A driver in Florida believes he successfully got through a DUI checkpoint because he had a sign on his window for the police to see. The right-wing site, Mad World News, got ahold of the video, and seems to side with the driver, who is police-recording activist Jeff Gray. Mad World News agrees that he’s learned how to stop the police from “illegally” searching your car and possessions.
Gray’s sign said:
I remain silent
No searches
I want my lawyer
The note was inside a plastic baggie that Gray hung from his closed window. In the video, he says that the second you open your window at a DUI checkpoint, officers can say anything they want to send you over to the side for a sobriety test and a search of your car. He also says, “The moment you speak a word, they can claim that your speech is slurred.”
There’s one question that nobody seems to want to answer: Why is Gray telling people how to drive drunk and not get caught? This may or may not work if you’re drunk; depending on what the officers see in your behavior behind your closed window, they may order you off to the side anyway, and you’d have no recourse. Plus, if you’re drunk, you’re breaking the law.
Furthermore, DUI checkpoints can be considered administrative searches, which puts them on the same level as entering a government building or courthouse. Everybody gets stopped and put through the same basic security measures. If the officers (in the case of federal buildings, U.S. Marshals) see something, you get additional screening. DUI checkpoints are mobile, but pretty much the same thing. It would be interesting to see if Gray has a problem with having to go through security in a courthouse or government building.
The officers at the DUI checkpoint did stop Gray and take a look at his license, registration and insurance info in the baggie. That behavior constitutes the bulk of stops at a DUI checkpoint, and Gray’s behavior seems more paranoid than it does an act of civil disobedience.
At the end of the video, Gray says that this kind of a note is the best way to handle the police at a checkpoint, because people like to argue about their rights, which escalates the situation instead of defusing it. That’s about the only solid point he makes through the whole video.
One thing that Mad World News neglected to mention is that the note itself, which comes from Florida Fair DUI, is supposed to contain all of the following information:
Notice that last one: “I will comply with clearly stated lawful orders.” In other words, this isn’t supposed to help you breeze through a DUI checkpoint without getting stopped, as Mad World News implies. It’s supposed to let officers know what you will and will not let them do, but that you will comply with their clearly stated, lawful orders.
What’s legal, though? The New York Times published excerpts from the Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling upholding DUI checkpoints as constitutional way back in 1990. While getting stopped at a checkpoint constitutes a seizure under the 4th Amendment, they concluded that such a seizure is reasonable:
In sum, the balance of the state’s interest in preventing drunken driving, the extent to which this system can reasonably be said to advance that interest, and the degree of intrusion upon individual motorists who are briefly stopped, weighs in favor of [DUI checkpoints].
As to why the officers let this guy go through the DUI checkpoint, it’s not likely that they did it because they knew they were in the wrong and afraid of getting caught. Rather, it’s far more likely that they couldn’t see overt signs of drunkenness, and didn’t want to deal with someone who was likely to be combative if they did wave him aside for further checking.
So, did it work? Perhaps, but most likely not for the reasons this guy, and Mad World News, think it did. And they just told thousands of drunks that they have a new way to continue endangering people on the road.
Watch the whole video here:
Featured image via screengrab
Good legal advice. And yes, it will work because all the driver is doing is intelligently asserting his rights under state statutes and the US Constitution. A person capable of calmly and firming asserting his rights cannot (+/- 1%) be over .08 so the alleged reason for the stop is false. So, Officer, smile, say “Good Evening, Sir” and let him continue on his way, IAAL.
I agree.
Did you read the part in the story where the Supreme Court ruled DUI stops are constitutional?
they also ruled in the past segregation was legal and woman cant vote and slavery was legal…
DUI stops do little to catch drunk drivers, (a proven fact, like the rest of my post)
Do you think that people have the right to drink and drive? I’ve been through checkpoints and the officer has always said “Good Evening, Sir” or in my case Ma’am. That’s because I don’t drive drunk. Drinking impairs your ability to drive; I don’t care how much you try to convince yourself otherwise, and yes, I want the police officer to arrest you if you are doing it.
It’s a good way to insulate yourself at a checkpoint. As soon as a verbal interaction starts between a civilian and law enforcement, pretty much anything can happen, and a lot of that can have everything to do with the cop you are interacting with. I’ve been told by police that I smelled like alcohol and was acting intoxicated when I hadn’t been drinking. I’ve been told that I was acting suspiciously while simply walking down the street to catch a bus. They make shit up to force an escalation based on a suspicion generated from casual observation. I’m the sort of person who looks like I’ve probably got drugs or paraphernalia on me because of my hair and my leather jacket, but when they run my ID, all they see is 2 DUIs and an Intoxicated Pedestrian on my criminal record. To be able to search me for the weed they think I’ve got on me, they need to have a pretense, and so they make up stories about how they perceive me so they can make remote cause into barely probable cause. I’ve met a LOT of real nice, easy going cops, and I’ve met a FEW that are the “Wake up with an attitude and get more pissed off from there” archetype, and the interactions that I’ve had with the latter make me scared of all of them.
You seem to be congratulating yourself on your ‘slight criminal record’. “all they see is 2 DUIs and an Intoxicated Pedestrian on my criminal record”. (slow clap, eyes rolling)
The hallmark of most people’s late teens and early 20’s is having acute episodes of monumental stupidity. I was guilty of that. Also, I am indeed congratulating myself… on getting through my stupid years without becoming a felon.
3 alcohol-related arrests = felon in my book. Hope you sobered up.
I did indeed. I’m 40 lol, I grew out of the berzerker party guy phase a long time ago.
