege, as so many law enforcement spokesmen claim, states could simply rescind it without hearing, adjudication, or even notice. The court clearly called for protection of the license holder against the state.
I sensed a note of sarcasm in Justice Brennan’s use of the word privilege. What the hell is a legal privilege. When can the state arbitrarily deny due process and arbitrarily revoke the “privileges” it so generously allows us. If anarchy is scary JK tyranny is terrifying. Nicely done James.
[...] heres a little something for you to read about roadblocks 5 Things You Need To Know About Roadblocks | National Motorists Association Blog [...]
Avoidance of a checkpoint in New Jersey will give you nine points on your license and a hefty fine.
Most roadblocks ive done is to find a individual or vehicle which works most of the time. If you come to one just cooperate with the officer and move on. I mean i wouldnt consent to a vehicle search though but just simple questions i would answer or most likely be held longer. Also most people blame the officer there talking to for the road block, that order most likely comes from a Lt. or higher. Were just the minions, lol. But if you start quoting laws and arguing with me its frustrating b/c for one i dont want to be out there as much as you dont want to be stopped. Thats the job though so just help me out and move on.
As for DUI check points i have mixed feelings but all and all i would say i dont agree with them. In Korea they have them everywhere. Its like a drive thru, just pull up to the officer blow and move on if you pass. Quick and effective alot quicker then the ones here.
The Prentiss County Sheriffs Dept in Mississippi sets up a roadblock for the Corp of Engineers on federal property and the proceeds to write tickets for the county. Check out my website and read about it
http://www.freewebs.com/barneyfife1/
If they have concurrent jursidiction and the federal government lets them that is perfectly legit but you might beat that in court if you know what your talkin about.
“direct contradiction to any honest definition of freedom.”
AMEN!! Could not be better put!
Any infringement on our freedom(s) is absolutely unconstitutional. Every freedom loving citizen of this country MUST stand up and voice their rights when those rights are challenged. I allow NO POLICE into my home or ever allow searches of my property including my vehicle. I know the laws very, very well and I video record every moment I am on the road with a small camcorder. You have the right to absolutely video record every encounter with police and to record a warrantless or warrented search of your vehicle or home. Stand up to the Police, they are not there to help us, they are there to subjugate the population and put money in the coffers of the State. Fight back people.
There is no such thing as an “illegal” search. You need to re-read the 4th amendment. It guarantees you protection against “unreasonable” search and seizure. And yes, there is a difference. If something is illegal, there are potential criminal charges that can be pressed for the violation. There is no such federal law that says if a cop searches you, your car, or your property without cause, he will go to jail or face a criminal fine. Thus it is not illegal.
However, if a cop violates your constitutional rights and and performs an unreasonable search or seizure, AND you can prove damages as a result of the search or seizure, then you may sue him civily for violation of you constitutional rights.
Remember, for something to be ILLEGAL, there has to be some criminal (not civil) punishment established for it.
Also, find me in the US Constitution where it says you have a RIGHT to drive or have a driver license. I’ll help you out. It’s not in there, because driving and driver license’s are not rights.
Matter of fact, the driver license that is in your wallet right now is property of the State where you live, and they can revoke or suspend your PRIVILEGE if you violate certain laws or agreements you made by signing for said license.
TrueBlue writes:
{Also, find me in the US Constitution where it says you have a RIGHT to drive or have a driver license. I’ll help you out. It’s not in there, because driving and driver license’s are not rights.
Matter of fact, the driver license that is in your wallet right now is property of the State where you live, and they can revoke or suspend your PRIVILEGE if you violate certain laws or agreements you made by signing for said license.}
My, my, my, aren’t we clever. And then you sit around and wonder why citizens think you an arrogant fool.
That the framers of the Constitution did not put a right into the Bill of Rights to control a device that was till over a hundred years away is clear. Equally clear is the obtuseness to point it out as though it were a newly discovered universal truth.
