SteveBuscemi

DUI Checkpoint

Refuses to answer any questions and gets away
by deleted 1 year ago (Wed, Feb 15, 2012) in Cool Stuff (SFW)
Good | Poor | +62 -3 95%
Favorite (18) | Flag | Share: Embed | Email | Facebook
x

Select size: Custom: Width: px Height: px
I don't think this will work if you're not recording them
181 comments | Sorted by top | 181 new comments added since your last visit to this upload ( marked in pink background ). You must be logged in for this feature to work
  • BigCoot | 1 year ago | +28
    Jedi Mind Tricks![image]
  • Drummerer | 1 year ago | +14
    Had he not had a camera, they would have dragged him out of the car and beat him and tazed him.
    • deleted | 1 year ago | +4 -3
      or if he was a minority or any sort.
  • indecisive | 1 year ago | +10
    He did everything exactly right. A lot of people talk themselves right into an arrest (speaking from experience here...) because they don't know not to. Here is a pretty good documentary explaining how it happens (and how to avoid it.)
    • Yamata | 1 year ago | +2
      Thank you for posting this link. I'm sure it will save my ass some day.
    • Jonnyb | 1 year ago | +1
      Ok I watched the entire thing and think everyone here should watch it!
      • indecisive | 1 year ago | +1
        Those in the U.S. at the very least - I share it every chance I get. Knowing how to handle myself made my last traffic stop MUCH less...intimidating.
    • Jonnyb | 1 year ago | +1 -1
      Holy fuck a 45 minute video! I did not watch it all but I’m guessing it gave good advise as to your rights. Yes most people talk themselves into jail or a ticket. Most of the time your mouth is your own worst enemy.
      • Iraqvet | 1 year ago | +2 -1
        Most of the time,doing something ILLEGAL is your enemy...
  • Iraqvet | 1 year ago | +11 -1
    Instead of trying to get out of a DUI, isn't it easier and safer to NOT drink and drive?..I know alot of people hate cops here, and this will probably get negged...Yes,there are bad cops,but can anyone say drinking and driving makes sense and shouldn't be illegal?..How is a checkpoint illegal?..Don't we pay cops to catch drunk drivers?...A breathalyzer doesn't fall under self incrimination...There is a limit..You are either below it or above it...I am for rights but I will never be for criminal activity..There is no excuse to drink and drive...
    • indecisive | 1 year ago | +3
      That it is easier and safer (and smarter) not to is a given. But the over/under the limit thing is not as clear cut as it sounds. If you are under the limit, you can still be charged, (officer's discretion) being at or over the limit just guarantees it. I am in no way condoning drunk driving, but if you are not impaired, there is no reason to volunteer information - if you are, the cop won't have any problem establishing it. This video isn't showing you how to beat a stop if you're drunk, it's showing you how to protect yourself if you're NOT.
      • Iraqvet | 1 year ago | +1
        I don't feel most people need to feel "protected"  while going through a checkpoint...If one wants to not speak,go for it...I find it much easier to simply say I hadn't been drinking and go on my way...
        • fkbisme | 1 year ago | +4
          But if you know your rights and are 100% legal why not fuck with them a little bit.
          • geffish | 12 months ago | +1
            nobody wants to get fucked with. they are doing their job. if i was the cop i would make him give a sample. refusal to answer surmounts to guilt. if you are clean , no problem. don't try to be smart arse.
            • mrwp819300 | 9 months ago | +1
              "if i was the cop i would make him give a sample. refusal to answer surmounts to guilt"
              What makes you think they have any right to make him "give a sample"? He is not under suspicion here, they are just stopping people and trying to establish probable cause of DUI, i.e. smelling for alcohol, observing impaired speech or movements, etc. They do not have the lega right to force him to explain anything nor is he under any obligation to. They have no right to detain him if there has been no evidence of a crime having been committed. They were simply slowing people down to allow themselves to pick up on possible evidence easier because they can't smell it or really see it if he drove past doing 50mph. Good for him and great advice for everyone, just STFU and don' talk yourself into a problem.
        • indecisive | 1 year ago | +1
          For someone not drinking AT ALL, that would obviously be the easiest way. So you have never in your life been behind the wheel with alcohol in your system - ANY alcohol, ever?
          • Iraqvet | 1 year ago | +1
            Sure..A while back I placed a one beer limit on myself...Then a few years ago it became harder to stick to that so I just decided to only drink when I was at home or riding as a passenger...
            • indecisive | 1 year ago | +1
              That's smart - I only asked because of your tendency to argue in absolutes. The fact that you've done it yourself tells me you do know that not all drivers who drink drive drunk - and it's the ones who don't that need to know how to handle a police encounter without hanging themselves out of nervousness, confusion, or ignorance of the law.
