Murfreesboro DUI Checkpoint Video Making its Way Across the Web

[MattCary]

Grumpy cop isn't a trooper. He's SO. I think the dash cam was a trooper car. So even if they're carrying wireless mics, he was probably somewhere else at first. Gotta watch the tape again.

 

That's what I thought, but the site said "THP Dashcam video" so I got confused again.

[MattCary]

So it's a THP video with RCSO audio?

 

So this video is a composite as well. (Mixing the audio with the video.)

[mikegideon]

So it's a THP video with RCSO audio?

 

So this video is a composite as well. (Mixing the audio with the video.)

 

I wasn't aware that those guys carried wireless mikes. I assumed that the microphone was on the car. I wish one of our LEO's would comment, but they're probably long gone by now.

[MattCary]

When it starts, you hear the leather squeaking all the way to the car, until it stops. This led me to assume it was on the Officer.

[QuietDan]

Umm, that dash cam video starts when the kid pulls over to the side, NOT during the original interaction, if I'm not mistaken.

 

So the SO left out the "good parts."

 

The cruiser cam is the cam in the Rutherford County Sheriff's Office deputy's cruiser. His body mic and radio are recorded in the video, from the very beginning of the stop, even though he's out of frame in the beginning.

 

The Tennessee Highway Patrol owned the DUI Checkpoint, but Law Enforcement Officers from other jurisdictions also work the various checkpoints.

 

I imagine, since the Tennessee Highway Patrol owned this particular checkpoint, that they had to be consulted as a release authority for the cruiser cam video, and that the Rutherford County Sheriff had to coordinate on the release of the video as it was from a Rutherford County Sheriff's Deputy's car, Since this was multijurisdictional, I imagine it took a little time to evaluate the stop and coordinate the release of the video.

 

I don't think we're dealing with a "grumpy cop" as one poster described him. The checkpoint stop started friendly and courteously enough, until the child-adult starting showing his ass. The Deputy then uses his "COMMAND VOICE", one of the first levels of police force, demanding and compelling compliance at the first sign of non-compliance from the delicate-flower child-adult. (It might have been the first time in his short pampered life that anyone every raised their voice at him.)

 

It's not like the Deputy grabbed the child-adult by the collar and shook him, and it's not like the Deputy un-holstered his sidearm and pistol-whipped him. He, OMG! Raised. His. Voice! Shudder! It was raining and we can't tell for sure if he wet his pants.

Edited July 13, 2013 by QuietDan

[QuietDan]

From a different post:

 

Listen. Listen to the ENTIRE dash-cam video. All will become clear. It is a good use of a half hour of your life.

 

Silly little child-punk boldly asserting his rights, barracks-lawyering the law to a law enforcement officer, while his conduct demonstrates that he's hiding something. It just so happens that he's hiding a video camera instead of contraband.

 

It is clear that this is not the first little snot-nosed punk willing to go head to head with this deputy at the side of the road, always a losing proposition. A lesson, don't spend a lot of time and effort arguing with a law enforcement officer at the side of the road -- save it for the judge in the courtroom, if it comes to that.

 

Another lesson: don't buy a used vehicle and then neglect to clean the interior of marijuana residue and beer-bottle caps from the previous owner for over a year. Yes, it's on the dash-cam video.Such an oversight tends to undercut your politically motivated silly-sting.

 

Also note, deputy does not charge snot-nosed kid over the marijuana residue because it's clear it's residue that's been in the car for quite a while, and yet, was enough to trigger a hit from the drug dog.

 

Once all the opinionators out there ACTUALLY LISTEN TO THE DASH-CAM VIDEO, they will need to change their opinions, unless they are die-hard, hard-over ideologues with axes to grind.

 

Flame away Axl David and all your flying monkeys.

 

http://www.tennessean.com/comments/article/20130711/NEWS03/130711016/Sheriff-speaks-about-viral-DUI-checkpoint-video-says-deputy-found-pot-car

 

and

 

http://www.dnj.com/article/20130712/NEWS01/307120011/Sheriff-releases-dashcam-video-from-DUI-checkpoint?nclick_check=1

[MattCary]

The cruiser cam is the cam in the Rutherford County Sheriff's Office deputy's cruiser. His body mic and radio are recorded in the video, from the very beginning of the stop, even though he's out of frame in the beginning.

 

The Tennessee Highway Patrol owned the DUI Checkpoint, but Law Enforcement Officers from other jurisdictions also work the various checkpoints.

