Murfreesboro DUI Checkpoint Video Making its Way Across the Web

[TripleDigitRide]

He does have a few other rather interesting videos. He's trying to put a stop to panhandlers in Murfreesboro. He does have a couple firearms related videos.

[wewoapsiak]

I am pretty sure he is not a Veteran back from the mountains of Afghanistan where he's laid it all out on the line. If he ever made that sacrifice or one of similar scope, I would cut him total slack. But, he hasn't. It just is not possible. Vets are used to putting up with real bull#### while actively fighting for everyone else's rights. And, for the most part, they just shrug the little stuff off, because this is little stuff. There are a hell of a lot of other issues to die in a ditch over.

Does one have to be a Vet in order to be concerned with their rights?  Do I have more rights than my family because I spent 8 years in the military and they haven't?  That's just silly.  Putting a uniform doesn't make you special, it doesn't grant you anything more than any other citizen deserves.  Ok, suppose he is a privileged 21 year old driving his fathers nice cars.  Does that mean he shouldn't have rights as an American?

 

You're from that area, do you have a dog in this fight?

[QuietDan]

He hasn't hardly had his "Rights" trampled on. He's sat at the side of the road for an additional 15 minutes for showing his ass off.

 

He's a whiny little baby going "don't touch me!," "don't touch me!"

 

It's the cry of "my rights! my rights!" of a spoiled little child who has done NOTHING to deserve rights. He's a punk and a child.

 

Yeah! He has RIGHTS all right. And they've been violated.

 

And I hold him in complete and utter contempt for whining about it.

 

His threshold of pain is altogether too delicate. I doubt seriously that an individual such as this would expend one ounce of effort or regard to defend anyone else's rights at this threshold or any other threshold.

 

He's a silly little boy. Period.

 

Again, I'd give him $1 for the Rights he's lost in this case, a tightly rolled dollar bill I would encourage him to jam up his ass.

Edited July 6, 2013 by QuietDan

[scoutfsu]

I little bit of common respect would have worked wonders for both of these people.

 

If that were my kid, we'd be having a long talk about things.

[partypilot1]

Road blocks are BS, they need to put a end to it

[tennessee01tacoma]

This quote comes to mind, "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." - Thomas Jefferson

Now with that being said it might "hurt" a little if you choose to stand up for your your rights, I think the officers went a little too far even mocking him at one point "he knows his constitutional rights" the officer needs to remember his oath to uphold the constitution. I've never seen any major finds come from one of these checkpoints. If the judicial system would put away dui offenders instead of letting them off repeatedly, then the innocent public wouldn't be punished for the actions of the law breakers.

[wipfel]

 
It's the cry of "my rights! my rights!" of a spoiled little child who has done NOTHING to deserve rights.

You don't have to "deserve rights".

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Edited July 7, 2013 by Daniel

[Sam1]

What lawsuit? How was the little twerp damaged? You can't just sue somebody for pissing you off, especially not cops. It's their job :)

 

The dog scratching up his car for one, a neighbor of ours had a similar situation happen in his new Mercedes.  He didn't have anything obviously, and refused a search for a speeding ticket, they brought the dog, did over $1000 in paint damage to his car and it took him almost a year of suing the county to make them pay for it. 

[Sam1]

Cliff Notes on Thread:

• Kid went looking for trouble and found it.
• Some people agree with preceding observation.
• Some people disagree and invoke Ghandi, Rosa Parks, etc.
• Cops like Krystals just like anyone else.
• I'm now hungry for Krystals.

 

Did I miss anything?

 

Yes, he was trying to gain fame by joining the Youtube Freedom Fighters Organization.

[daddyo]

The role of a police officer does not entail dishing out punishment, which is apparently what this officer was trying to do in the form of an illegal search. He simply got mad because someone chose not to comply with what he perceived to be an unconstitutional (and therefore illegal) detainment.

 

Whether or not the kid was acting like a jerk (even though I'm puzzled as to how asking a series of questions about whether or not what is being asked is required is "being a jerk") is no justification for the officer acting like a billy badass.

 

Dishing out punishment is the court's job.

[Guest Emtdaddy1980]

[quote name="QuietDan" post="994518" timestamp="1373094985"]

It's the cry of "my rights! my rights!" of a spoiled little child who has done NOTHING to deserve rights.[/quote]

You don't have to "deserve rights".

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

+1
You beat me to it. Edited July 7, 2013 by Daniel

[TripleDigitRide]

He better be thankful he wasn't in Texas. They seem to enjoy roadside body cavity searches.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/07/04/two-texas-women-sue-troopers-over-unconstitutional-roadside-body-cavity-search/

[QuietDan]

[quote name="QuietDan" post="994518" timestamp="1373094985"]
 
It's the cry of "my rights! my rights!" of a spoiled little child who has done NOTHING to deserve rights.[quote]

You don't have to "deserve rights".

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

 

And you've cherry-picked out the line you don't like. I remind you that I also acknowledged his rights and offered to pay him $1, subject to a single condition, for the violation of his rights in this instance.

[TripleDigitRide]

In both of the local news articles, 2 very well-respected attorneys said that his rights were not violated.

[QuietDan]

In both of the local news articles, 2 very well-respected attorneys said that his rights were not violated.

 

. . . and for the small sum of $150,000 they'll prove it in court.

[scoutfsu]

Dan, you missed a key word in that sentence.

[scoutfsu]

In both of the local news articles, 2 very well-respected attorneys said that his rights were not violated.

 

But......but every founding father quoting constitutional scholar on the internet says they were.....you're like, blowing my mind man...

 

 

eta: wording

Edited July 6, 2013 by scoutfsu

[daddyo]

In both of the local news articles, 2 very well-respected attorneys said that his rights were not violated.