              • Iraqvet | 1 year ago | +1
                I mean I can't hate on people who may have a couple beers at a bar with friends...But I know people who turn a couple into 7-8 in an hour on a regular basis :(...The local place we all go to serves the DD a free order of wings and free soft drinks which would come to about $10...I would rather do that and spend the $10 on a 12 pack for the house lol...
    • Jonnyb | 1 year ago | +3
      I agree you should not drink and drive! But watch the link that indecisive added. The second scenario in the video the guy gets falsely accused of a crime he did not commit and the police pressure him into cooperating. If you don’t know your rights this could happen to you or me and it has happened to me! If I/we don’t stand up for your rights you will lose them. The check point is illegal because they are stopping you without probable cause! We do not live in a country that can just ask for your “papers” just because you happened to be there.
      • Jonnyb | 1 year ago | +1
        oppps can't ask for your "papers"
      • Iraqvet | 1 year ago | +1
        I agree the law system is not always fair...As far as "papers" go, that is why we have eleven million illegal aliens here...We shouldn't make being a criminal easy...Police make mistakes every day...I don't agree with them by any means...I compare DUI checkpoints to going through security points at airports...It's what we've had to do to try and make things safer...A line has to be drawn somewhere...
    • deleted | 1 year ago | +2 -1
      I don't care either. But I plused u.
    • Stevarooni | 1 year ago | +1
      I absolutely agree that drunk drivers should be caught and given prison time (especially 2nd-plus offenders). That doesn't mean that the cops should be given leeway to go on trolling expeditions. If they see a drunk driver, they should pull him over. Just as if they see you carrying a gun (where open carry is not permitted), they should stop you. But they can't preemptively search everyone on some random sidewalk to see if there's someone carrying a gun!
    • fkbisme | 1 year ago | +1
      I hate drunk drivers too... come to think of it I just hate drunks. I usually have weed in my pocket so the easier I can get through a check the better.
    • ranger2010 | 1 year ago | +1
      No a breathalyzer falls under forced incrimination. maybe you don't drink and that is fine, but look at it this way. You could be out for dinner with your girlfriend/wife (who knows this is heavan666,could be a a another guy/tranny doesnt matter) . Have a few drinks with dinner get stopped at one of these entrapment checkpoints and tell the truth. Well its like monopoly (DO NOT PASS GO, GO TO JAIL)
      • Iraqvet | 1 year ago | +1
        Sorry but if you're drunk you're drunk...That's like saying suspected rapists shouldn't have to take DNA tests to try and match it with the victim...
        • indecisive | 1 year ago | +2
          Um, they have to have probable cause to take an alleged rapist's DNA as well - just being accused or suspected isn't enough to compel it automatically.
          • Iraqvet | 1 year ago | +1
            Yes butwhat I am saying is there needs to be a line somewhere on this "self incrimination" crap that people who can't be responsible cry about...
            • indecisive | 1 year ago | +1
              The 5th amendment is crap??? Oh, boy.
              • Iraqvet | 1 year ago | +1
                I simply said a line must be drawn somewhere...If a society can no longer try to catch criminals,what's the point of having laws?..How is that for the greater good?..
              • ranger2010 | 1 year ago | +1
                yeah dont know what boat from north korea this guy came over on?
                • Iraqvet | 1 year ago | +1
                  I apologize for not wanting to kill people in a drunken stupper while driving...
        • ranger2010 | 1 year ago | +1
          So your right if your drunk your drunk but not everyone pulled over that blows over is drunk.Depending on someones size and body type/metabolism 1 or 2 drinks could put them over the legal limit. This limit that is set does not mean you are drunk. You may have some alcohol on your system and still be able to function just fine. Not sure where you were trying to go with the DNA testing kind of off topic/different ballpark all together
          • Iraqvet | 1 year ago | +1
            Thats whatbeing an adult is about..I know smaller womenwho can drink alot...But it shouldn't be up to a person to decide their own limit...
            • ranger2010 | 1 year ago | +1
              Oh who then the ogvernment? Are you for real. Did you just get off the boat from north korea? I will decide my limit and i will chose not to drive if i have had to much. I don't need to be told. It is called common sense. Which I can say the governments in both US and Canada have lost touch with.Most communist countries and if you are a iraqvet you know what it is like in the middle east(checkpoints), that is what is coming. You wait what you see is only the begining. Interent access restrictions are coming , does that sound like freeedom? No it sounds like communist china And really your on here commenting on drinking and your avatar is a booze bottle? nice
              • Iraqvet | 1 year ago | +1
                Sorry,but people get stupid..I don't know you from Jesus himself..Why should I trust you to not exceed your limit?..Why should I trust you to know when that is?..Your limit might be just shy of being fall down drunk...I don't support pipa or sopa..Neither one of them have to do with the safety of my family...What makes your right to drink and drive come before the rights of those who share the road and want to be safe?...Common sense is a long lost virtue in today's society...