 

I imagine, since the Tennessee Highway Patrol owned this particular checkpoint, that they had to be consulted as a release authority for the cruiser cam video, and that the Rutherford County Sheriff had to coordinate on the release of the video as it was from a Rutherford County Sheriff's Deputy's car, Since this was multijurisdictional, I imagine it took a little time to evaluate the stop and coordinate the release of the video.

 

Thanks, Dan.

 

In that case, they simply started the video after the objectionable part had occurred.

[QuietDan]

Thanks, Dan.

 

In that case, they simply started the video after the objectionable part had occurred.

 You are very welcome!!

[TMF]

Flame away Axl David and all your flying monkeys.

Haha, this got a good laugh from me.

On another note, yeah, the kid went looking for confrontation and got his wish. Trying to see both sides of this, I would argue that the kid was attempting to challenge the existence of these DUI checkpoints by playing "tempt the cop", but the cop took the bait and should have known better.

I'm still not convinced that checkpoints for drunks make any significant impact versus wolf pack patrols actively looking for drunks in force. In my opinion they exist to nab people on other stuff and use the pretense of a DUI checkpoint for gaining PC to make arrest. Now, I have no problem with bad people getting arrested, such as folks with warrants out in them and such, but subjecting every citizen to such a checkpoint is lazy police work and, to me, treads way too close to the 4th Amendment. That isn't my opinion as a legal expert, but as a normal citizen, which should be all anyone needs to be to interpret the intent of the Bill of Rights. So as much as the kid was being a little snot nose, I do understand the intent behind it.

[RobertNashville]

Constitutional questions aside, we don't really need to just have opinions about the effectiveness of DUI checkpoints; there are plenty of scientific studies available to read that show they are.

 

Effective enough??? Well, I guess that will have to remain opinion...one thing I'm sure of is that no one has a right to put innocent people lives' at risk just because they decide to drive impaired.

[TMF]

Constitutional questions aside, we don't really need to just have opinions about the effectiveness of DUI checkpoints; there are plenty of scientific studies available to read that show they are.

Effective enough??? Well, I guess that will have to remain opinion...one thing I'm sure of is that no one has a right to put innocent people lives' at risk just because they decide to drive impaired.

That sounds like a "for the children plea."

Don't get me wrong, my mother worked for MADD for nearly a decade and my father worked over 30 years in law enforcement, most of those years being involved specifically in busting drunk drivers. To give you a better idea of the household I grew up in, I was named after a friend of my parents who was killed in a drunk driving accident barely out of high school. I get it. Drunks are a danger behind the wheel, and I don't think the legal system does enough to punish these people when they use their cars as premeditated murder weapons, but we have to draw a line.

I have no problem being cooperative at a checkpoint. I have nothing to hide and surely just want to be on my way, but that isn't the point. Our forefathers did not envision a country where you would be stopped just trying to get from point A to point B, questioned and verified via papers to a government agent. I disagree with the practice and I think I have good reason to. Furthermore, from the mouth of my own father "DUI CPs are BS." He's worked hundreds of them I'm sure. I'll take his word for it.

[mikegideon]

Haha, this got a good laugh from me.

On another note, yeah, the kid went looking for confrontation and got his wish. Trying to see both sides of this, I would argue that the kid was attempting to challenge the existence of these DUI checkpoints by playing "tempt the cop", but the cop took the bait and should have known better.

I'm still not convinced that checkpoints for drunks make any significant impact versus wolf pack patrols actively looking for drunks in force. In my opinion they exist to nab people on other stuff and use the pretense of a DUI checkpoint for gaining PC to make arrest. Now, I have no problem with bad people getting arrested, such as folks with warrants out in them and such, but subjecting every citizen to such a checkpoint is lazy police work and, to me, treads way too close to the 4th Amendment. That isn't my opinion as a legal expert, but as a normal citizen, which should be all anyone needs to be to interpret the intent of the Bill of Rights. So as much as the kid was being a little snot nose, I do understand the intent behind it.

 

The kid wound up being their bitch, way before the stop was over. If this was such "important work", why wasn't it done by a real attorney? I give credit for the best line to Grumpy Cop, "come back and talk to me after you get out of attorney school". 

[RobertNashville]

That sounds like a "for the children plea."

Don't get me wrong, my mother worked for MADD for nearly a decade and my father worked over 30 years in law enforcement, most of those years being involved specifically in busting drunk drivers. To give you a better idea of the household I grew up in, I was named after a friend of my parents who was killed in a drunk driving accident barely out of high school. I get it. Drunks are a danger behind the wheel, and I don't think the legal system does enough to punish these people when they use their cars as premeditated murder weapons, but we have to draw a line.