A driver’s license is an entitlement, not the mere privilege that you stated or that so many states would like us to believe (Bell v. Burson, 402 US 535, 1971). Once gained, it cannot be rescinded in the absence of due process. you simply don’t know what you’re talking about.
{There is no such thing as an “illegal” search. You need to re-read the 4th amendment. It guarantees you protection against “unreasonable” search and seizure. And yes, there is a difference. If something is illegal, there are potential criminal charges that can be pressed for the violation. There is no such federal law that says if a cop searches you, your car, or your property without cause, he will go to jail or face a criminal fine. Thus it is not illegal.}
A distinction without a difference.
Illegality obtains not just for criminal acts but also as a description of the very behavior that the 4th amendment was created to stop: the actions of the state and its agents. That you won’t go to jail is clearly irrelevant, although I personally believe that actions contrary to the Constitution should result in serious sanctions. If we send cops to prison – especially the general population – for violation of fundamental law, then they would behave much less arrogantly than they do presently.
I told you to look in the US Constitution. This also includes the Amendments. You know the Amendments. Those little articles added to the Constitution to deal with situation which arose after the original Constitution was written and passed.
When they write a Constitutional Amendment which states that driving is a RIGHT, then I will agree with you. Until then, your ignorance of Constitutional Law is my answer to your response.
As to the difference between illegal and unreasonable. There is a difference. By definition. But when something like facts contradict your argument, you are quick to ignore or discredit them.
I believe there should be civil penalties for violations of Constitutional Rights, and there are. But putting Police Officers in general population? That’s ridiculous. We separate all prisoners now based upon the risk to their lives, not just cops. You want cops treated equal as civilians? Then they would still be separated from general population. The mere fact you suggested putting them in general population proves one of two things:
1. You have absolutely no clue as to what you’re talking about, OR
2. You hate cops so much (probable because you got in trouble) that you would consider it acceptable to purposely put them at risk of death or serious physical injury for a minor violation.
Either way, you cannot possibly be objective and unbiased in your opinion, thus negating its legitimacy.
Don’t worry though, Mr. Young. No matter your opinion of us Police Officers, we are still here, still willing to risk our lives to protect you, and for very little pay and nearly no appreciation.
When everyone’s running out of a situation crying for help, who’s running in? Police. That’s who.
I have friends who lost their lives in the line of duty trying to protect others. While this means nothing to you, it means everything to me. If you lost money or your driver license for a traffic offense; you’ll make more money and you can get your license back. My friends aren’t coming back. They died for someone like you. Hate us all you want, but I guarantee you haven’t walked a day in our shoes. Because of that, you could NEVER understand why we do what we do.
I have a suggestion though. Go to Google and look up Lt. Col. Dave Grossman’s article “On Sheep, Sheepdogs, and Wolves.” Read that, and that might give you some insight into our psyche.
TrueBlue writes: {You know the Amendments. Those little articles added to the Constitution to deal with situation which arose after the original Constitution was written and passed.}
Not quite. Those amendments were put into place to protect the public from abuses by the state. They were not meant to address anything other than state action in contravention of citizen rights
{When they write a Constitutional Amendment which states that driving is a RIGHT, then I will agree with you. Until then, your ignorance of Constitutional Law is my answer to your response.}
We could argue all day long about how ignorant each other is about the Constitution. However, I did not rely on the Constitution for my answer but rather the US Supreme Court, whom I cited, who wrote that holding a driver’s license is an “entitlement” (their word) and not a mere privilege, I stand by the answer.
{As to the difference between illegal and unreasonable. There is a difference. By definition. But when something like facts contradict your argument, you are quick to ignore or discredit them.}
I was not addressing the difference between “illegal” and “unreasonable,” but between the distinction between what is punishable under law and what is addressable by civil action. That is why I strongly support severe criminal penalties for violation of civil liberties.
