Murfreesboro DUI Checkpoint Video Making its Way Across the Web

[JayC]

More and more I think about it, the dog handler probably has some criminal liability sitting out there...  I'd be very curious to see what his paperwork says on this search and if he mentions it was a 'weak' alert...  I'm curious to see what all the paperwork from that stop says...  

 

Just imagine the questions you could ask him under oath...  how many times have you had a weak alert and still performed a search without solid probable cause...  There is no good answer to those questions.

[DaveTN]

Here is my 2 cents worth...  Deputy Ross needs to be arrested for kidnapping under the color of law and he needs to be judged my a jury of his peers, and if found guilty needs to face the maximum penalty under the law.  He clearly violated this guys rights and did so knowingly without PC (PC is the required level for a DUI checkpoint).  He used the threat of force while armed to forcibly detain this citizen under the color of law which meets all the requirements for kidnapping under both TN and Federal law.

He had RAS to get the guy out of the car on suspicion of DUI. Depending on his actions at that time he may/may not have had PC have him submit to a field sobriety test and arrest him if he refused.

A seasoned Officer should have been ready to deal with a situation like this without turning into an azz.
 

We all should be calling and emailing the Rutherford County Sheriff to at the very least encourage him to fire this deputy who can't seem to handle situations where no crime has been committed. It's clear that Deputy Ross and the dog handler knew they were doing something wrong, because they stopped talking once they noticed the camera, and turned it so it could no longer view them... That to me is a clear sign of their guilt. If an officer can't handle a rude citizen without violating both the law, civil rights and department policy he should no longer be wearing a uniform.

The citizen needs to file a formal complaint with the Sherriff’s Office. Then they will have to advise him of the outcome and he can decide what action (if any) he wants to take.
 

Also, my guess is that dog handlers days are done... any future case where he is the K9 officer, the defense is going to play that video over and over again and impeach his credibility.

Other than the first cop being rude and condescending for no good reason; I find this most disturbing. If that was the K9 handler saying what I think he said; his credibility is shot.

[mikegideon]

A fraction of 1% per driver stopped and harassed.  It's about the worse use of manpower/tax dollars to stop drunk drivers that any idiot could come up with.

 

It looks good to the sheeple public, and all the officers involved get overtime paid for by the federal government...  which is the only reason we have these types of checkpoints.

 

Still a lot more effective than the TSA nut grab. I agree, pathetic. It's just not the worst. You can't top the federal government when it comes to incompetence.

[JayC]

Deputy Ross has been with the RCSO for well over 10 years, how much more seasoned does a deputy need to be and not act like we saw in the video?  He clearly didn't have RAS or PC that a crime had been committed.  Case law clearly says not rolling down a window is not RAS of a crime.  BTW he also violated RCSO DUI Checkpoint SOPs, which tell the deputies even if a driver refuses to roll down the window and answer any questions they can't use that as RAS to detain or search the vehicle.  Unless that SOP has had some major re-writes in the last 5 years.

 

I'm not sure he (or the rest of us) should stop with a formal complaint to the Sheriff, I'd say that the TBI needs to be investigating this case not the Sheriff, while the detainment is iffy at best, the actions of the 'dog handler' and the search sure look criminal to me, and it looks like they knew they were out of bounds because of how they reacted to the camera.  That shows me clear guilt on the part of both deputies.

 

And I agree the more I think about it the K9 deputy likely has a lot more liability from this tape...  My understanding is that K9 'searches' have paperwork that is filled out under the penalty of perjury?  I'd be willing to bet that paperwork could very well be a smoking gun of perjury.  

 

At the very least I believe this video would now be required Brady disclosure anytime the K9 officer ever testified in the future...  Wouldn't you agree?  And my understanding is that a Brady disclosure is a near death sentence for an officers career?

 

He had RAS to get the guy out of the car on suspicion of DUI. Depending on his actions at that time he may/may not have had PC have him submit to a field sobriety test and arrest him if he refused.

A seasoned Officer should have been ready to deal with a situation like this without turning into an azz.
 
The citizen needs to file a formal complaint with the Sherriff’s Office. Then they will have to advise him of the outcome and he can decide what action (if any) he wants to take.
 
Other than the first cop being rude and condescending for no good reason; I find this most disturbing. If that was the K9 handler saying what I think he said; his credibility is shot.

Edited July 7, 2013 by JayC

[JayC]

First rule in government, the farther you get away from the people who are represented, the more incompetent and wasteful government gets.  And you're right, the TSA 'security' theater is a whole another level of waste and incompetence...  but we shouldn't neglect the waste and incompetence at the local level just because the Feds and perfected it at the national level.

 

Still a lot more effective than the TSA nut grab. I agree, pathetic. It's just not the worst. You can't top the federal government when it comes to incompetence.