 

Some qualifiers might help. Did they offer any?

[TripleDigitRide]

In both of the local news articles, 2 very well-respected attorneys said that his rights were not violated.

Some qualifiers might help. Did they offer any?

Basically, you're not afforded the same level of "rights" in your vehicle as you would be in your home. It goes back to the whole private property vs public property thing. All based on previous SCOTUS decisions.

Not that you don't have any rights while on public property, but not the same level you would have if you were at home. Edited July 6, 2013 by TripleDigitRide

[scoutfsu]

Some qualifiers might help. Did they offer any?

Google hit this:  http://www.nbcnews.com/id/52405696/ns/local_news-nashville_tn/#.Udge32391OY

 

 

The videotaped stop has thousands of people posting their opinions online, so Channel 4 News invited legal expert David Raybin to view the video and comment.

Raybin said it's a textbook case of what not to do if you're stopped.

"This guy is immediately becoming confrontational and non-compliant with the officer, for no reason. So the officer is allowed to escalate this a little further," Raybin said.

Raybin said the officer is within his rights to ask the driver to roll down the window, because that is how he can tell if the driver is intoxicated.

Raybin said you don't have the same rights when you're in a vehicle, and the courts do allow a brief detention. He added the officer is justified in asking the driver to get out of the vehicle because he's been non-compliant.

Channel 4 asked Raybin what he would do if he were defending that driver in court.

"You could make an argument that maybe this officer was overreacting to the way this person was responding to him, but it would be a really close call. I think the tie in this case would go to the officer." Raybin said.

[scoutfsu]

found this one too:  http://www.wate.com/story/22770235/dui-checkpoint-video-youtube

 

Prominent Nashville criminal defense attorney Rob McKinney viewed the video. He told Nashville's News 2 the driver knew his rights well.

"I think it was a smart young man who wanted to prove a point that he knew his constitutional rights and he wanted to show how things are on the streets," McKinney said.

When asked if the Constitutional rights of the driver were violated, McKinney said, "Not from what I saw there."

McKinney said the driver's Constitutional rights in the video were not violated since officers have a right to ask drivers for their identification. Plus, being detained is also within the officer's legal rights if it's for an investigative purposes.

As for the K9 unit, the officer can only enter the vehicle if the K9 officer detects an alert like drugs. However, McKinney said it's tough to tell in the video if the dog actually detected something or if the handler manipulated to dog to do so. Regardless, McKinney feels the video gives a motorists an idea what their rights are.

[DaveTN]

The Officers appears to be old enough to have too much experience to respond like that. His actions were not professional and the guy has recourse on that.

 

The Officer should have told the man “yes, you are being detained for suspicion of DUI, turn your vehicle off and step out. “

 

At that point there would have been no reason for argumentative dialog about answering questions or showing ID; test him and arrest him or let him go.

 

Maybe I’m mistaken, but was that not the K9 handler that said “It wasn’t a very good alert”? If so, he just brought question to his credibility in all past and future cases.

There was no need for them to let that dog scratch the guy’s car up. I suspect as a citizen I will be paying for a new paint job. If he was DUI or arrested for DUI, they would have been in that car; they should have waited.

 

Rookie mistakes.

 

 

 

[wipfel]

And you've cherry-picked out the line you don't like. I remind you that I also acknowledged his rights and offered to pay him $1, subject to a single condition, for the violation of his rights in this instance.

 

Trust me, I didn't cherry pick.  I don't like a single line of that post, but I don't like getting into internet arguments that are subjective.  The idea that we might not deserve rights or have to earn them is a dangerous enough idea to cause me to respond.  The rest concerns me as well, and I hope you're not a LEO.

[DaveTN]

http://www.dnj.com/article/20130706/NEWS/307060032/

 

The “crash the checkpoint party” incident was planned, David said.

David said Kalbaugh contacted him Thursday night to tell him that he planned to “exercise his rights” at the checkpoint and record the results by video camera. David said he encouraged him to go ahead.

 

 

So much for any civil case.

[Worriedman]

The Officers appears to be old enough to have too much experience to respond like that. His actions were not professional and the guy has recourse on that.

 

The Officer should have told the man “yes, you are being detained for suspicion of DUI, turn your vehicle off and step out. “

 

At that point there would have been no reason for argumentative dialog about answering questions or showing ID; test him and arrest him or let him go.

 

Maybe I’m mistaken, but was that not the K9 handler that said “It wasn’t a very good alert”? If so, he just brought question to his credibility in all past and future cases.

There was no need for them to let that dog scratch the guy’s car up. I suspect as a citizen I will be paying for a new paint job. If he was DUI or arrested for DUI, they would have been in that car; they should have waited.

 

Rookie mistakes.

When you are right Dave, you are right!

 

As I understand it, driving in TN requires a license, proof of insurance and the proper registration (I can see a difference in being stopped walking on a sidewalk and piloting a vehicle).  At such a stop, if an individual wants it to be as painless and as brief as possible, providing the documents to prove legal adherence and showing some respect for the guys out there making targets of themselves would go a long way toward making that happen.

Yeah, there are some bad actors in uniform, and a lot more in plain clothes, it is the nature of things.

Kid was a smart-aleck, his tone was condescending and derisive. The officer displayed a lack of patience and probably needs some further training on how to deal with political know-it-alls.  

 

I have had enough troubles with drunk drivers that a little time spent getting them off the road pre-wreck is not too troublesome to me.  Been through a few stops out on 412 in Madison County, officers were professional and as far as I am concerned, providing a needed service.

 

But that is just me.

Edited July 6, 2013 by Worriedman