                • indecisive | 1 year ago | +1
                  IV, have you ever been tested for ADD? I mean, I enjoy our discussions, but sometimes your habit of wandering off topic is exhausting! The debate here isn't about protecting the right to drive drunk, it's about exercising the right not to self-incriminate.
                  • Iraqvet | 1 year ago | +1
                    I believe guilty is guilty...As far as what I was replying to,ranger clearly wants to decide his own laws,IE the right to drive drunk if he pleases..Alcoholics have no limit...Asking one what there limit is is like asking one "how much money is too much".. Everyon's opinion may vary..I know people that would say 12-13 beers...I believe in rights...But I think you're nit picking here..I am not self incriminating if I would just say "no" to the officer...I mean,this has gotten a little ridiculous..I think you're looking past what I am saying..We need laws,we need to be able to catch criminals,and we can't let everyone just do what they want in an anarchist state...
                    • indecisive | 1 year ago | +1
                      Saying no is not self-incriminating, but answering AT ALL waives your right to remain silent - you give the right away, poof! PLEASE watch this documentary, so you can better see what I'm trying to say. And before you say it, yes, the kids in the first scenario were breaking the law - but the ones in the next two were NOT. Rights are rights, whether you are guilty or not - there is nothing nit-picky about it.
                    • ranger2010 | 1 year ago | +1
                      No I am not advocating driving drunk, or doing whatever you want outside of the law. We don't need more laws, we need common sense approaches to every day issues. If the police catch you then so be it. But they should not be allowed to have check points. That is just fishing. It violates yours rights, and even though it is only a minor unconveinence it is slowly eroding everything that Americans fought so hard for and won (independence )
                      • Iraqvet | 1 year ago | +1
                        So cops shouldn't have drug stings either?...Kiddie porn sites shouldn't be monitered by FBI agents?...
                        • indecisive | 1 year ago | +1
                          You're still arguing outside the point - stings are effective, legal law enforcement tools. But they don't take place until AFTER legal probable cause has first been gathered.
                          • indecisive | 1 year ago | +1
                            Sorry - evidence gathered, probable cause established...
                          • Iraqvet | 1 year ago | +2 -1
                            Sorry,I look at it this way..Entrance gates at military posts inspect vehicles,for the safety of the base...No probable cuase,but they do it..How are DUI checkpoints any different?..You're trying to stop drunks and keep the town safer?...Should there be permanent points set up?..No...Should every single person take a breathalyzer test before leaving a sports stadium?..No..But do I feel that that the occasional one violates my rights?...Not when they are trying to catch drunk people...  
                            • indecisive | 1 year ago | +1
                              That's different because military posts have it posted plain as day that you are consenting to search as a condition of being allowed entry to the property. There is no such condition placed on using a public road.
                              • Iraqvet | 1 year ago | +1
                                But don't public roads deserve atleast some saftey net?..Does your family not deserve to be safe?..Why pay cops and hate what thy and the laws try to prevent?..People try and break laws every day..Why not try to catch them?.. 
                                • indecisive | 1 year ago | +1
                                  The cops ARE the safety net! They just have to catch people according to the law! Have you watched the damn video yet? I'm positive it would help me stop feeling like I'm banging my head against a wall...
                                  • Iraqvet | 1 year ago | +1
                                    I think you don't understand my view point..I am for due proccess at even the lowest level.. However, a criminal being caught will doing something illegal is still a criminal..
                                    • indecisive | 1 year ago | +2
                                      I DO understand - but how can you say you're for due process and still think that as long as they catch a criminal, it doesn't matter if they did it illegally?
                                      • Iraqvet | 1 year ago | +1
                                        Reply below
  • Scottish | 1 year ago | +5
    Haha awesome... He copped them out
  • TheBidz | 1 year ago | +6 -2
    that was pimp shit, that's what happens when you know the law.
    • deleted | 1 year ago | +1
      If he smelled like booze he would have been pulled out and beat down. Thats what happens when you haven't bee drinking.
      • mrwp819300 | 9 months ago | +1
        Hence the purpose of the checkpoint; to smell for alcohol or observe impairment. They definitely didn't expect him to take the fifth here, but they BOTH knew there was nothing they could do legally except let him go. I believe the first cop, by YELLING for the supervisor, was trying to intimidate the driver ti illicit a response. He didn't waiver, though and she knew he wasn't going to so she cut him loose. Didn't you fell a bit surprised at how quickly she let him go the first time you saw this clip?
    • TallyHo | 1 year ago | +1
      They would have smelt for alcahol, watched his manarisims and listened to his speaking, in this case they felt he was fine and didn't need the hastle and waste of time dealing with a jerk. Knowing the law has nothing to do with it as if he did act and smell drunk he would have been made to leave the car under the suspicion of drunk driving.