{But putting Police Officers in general population? That’s ridiculous. We separate all prisoners now based upon the risk to their lives, not just cops. You want cops treated equal as civilians? Then they would still be separated from general population. The mere fact you suggested putting them in general population proves one of two things:
1. You have absolutely no clue as to what you’re talking about, OR
2. You hate cops so much (probable because you got in trouble) that you would consider it acceptable to purposely put them at risk of death or serious physical injury for a minor violation.}
The idea behind treating cops as common criminals – hence putting them in the general prison population where they would certainly be in grave danger – is to make certain that the judicial reaction is so unpalatable that it would prevent them from misbehaving, and it is much too clear that they need such disincentives. “Minor” was your added word. I never said that.
I’ll let the other readers decide whether I know what I’m talking about but I can assure you that I’m not in trouble and that I’m far from your expected profile. I’m an old white guy in an expensive car, without debts, with high income, holding multiple degrees and two jobs. Do I hate cops? Fair question. The answer is no BUT I do resent what they have become and their increasing arrogance based not in performance but in sheer power. As I have written elsewhere in these fora, LE has gotten itself into a huge mess. LE has become far more institutional with predictable institutional behavior and typical institutional protective mechanisms growing daily. You all need to clean up your own act first.
I do not want cops treated equally as civilians. We recruit you, we train you, we equip you, we provide you with the authority to use deadly force in necessary. In return for that, we have a responsibility to assure that you use your authority responsibly or you endure egregious punishment, far in excess of an ordinary citizen.
{Either way, you cannot possibly be objective and unbiased in your opinion, thus negating its legitimacy.}
I am certainly biased in my opinion of LE because it has given me every reason to be biased and no reasons not to be. We are paying a fortune for LE and frankly the product that LE is delivering is third rate. How many millions of dollars are wasted on training, equipment and salaries only to put officers behind the nearest bush with a radar gun to catch drivers doing perfectly reasonable things?
{. . .
we are still here, still willing to risk our lives to protect you, and for very little pay and nearly no appreciation.
When everyone’s running out of a situation crying for help, who’s running in? Police. That’s who.}
You’re just full of cliché’s. I would prefer that you just left me alone. I do not seek your “help.” However, during the LA riots, my hotel, my employees and my guests were threatened with 3 straight calls saying they were going to “firebomb” it. We called 911 only to have them tell us to go screw ourselves. So we took care of it on our own. Only 3 days later when they learned that we had some CBS execs in house did they show up. Yep, thanks for that help, guys; you really ran toward that situation, didn’t you?
BTW, I strongly support professional pay for LEOs but expect professional performance for that pay.
{ Because of that, you could NEVER understand why we do what we do.}
You are right, of course. However, that cuts both ways. First, I would never dream of intruding into somebody’s life by threat or actual force. Second, because you are so isolated from the public, speaking a different language for example, you can never understand our disdain for what you see as worthy and we see as abusive and you can never tell the difference.
All I have to say is as long as there is law enforcement there will always be some people who will abuse their authority and power. I really think this is a shame,because they would’nt want it done to them. No one does.
You would rather us leave you alone? Then I would expect that you NEVER call on a police officer for help again.
Full of cliches? Thats the best answer you can come up with for me saying we risk our live to help others. Thats the best answer you have for my friends dying in the line of duty?
I do respect you as an obviously intelligent individual and I respect others with differing opinions, however, I’m offended at the fact that you judge millions of people based upon your minimal contact with few. That is prejudiced, and you know it.
I want you to know though, that I sincerely feel sorry for you.
{You would rather us leave you alone? Then I would expect that you NEVER call on a police officer for help again.}
It’s a deal. Now let’s see who breaks the deal first.
{Full of cliches? Thats the best answer you can come up with for me saying we risk our live to help others. Thats the best answer you have for my friends dying in the line of duty?}
My comment about the clichés was aimed directly at your use of talking points that we have heard thousands of times over decades. It was not an answer to your friends dying in the line of duty. There is no adequate response for that. I strongly support officer safety and professional pay, which is our responsibility to you, the other side of the coin that is your responsibility to us.