Congratulations…I too had my party days and mistakes and have sobered up. Cheers to moving past our crazy days….and surviving it all!
But NOT ACTUALLY a Felon. This is why we don’t arrest people over hurt feelings.
Yes I realize it’s NOT ACTUALLY a felony…it’s was a bit of sarcasm. Get over yourself a.crapt.
People make mistakes.
Here’s a thought: Don’t drive drunk. If you’re intoxicated, have the drinking establish call you a taxi.
Take the taxi home, and give the driver a nice tip.
This is not about drunks avoiding arrest, this is about avoiding harassment from authoritarian cops. This checkpoint is not “random” as required by the Supreme Court.
//// Said the Constitutional scholar and lawyer ////// (psssst……by ‘not being random’, does that mean you think the DUI checkpoint in the video is there 24/7/365?)
Random cars, DC. They are NOT supposed to check every auto. The facts are out there if you choose to check them yourself. They are only supposed to check every fourth or fifth car, not every car nor cars that have bumper stickers they disagree with.
Jurisdictions that respect the rule of law and a right to privacy put constraints on the powers of police investigators, and typically require search warrants, or an equivalent procedure(such as gaining the owners permission), for searches conducted as part of a criminal investigation, and DUI checkpoints are not “criminal investigations” if they are “random”.
Under the Fourth Amendment, searches must be reasonable and specific, based on probable cause . This means that a search warrant must be specific as to the specified object to be searched for and the place to be searched. Other items, rooms, outbuildings, persons, vehicles, etc. may require additional search warrants.
“The facts are out there if you choose to check them yourself.”
How about you provide them? Cite your source that says that they can’t check every car that arrives at a checkpoint. Because it doesn’t say that in Michigan v. Sitz.
It doesn’t matter if the SC says it’s “ok” or not. (Seriously? You think “money=speech”?) That’s like saying that the Eric Garner or John Crawford killings were “justified” because that’s what the “authorities” said. I can’t believe I’m seeing this kind of nonsense on a supposedly “Liberal” site.
The people who are defending these checkpoints, and these cops, really need to Google the psychological term “Right Wing Authoritarianism”, and see just how much it applies to your weltanschauung in regards to this story.
Sincerely,
A Lawyer
If you take a taxi, there is no need to overtip the driver. If you are going somewhere where you think you will be drinking, don’t take your car to the place. That removes the temptation to drive home and the possibility that if you do go home by taxi, the car you left behind will be ticketed or towed away.
The problem with come to an end when the self-driving cars are perfected.
If you take a taxi, there is no need to overtip the driver.
If you are going to a bar, party, or wedding and think you will be drinking and don’t have a non-drinking designated driver to take you home, don’t take your car. That will eliminate the temptation to drive home and also mean that if you go home by taxi or get a ride, you don’t have to leave a car behind that could be ticketed or towed away.
This whole issue will become moot in a few years when fully self-driving cars will replace manually driven cars.
If you have to go to all this trouble and worry this much about the police, the finger is starting to point back at you.
Said every Jew in Germany in the early 1930’s…
NOW it makes sense.
i’ve been through many checkpoints and have never been pulled over. Why? Because I don’t drink and drive.
This has to be the stupidest article I’ve ever read. Lets all get loaded and drive and kill a bunch of innocent people.
I don’t drink… but, I’m willing to look up California laws to make one of these for my car. Also, I feel this technique might be good for deaf drivers.
The constitution and Bill of Rights was created to PROTECT citizens from Government, not to allow government do whatever the %^&* they want in claiming to PROTECT you!
The courts are disgusting and are no longer a check and balance. They are now an extension of the government. The last protection for the citizen is now gone.
Imminent domain, civil seizure, sex offender laws, deadly force in stopped car of car chase, raids base don nothing but an informants word without even a knock on the door, they can also pull you over n an anonymous tip, you have to ASSERT your right to remain silent which they can then use against you WTF, take your DNA without an arrest, interrogate students at school with no warrant, lawyer, or parental notification, indefinite detention of American citizens, civil commitment after your plea deal/sentence has expired!
I could go on and on, but this should scare the %^&* out of everyone, no matter how legal or righteous you are.
I forgot the newest ruling that law enforcement can be ignorant of the law in stopping you or the 2012 one using excessive force.
Hardly. This isn’t a how to course on drunk driving. Its a crash course in your rights. You have the RIGHT to remain silent. Speaking only opens doors for harassment. You have the RIGHT to have your lawyer present. Cooperating with police without ones lawyer is a great way to continue being harassed.
Reminding people of their rights - especially at a time when police are making a public spectacle of their lawlessness - is never a bad thing.
Whoever wrote this article should consider removing every police officer’s phallus from their mouth.
So ya’ll think somebody is going to plan to get stinking drunk and make up the sign before they go out? And then after they get drunk remember where they put it. Or even better try to write one on whatever they can find. “How do you spell required ospliffer?” I am not trying to make light of the dangers of drunk driving. I am two years sober and thank God for the times I made it home. But checkpoints get more tickets written for insurance, registration and expired license issues than actual DUIs.( A nice little revenue stream for the local municipalities.) Let’s face it the cops have to put these stops in long, wide, straight ,easy to see well ahead of time locations. Impaired drivers just take another route. This video is about the beating that the 4th Amendment has taken in recent decades. I’m Just saying It’s kind of an apples & oranges conversation going on here. Once again missing the bigger picture. Bread and Circuses don’t you know.
Out of 89 people stopped in this checkpoint, the only people pulled aside for secondary inspections were black, and the three people arrested were all black. The county is only 11% black. What are the odds of this happening if racism is not involved?