Edited July 7, 2013 by JayC

[DaveTN]

Deputy Ross has been with the RCSO for well over 10 years, how much more seasoned does a deputy need to be and not act like we saw in the video?  He clearly didn't have RAS or PC that a crime had been committed.  Case law clearly says not rolling down a window is not RAS of a crime.  BTW he also violated RCSO DUI Checkpoint SOPs, which tell the deputies even if a driver refuses to roll down the window and answer any questions they can't use that as RAS to detain or search the vehicle.  Unless that SOP has had some major re-writes in the last 5 years.

I believe that he clearly had cause to investigate him for DUI, but I haven’t kept up on court decisions. A DUI checkpoint has (or had) been upheld as a lawful stop. If you are lawfully stopped driving you are required to show a driver’s license. However, PC is argued in a courtroom in front of a Judge; not on the street. If you can show me proof that a person can roll up their windows at a DUI checkpoint and refuse to talk; then you would be correct.
 

I'm not sure he (or the rest of us) should stop with a formal complaint to the Sheriff, I'd say that the TBI needs to be investigating this case not the Sheriff, while the detainment is iffy at best, the actions of the 'dog handler' and the search sure look criminal to me, and it looks like they knew they were out of bounds because of how they reacted to the camera. That shows me clear guilt on the part of both deputies.

I’m not saying he should stop anything. I’m saying a bunch of noise on YouTube and a Gun Forum is not a formal complaint; and will not be treated as one by the Sherriff. You are being blinded by your hatred of the government; use the system that is in place and then use whatever evidence and statements it turns up. Contrary to what you believe all the cops involved in an internal investigation are not bad; most will do their job.
 

And I agree the more I think about it the K9 deputy likely has a lot more liability from this tape... My understanding is that K9 'searches' have paperwork that is filled out under the penalty of perjury? I'd be willing to bet that paperwork could very well be a smoking gun of perjury.

At the very least I believe this video would now be required Brady disclosure anytime the K9 officer ever testified in the future... Wouldn't you agree? And my understanding is that a Brady disclosure is a near death sentence for an officers career?

Whether or not he filed a false Police report will depend on how he described “It wasn’t a very good alert.”

If it was the handler I saw, and he said what I think he said, then yes, I think you are witnessing the end of his K9 career and possibly Police career. Unless of course he said in his report “It wasn’t a very good alert.”

The Brady requirements for the prosecution would depend on the outcome of this. Duty to disclose? If you were arrested on PC from this handler and your attorney is not aware of this incident; you are probably toast anyway.

[Paladin132]

DaveTN, what RS did he have that the driver was DUI?

[DaveTN]

DaveTN, what RS did he have that the driver was DUI?

Refusing to roll down the window, provide his DL or answer any questions. If he was arrested the PC would be challenged in court; not on the street. If he felt his rights were being violated by complying with the orders he was being given; he can settle that with a civil case.

 

But as I stated above I have not kept up on these cases. If someone can show me that you are not required to roll down your windows or show a DL and proof of insurance while remaining mute; then the Officer was wrong unless he saw something that caused him to believe the guy was DUI.

 

Aren’t you a Police Officer? Does your department have a policy on what to do in this situation?

[Hozzie]

Refusing to roll down the window, provide his DL or answer any questions. If he was arrested the PC would be challenged in court; not on the street. If he felt his rights were being violated by complying with the orders he was being given; he can settle that with a civil case.

 

But as I stated above I have not kept up on these cases. If someone can show me that you are not required to roll down your windows or show a DL and proof of insurance while remaining mute; then the Officer was wrong unless he saw something that caused him to believe the guy was DUI.

 

Aren’t you a Police Officer? Does your department have a policy on what to do in this situation?

 

He answered every question he was asked.  They didn't ask him for his ID or any other questions such as "have you been drinking?"  I am not a lawyer, but without asking any questions I don't know how you turn that into reasonable suspicion.  I think they have a long way to go to show that this was proper procedure in any sense of the word.  If they would have asked for ID, then ok, but that wasn't the case.  I am not saying the kid was completely right, but there was a much better way for the cop to handle it.

Edited July 7, 2013 by Hozzie

[Paladin132]

The DL was pretty far along into the video, but the window thing I am not sure about. I ask because I was thinking of during winter (which this was not, granted). I don't know, seems to be poorly executed in any event. Honestly, it concerns me because I live not far from there... I do everything I can to be within the law but lets face it a LEO can get PC to arrest anyone within a mile of their home if they decide they want to. 