How often do you really risk your life? Facts are a harsh master. The fact is that LEOs are twice as likely to commit suicide as to be killed in the line of duty (from the National Association of Police Chiefs). The uncomfortable truth is that LE has gotten itself into a hellacious mess that won’t be solved by empty clichés. You need to clean up your own house first.
{I do respect you as an obviously intelligent individual and I respect others with differing opinions, however, I’m offended at the fact that you judge millions of people based upon your minimal contact with few. That is prejudiced, and you know it.}
No, that is biased, not prejudiced because it based on fact, and you know it. None of us enjoy a right to not be offended so get over it. Even worse, you’re wrong in your assumption that I know nothing because I have minimal contact with LE. The fact is that I’ve gone out of my way to observe, study, learn and synthesize the behavior of LE for almost 50 years and I don’t like what I see. The combination of authoritarian conservatives with authoritarian enforcers is dangerous.
{I want you to know though, that I sincerely feel sorry for you.}
Perhaps your intentions are benevolent but I neither seek nor shall I accept your pity.
If I remember correctly, the last report that came out a few months ago about fatalities on the job, law enforcement didn’t even make it in the top ten. Similar to James, I also have read law enforcement magazines and literature that arrived at the local library not to mention the zillion of articles I’ve read in the media about LEO’s and speed traps in the last forty years. And now the Internet provides an abundance of information.
But nothing compares with the many hundreds of personal observations of speed traps that had nothing to do with accident prevention but more to do with municipal economics. Given that, respectfully, I can’t figure how you consider your profession to be so noble.
And if some of us seem biased, we weren’t born or raised that way. We gradually developed that bias over years of watching your soul mates ply their trade basically enforcing the wrong laws for the wrong reason.
If one road block nets one DWUI and takes that intoxicated person off the streets, is that not worth 5 or 10 minutes of your time? Or think of the drunks that would not be caught if there was not check points at all. And how many of these drunks would end up in an accident and hurting or killing someone?
NO. Especially if it is “one”. The loss of liberty is too great. Furthermore, horrific accidents always seem to involve habitual drinkers who can tolerate levels of .25. Observing some one actually driving at .25 and getting them off the road is more likely to accomplish something.
I was stopped in CT and Daneher the safety director thiniks it is perfectly reasonable for the police to detain me because I told them they had no probable cause to stop me.
They “were keeping me safe”, while 20 miles down the road the mayor declared his city a sanctuary city. I would prefer they protect me by enforcing the immigration laws and arresting that mayor.
Do you guys realize that speed traps are only a small portion of our duties. We have specific departments that handle traffic and others that do the rest of the stuff you guys dont see. Maybe traffic police units are a little shady but you dont think about the other 75% or so that do other things.
Joe,
Just because police deaths didnt rake up the top ten percent doesnt mean its not one too many. Im sure if your friend died you would be pretty upset. We are all friends even if we dont know eachother (for the most part) and if i see that a cop died in my community whether i know him or not. You’d be best damn sure ill be at his funeral.
Officer Josh, you took my statements personal. I was simply stating a fact. You guys like facts. I wasn’t trying to minimize any death.
Maybe this was not your intention but here’s why I made light of it. It’s a statement that I commonly hear almost as a canned response when a LEO is trying to “back down” someones recent criticism.
I could go into a long dissertation about how different professions react to fellow co-workers deaths on or off of the line of duty. You can bet the death of a comrade in Iraqi is viewed the same way you guys in law enforcement view the death of a fellow officer. I know Vietnam (yea, I’m that old) veterans who have became life long friends after their near death experiences together in combat. It’s a normal reaction. Nobody is trying to minimize that. But lots of jobs are dangerous. We all accept a risk of some kind when we accept a job in a particular career. And while it is clear that LEO’s have a higher then normal risk than many professions do, you choose that profession willfully. It’s part of the job. Sometimes a death results from some function while protecting the public. We all appreciate those valiant efforts and sacrifices just as we currently do the fighting men and women in Iraqi and Afghanistan.