I have no problem being cooperative at a checkpoint. I have nothing to hide and surely just want to be on my way, but that isn't the point. Our forefathers did not envision a country where you would be stopped just trying to get from point A to point B, questioned and verified via papers to a government agent. I disagree with the practice and I think I have good reason to. Furthermore, from the mouth of my own father "DUI CPs are BS." He's worked hundreds of them I'm sure. I'll take his word for it.

I'm really not arguing for or against, or arguing at all for that matter...for the children or anything else...just noting that the question of "are they effective" doesn't need to be a matter of opinion. I've read some of the studies; there are many more but they all point to these checkpoints being effective in deterring and/or catching drunk drivers. Now, I haven't read every one so maybe there are ones out there that say something different but if so I haven't heard anyone citing them. ;)

 

I don't want to see anyone convicted of DUI unless they are truly guilty but if they are then the punishment needs to be changed because the current system of punishment clearly is not working as a deterrent; not when you have people driving on suspended licenses or even with in-force licenses after multiple convictions.  I don't know what it is...maybe too many people who still think drinking and driving is no big deal :shrug:

[QuietDan]

Regarding the efficacy of checkpoints, I imagine they vary.

 

Regarding this particular checkpoint, here are the results from the THP via the Daily News Journal:

 

» 250 vehicles passed through the checkpoint

 

» 20 vehicles were detained that required further investigation

 

» Three vehicles were searched

 

» One misdemeanor arrest was made

 

» 32 citations were issued: Two child restraint device citations, one DUI, 10 citations for violations of the registration law, four citations for violation of the light law, one revoked/suspended driver’s license, six financial responsibility (no insurance), six other driver’s license law violations, and two safety belt law violations.

 

http://www.dnj.com/article/20130710/NEWS/307100025/Checkpoint-results-released-by-THP

 

 

The conduct of a checkpoint is interesting to watch. The LEOs publicize in advance the locations of checkpoints in newspapers, radio and television. Suprisingly, they are not on the main roads of travel. They generally last two hours or so. They'll find a four lane segment of road that has no immediate turn-offs from it for a distance before the checkpoint (so people can't just make a u-turn). Then, they close one lane to traffic in each direction, and park their cruisers, four or five or six of them, in the right hand lane, with plenty of distance between the cruisers for stopped cars to pull over for further investigation.

 

Officers direct the oncoming traffic down to the single lane. Then, other officers line up, upstream from their own cruiser and a certain distance apart. The first officer in line directs the incoming traffic to stop at the farthest forward officer, so four or five or six cars get stopped at one time. The total elapsed time for a single car going through the checkpoint is maybe a minute or so. A minute or so. Depending on traffic flow, if you can readily get to your license, registration and insurance, you are not delayed by the other cars at all and you burn less than two minutes, shorter than a lot of traffic lights.

 

If there is a problem with the stop, the officer directs the car to the side of the road in front of his or her cruiser for further investigation. That means a stopped car does not stop all the cars behind it. Even to resolve a problem, it's only a few minutes, maybe five to fifteen minutes. The child-adult with the mouth was detained for less than 27 minutes and he was making life difficult for himself with his noncompliance. If he would have just demonstrated compliance with the officers commands, he would have been delayed for two minutes tops and the whole marijuana residue in the car would have never even come up.

 

Two minutes at the side of the road for a DUI Checkpoint is such a low burden, that the prohibition by the constitution regarding "unreasonable searches and seizures" never even kicks in. It's considered a "reasonable" search from a minimized cost / maximized benefit perspective.

Edited July 13, 2013 by QuietDan

[mikegideon]

Our forefathers did not envision a country where you would be stopped just trying to get from point A to point B, questioned and verified via papers to a government agent. I disagree with the practice and I think I have good reason to. Furthermore, from the mouth of my own father "DUI CPs are BS." He's worked hundreds of them I'm sure. I'll take his word for it.

 

This!

[TMF]

The kid wound up being their bitch, way before the stop was over. If this was such "important work", why wasn't it done by a real attorney? I give credit for the best line to Grumpy Cop, "come back and talk to me after you get out of attorney school".

Trust me, I'm not jumping on the Ron Paul bandwagon in support of this kid. I have limited download capability at the moment so I was not able to see the full vid. That line from the cop sounds hilarious though.... "attorney school"... priceless.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I'm not saying it would be a great idea, but the most effective DUI suppression would be to put a patrol car in the parking lot of every bar, every night, and check every exiting patron that looks impaired. That is what you would do if you actually wanted to reduce the practice.

 

However, that would hurt business so much and ruffle so many citizens' feathers, it would never fly.

[MattCary]

Here's a question: If there was a law that stated the only violations or crimes they could act on were DUI related, would they still be feasible?

 

If the answer is no, then they need to do something different.