[DaveTN]

He answered every question he was asked.  They didn't ask him for his ID or any other questions such as "have you been drinking?"  I am not a lawyer, but without asking any questions I don't know how you turn that into reasonable suspicion.  I think they have a long way to go to show that this was proper procedure in any sense of the word.  If they would have asked for ID, then ok, but that wasn't the case.  I am not saying the kid was completely right, but there was a much better way for the cop to handle it.

We can’t have a discussion about reasonable articulable suspicion on DUI without knowing what the Officer has to say. We don’t know what he saw when he was looking at the guy or in his car.

 

I have clearly stated that from what I saw neither of these Officers acted professionally. That’s a lot different than whether or not they can investigate you for DUI. If I thought he may be DUI, I would have handled it much differently. Of course I’m arm chair quarterbacking and had plenty of time to think about it.

 

I don’t think we have heard the end of this.

[runco]

Just noticed channel 10 in Knoxville posted a story about this video at 3:10am this morning.  This thing is gaining traction in the media. 

 

http://www.wbir.com/news/article/279539/2/Video-of-TN-DUI-checkpoint-goes-viral-on-Youtube

 

 

Update, channel 6 in Knoxville has the story too:

 

http://www.wate.com/story/22770235/dui-checkpoint-video-youtube

Edited July 7, 2013 by Runco

[RichardR]

Yup it is all over social network sites, comments on those sites seem to be a mixture of "the kid should done what ever police told him" & "his rights were violated".

Personally I've always believed that iffin I was to ever error, at least I'd be erroring on the side of liberty, I hope to continue that trend, I just wish more folks would join me in that.

[ted]

Different type cops handle it diferent ways http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX26HelP7yc

[Guest Bonedaddy]

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.

So you run that road, too. I'm a Crockett county lurch, my self. Yep. Most of'm 'round here are professional in their jobs but I have, more than I care to, run into some really powertrippin' tarnished badge idiots in Lauderdale and Dyer counties, that I'm really surprised that haven't had a shotgun driveby done on'm. That alone has tempted me to carry a camera with me when drivin', as well as, relay my position and reason for stop to "friends" with ablilities. It's rare but it happened often enough to be concerned. It does help "knowing" someone to get the free pass. Nifty but not really right. SIL is son of CCSD chief. Haven't had to pull that card but its there if I run into another ignorant rookie. I really hope I don't have to do that 'cause I'm not one to take bein' talked to like a step child lightly.

[mikegideon]

So you run that road, too. I'm a Crockett county lurch, my self. Yep. Most of'm 'round here are professional in their jobs but I have, more than I care to, run into some really powertrippin' tarnished badge idiots in Lauderdale and Dyer counties, that I'm really surprised that haven't had a shotgun driveby done on'm. That alone has tempted me to carry a camera with me when drivin', as well as, relay my position and reason for stop to "friends" with ablilities. It's rare but it happened often enough to be concerned. It does help "knowing" someone to get the free pass. Nifty but not really right. SIL is son of CCSD chief. Haven't had to pull that card but its there if I run into another ignorant rookie. I really hope I don't have to do that 'cause I'm not one to take bein' talked to like a step child lightly.

 

Welcome back, Danny. It's been awhile!

[npgunner]

Threads like this oft remind me that this is a gun forum and NOT a pro-small government forum of Constitution loving people. Some of you steadfastly desire to protect your 2nd amendment rights, yet are willing to turn a blind eye to offenses to other parts of the Constitution such as this. We can debate whether DUI checkpoints and listening to my cell phone conversations are legal under today's skewed interpretation of the Constitution where freedom and liberty take a back seat to "safety," but there is no question in my mind that this type of search (mind you, where the officers ADMIT he is innocent and they fabricated their 'weak alert') is why the founding fathers wrote the 4th amendment.

Worse, some of you even offer support to criminal LEOs such as this. Shame on you! This officer deserves a flogging in the public square and to be thrown in jail for as long as can be. How many of you would prefer this young man be out vandalizing property, doing drugs, or driving intoxicated? You would certainly be quick to write that off as another "failure of today's youth." But when he dare question the government many of you helped vote into being (and now complain about), he's "out looking for trouble." Non-violent civil disobedience against an intrusive and tyrannical government should never be washed away as "some kid out looking for trouble." Rather supported for doing its part in maintaining the true meaning of the Constitution.

Anyway ... rant off.

In summary; threads like these only prove to me that if given the chance, many of you would continue to vote the John McCain's and Lindsey Graham's of the world into office.

[mikegideon]

I'm hurt :(

[bubbiesdad]

Threads like this oft remind me that this is a gun forum and NOT a pro-small government forum of Constitution loving people. Some of you steadfastly desire to protect your 2nd amendment rights, yet are willing to turn a blind eye to offenses to other parts of the Constitution such as this. We can debate whether DUI checkpoints and listening to my cell phone conversations are legal under today's skewed interpretation of the Constitution where freedom and liberty take a back seat to "safety," but there is no question in my mind that this type of search (mind you, where the officers ADMIT he is innocent and they fabricated their 'weak alert') is why the founding fathers wrote the 4th amendment.