As I think you and I have discussed before, your experiences in your part of the country can be dramatically different than mine as a driver out here in the SW. Many little towns in this state have very little crime (you can see them on the speed trap site) but a substantial police force. Why? They are basically ALL expert in the use of a radar gun. While never documented you can bet their prime mission in life is fattening the coffers of their employer’s. Even larger town’s with specific traffic units are in the same boat. It may not be fair but it is under these circumstances and environment that many of us view ALL LEO’s (law enforcement officers). When we note a officer in our field, instead of feeling protected, we feel uneasy. Not because we are guilty of something, it’s just a conditioned response after years of watching law enforcement in action out on the radar range (highways). All of you wear the same uniforms. You may be the best cop in the USA, you may have nothing to do with traffic control, but the public has no way of knowing that unfortunately. I don’t know what the answer to that is. Maybe a better public relations campaign. More rational traffic control would go a long way.
As a member of the driving public, I don’t give a damn if some driver is speeding as long as they are doing it courteously and as conditions permit. Yes they’re breaking the law but does that affect my safety, that is my concern and ONLY concern. Only observation over time can tell. As a driver in traffic, I see bad driving behavior, some dangerous, the majority actually driving at or UNDER the speed limit. Hiding in a bush with a radar gun will not revel that information…. thus the debate will go on. In a nutshell, bad traffic control practices backed by bad laws have resulted in a lot of distrust between law enforcement and the public. I don’t like it and I’m sure you don’t either. I wish it was different but that’s not reality. Many years ago I was the prime culprit in getting a “Citizens Police Commission” started in my town but it never gained much support and eventually died. As far as I know it’s still on the books. Local law enforcement support could have made a big difference but it was not to be. I’m probably one of the few people on these blogs that can honestly say “I tried”.
Again, to qualify my statements, some of this may not pertain to your situation.
As James and some others have expressed, my prime beef with the good officers is that they don’t stand up against the bad stuff that goes on in police departments. Bad personnel and bad practices. And until good officers such as yourself decide to pursue traffic laws in the spirit of the law as opposed to absolutes, purge abusive officers out of your ranks, and embrace public input, then I don’t see things changing much…and as Martha Stewart doesn’t say, “that’s not a good thing”.
i will not give up my rights for saftey. if yal believe that people should be pulled over and harassed,,that just tells me yal dont want your rights and freedom..if yal dont want drunk drivers on the road,,,petition the state or local government to make alchol against the law as it is a drug too. im sorry about your loved one getting killed by a drunk driver,but maybe they went through the road block and wasnt the special number car/truck and got waved through. the government makes their own laws cause they know the public dont know any of them.. maybe we should have our state a local government send out to the public , or have a place where all local and state laws are in writing . that way we can only blame ourselves if we dont know them. just my view! thanx
As you all know,we are approaching another holiday.And you all know what that means,road blocks and cops out in their more than usual full force.God help us if we forget to put on our seat belt,thats a act of terrorism and we will be fined,and dont forget the DUI roadchecks,that might give them an excuse to search your car and treat you like a wanted criminal,and certainly dont do five miles over the speed limit.I dont know how it is in the rest of the world,but here in virginia,we go through this on a daily basis.I just left the muffler shop,having put a new,complete exhaust on my jeep,would you believe i got in one of barneys road checks and he gave me a ticket for the exhaust being to loud,and yes it has a new converter also..safety isnt the issue with virginia’s finest,if you get killed in a wreck and dont have your seatbelt on,thats one less person they get to give a ticket to.Its all about how many tickets they can hand out and how much money they can bring in….they could care less about safety of the people
Speed traps, DUI roadblocks, seatbelt enforcement. Bring em all on! All you freedom fighters must be doing something illegal. Our local roadblocks are advertised in the local paper in advance. Of course, most baddies probably don’t read the paper. Also, they do catch criminals in these roadblocks and DUI drivers. I appreciate the roadblocks because I see car wrecks and bad drivers on a daily basis. Getting some of these clowns off the road is a good thing. Personally, I think speed traps are made up problems by those who think speeding and driving recklessly are personal rights.