 

250 vehicles - 32 violations - 1 DUI. = How much manpower and tax dollars for one DUI?

[mikegideon]

Here's a question: If there was a law that stated the only violations or crimes they could act on were DUI related, would they still be feasible?

 

If the answer is no, then they need to do something different.

 

250 vehicles - 32 violations - 1 DUI. = How much manpower and tax dollars for one DUI?

 

It looks like they're doing something. That's all that matters to a politician. If they were required to get results, they would all be fired.

[Guest Bonedaddy]

I'm not saying it would be a great idea, but the most effective DUI suppression would be to put a patrol car in the parking lot of every bar, every night, and check every exiting patron that looks impaired. That is what you would do if you actually wanted to reduce the practice.

 

However, that would hurt business so much and ruffle so many citizens' feathers, it would never fly.

That's what they used to do, in these parts and it didn't really stop much business, if your bar was popular. Hell, I used to park right beside'm before I went in and give'm a "Howdy". Worked way better than check points.

[TMF]

I'm not saying it would be a great idea, but the most effective DUI suppression would be to put a patrol car in the parking lot of every bar, every night, and check every exiting patron that looks impaired. That is what you would do if you actually wanted to reduce the practice.

However, that would hurt business so much and ruffle so many citizens' feathers, it would never fly.

I see them do it in Clarksville every so often. They park on the exits from downtown. I don't get down there too much these days, but I remember years back seeing them on the way home from downtown late on the weekends. Got no problem with them using that technique to poach drunks. Seems like it would yield plenty of results considering the number of people on the road who are drunk after a certain time of night.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

 

That's what they used to do, in these parts and it didn't really stop much business, if your bar was popular. Hell, I used to park right beside'm before I went in and give'm a "Howdy". Worked way better than check points.

 

Maybe for real rowdy bars, the popo is there near full time anyway, on disorderly complaints, so the customers are accustomed to blue lights. :) I played a couple of nighclubs like that.

 

Maybe it wouldn't be as effective as I imagine, but many years I played music in joints, and in my experience nothing would empty a club faster than a cop car camped-out in the parking lot.

 

People already with some sheets to the wind, if it was early enough, would quit drinking and switch to coffee, hoping either the cops would leave before closing time, or maybe there would be enough time to sober up before the barkeep closed up and threw them to the sharks. :)

 

I remember one pitiful gal, lived way out in the boonies and had to be at work early the next day. She wasn't drunk but didn't want to leave her car overnight, and her headlight went out on the way to the club, and she couldn't afford to run the gauntlet and pay a $100 fine for having a light out.

 

 

I see them do it in Clarksville every so often. They park on the exits from downtown. I don't get down there too much these days, but I remember years back seeing them on the way home from downtown late on the weekends. Got no problem with them using that technique to poach drunks. Seems like it would yield plenty of results considering the number of people on the road who are drunk after a certain time of night.

 

Yep, it would seem that between bars before closing time and waffle houses after closing time, there would be a pretty productive haul. The only ones left would be quickie marts, for the young house partiers on 2:45 am last minute beer runs, when they should have bought more beer earlier in the day if they had been planning ahead. :)

[RobertNashville]

Here's a question: If there was a law that stated the only violations or crimes they could act on were DUI related, would they still be feasible?

 

If the answer is no, then they need to do something different.

 

250 vehicles - 32 violations - 1 DUI. = How much manpower and tax dollars for one DUI?

Unless they are hiring new officers and patrol cars and other equipment every time they do a checkpoint the cost is actually zero, or stated another way, it's money already spent whether they do the checkpoint or not.  As to time, these checkpoints don't usually involve that many officers so I suspect the overall "cost" in time is pretty negligible.

[2.ooohhh]

Well from the stats it looks like Murfreesboro had 2 DUI arrests from 7/1-7/7. One at the checkpoint and one by a regular patrol officer in the course of his patrol. Seems like roadblock is a really expensive gig to get a single DUI. Also if only 2 DUIs were caught in the 'boro it doesn't seem as if the police there are looking very hard or perhaps they should change to a more efficient strategy. MNPD had 57 DUIs in the same timeframe not sure what those boys are doing but it looks sure looks pretty productive.

[Paladin132]

I am also not sure about cost, but most states you have to go through special training in order to be assigned to a roadblock. More money. 

 

Now I have seen a study that says that 20% reduction in DUI is what we see. Although that study is suspect to me because it was done by a governor's task force on DUI, I have admittedly not spent more than about thirty minutes looking up information on it. Either way, it seems like they may work, but I come down on the side that they seem awful odd for our nation to tolerate for the small gain we might have out of them.