Worse, some of you even offer support to criminal LEOs such as this. Shame on you! This officer deserves a flogging in the public square and to be thrown in jail for as long as can be. How many of you would prefer this young man be out vandalizing property, doing drugs, or driving intoxicated? You would certainly be quick to write that off as another "failure of today's youth." But when he dare question the government many of you helped vote into being (and now complain about), he's "out looking for trouble." Non-violent civil disobedience against an intrusive and tyrannical government should never be washed away as "some kid out looking for trouble." Rather supported for doing its part in maintaining the true meaning of the Constitution.

Anyway ... rant off.

In summary; threads like these only prove to me that if given the chance, many of you would continue to vote the John McCain's and Lindsey Graham's of the world into office.

Anyone wishing to question checkpoints can go to a city council, or in this case, a county commission meeting. By the roadside, late at night is not the place.

[mikegideon]

Anyone wishing to question checkpoints can go to a city council, or in this case, a county commission meeting. By the roadside, late at night is not the place.

 

Shhh. I like seeing these videos of people getting their ass kicked 'cause they don't know any better :)

[TMF]

Also, I wonder what the odds are about a defense attorney being able to use this video as evidence to impinge upon the reliability of a RCSO K9 alert signal when trying suppress evidence that followed on from such an alert? The false positive alert is pretty damn flagrant in this video.

The dog jumping up to the window was not the positive response. The handler detailed the window to bring the dog's nose to it in order to detect anything coming out. Think of windows like open doors and the vacuum effect of air going out. All that air flowing out carries scent. You want to get the dog's nose as close to source as possible, which is why the handler bright his nose to the window. You don't see the response from the dog on the video. Most dogs simply sit when they have alerted to the presence of odor. You can't see that here.

On another note, a definitive response from the dog is not always what a handler needs in order to determine the presence of odor. When the dog detects odor there will be a clear change in behavior from the K9, and likely the only one to pick up on it would be the handler.

However, in this case it probably is BS. They wanted to teach this guy a lesson and the kid wanted to teach them one. The cops should have known better. The youngin should get a girlfriend to keep him occupied so his weekend nights are less lonely.

[vontar]

 

On another note, a definitive response from the dog is not always what a handler needs in order to determine the presence of odor. When the dog detects odor there will be a clear change in behavior from the K9, and likely the only one to pick up on it would be the handler.

However, even the handler said it wasn't a good hit.  But they used it.

 

There should be a record of false hits where a dog/handler indicated and nothing was found. 

On video he all but admitted it was a bad hit, so that goes toward the reliability of that dog/handler.

 

A defense lawyer that knows about this on another case where that dog was used might try to use that to get evidence thrown out.

[mikegideon]

It's really this simple. :)  Language warning...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8

[TMF]

There should be a record of false hits where a dog/handler indicated and nothing was found.
On video he all but admitted it was a bad hit, so that goes toward the reliability of that dog/handler.

If that was something relevant to court cases then we might as well not have detection dogs for our law enforcement. At some point, all dogs will false sit. They all will do it. There are a variety of reasons why, but even great and experienced k9 teams will give a false positive. A good handler generally knows when his dog has given a BS hit, just like a good distance shooter knows when he pulled a shot. Generally the two things I've seen detection dogs false sit for is being overworked without a find in a long time or the existence of unknown stimuli. An example might be a tennis ball (if that is the dogs reward) or even plastic baggies if they happen to be the same brand as the dog's training aids are stored in. Sounds crazy, but it happens.

Sometimes the dog has a crappy handler, and the cues given by unintentional body language and improper detailing will lead to a systemic issue with the dog giving false positives. This is why, in training, you have someone else watching you and your dog work, and if this is a big problem it would need to be rectified.

[analog_kidd]

Do I think the kid went out looking to prove a point? I sure do, but the officer took the bait hook line and sinker. A civil rights violation by person of authority is never acceptable. Someone has to keep the officers honest, just like the officers are trying to keep citizens honest. The kid was being a pest, but he did nothing illegal, however the officer did.

 

What really bothers be though, is the clear violation of someone's rights with the manipulation of the dog. I'm tired of hearing stories where the cops are able to detain you until a dog sniff is done, you have to wait 45 minutes for the dog to arrive in certain circumstances and then they give a false positive. Someone posted here earlier about a SCOTUS ruling where a search by a "RELIABLE" dog is acceptable at a traffic stop. There ought to be a rule that a dog that makes a certain percentage of false positives is put out to pasture. That would keep the handlers honest.