      • indecisive | 1 year ago | +2
        That's the point - they have all the tools they need to make the call (and they did, with no problem, once he declined to help them do it.) Admitting ANY drinking would lead to a series of field sobriety tests (that take more time to administer than the brief exchange above, btw) Refusing to answer doesn't stop them from doing whatever they feel is necessary to make that call - if he had appeared drunk, not answering wouldn't have done him any good.
        • TallyHo | 1 year ago | +1
          Ok I do see your point but surley the way on which these stops are done should be addressed? They are afterall designed for public safety and not to be a pain in people's asses? If he had replied in a friendly way would that necessarily have taken a long time, and it would have been worth it in the long run if more drunk drivers were taken off the streets?
          • indecisive | 1 year ago | +1
            First off, I didn't really see his behavior as that unfriendly - he seemed pleasant enough, aside from the repeated requests for name and badge number (I'm only guessing, but it seemed like an effort to keep the cops from continuing to push - he didn't argue or act at all threatening.) As for the stop, the law is messy - there are several comments here explaining why a random checkpoint is constitutionally shaky, so I won't repeat the reasons - but Stevarooni's strainer v. tweezer analogy sums it up pretty well.
  • HarryWang | 1 year ago | +4
    I support Police but DUI checkpoints are constitutionally wrong. How can people be stopped and questioned about stuff if the officer has no probable cause to stop.
    • mrwp819300 | 9 months ago | +1
      Once again, as the clip shows, people are not forced to answer. She didn't see him slumping over and covered in vomit nor did she smell any alcohol. That's why she let him go. If she had held him up any longer after she established no probable cause to detain him, he can sue their asses for illegal detention. Checkpoints are no different that speedtraps. They just slow you down long enough to sniff something out, then let you go.
  • CaptainFlyscratch | 1 year ago | +3
    is this for real?
    • Jonnyb | 1 year ago | +8 -1
      Yes it is for real! You have the right to remain silent and not get arrested. You do have to provide proof of vehicle ownership, proof of insurance and a driver’s license but you do not have to answer their questions. By him not saying ANYTHING he was not breaking the law. A DUI check point is unconstitutional in many different arguments. They did not have probable cause to detain him. Now one of the officers could have claimed he smelled alcohol or weed or even found some tiny thing to keep him as they often do. The officers new there was a camera so they played it by the book. This is a very good video to remind people that we do not live in a communist society. You do have rights! Sad part is most people don’t know what exactly they are.
      • HarryWang | 1 year ago | +4
        Yes, a DUI checkpoint is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!! I do support the Police but in this case, I do not. No where in Law and the constitution it says that citizens are subject to stop and detainment just becuase they are driving a vehicle. In order for an Officer to stop someone driving, they need probable cause, IE: speeding, unsafe driving, or some other traffic violation. These checkpoints stop everyone and is not right. During these checkpoints, if your in line and make a u-turn to avoind the checkpoint, they pull you over, just cuz you trie to avoid it. That is a REALLY BAD STOP. Whatever happened to having the right to move about freely. This country is on a very slippery slope headed to socialism, Marxism, and Communism where are belove rights are being taken away from us, as Americans. Our Supreme Court is full of Liberal, progressive bullshit. Look at Ginsburg, that stupid bitch justice. She said we should look at South Africa's constitution for a model to fix ours. Thats TREASON!!!
        • PoopOnAStick | 1 year ago | +1
          Don't know where you're from, and the rules might be different, but here the checkpoints have multiple signs where you can make LEGAL turns to avoid them for a mile before. Sure, it may add three minutes to your trip, but you aren't funneled/corralled/forced to go through the checkpoint. Here, you also don't even have to roll down your window for the police, let alone answer any questions. You say (in caps mind you) that it's unconstitutional, as if that were fact, then go on with many of your opinions. What is a "really bad stop"? You can't get pulled over for just avoiding a checkpoint, but for making an illegal [read: unsafe] turn/maneuver to get around it. Like I said, around here, that's the case. If the rules or procedures are different there, then take what I said with a grain of salt. But far as I can see from my personal experience, nothing about checkpoints are wrong, and rights are still upheld.
          • HarryWang | 1 year ago | +1
            Well, I respect your opinion and thanks for the comment. I have law enforcement experience and have worked several DUI checkpoints, well actually was forced to. I believe that and checkpoint that forces US citizens to stop and be interrrogated by any Government official without probable cause or at least some reasonable suspicion at minimum is unconstitutional. I know that driving is a privledge, but I completely disagree with these checkpoints all together. Where I live and I have seen this first hand, if someone is in line for this checkpoint and they make a u-turn, they are automatically stopped by a chase vehicle. These chase cars are implemented for that purpose only, which I totally disagree with. Our lovely Supreme court has upheld checkpoints as being constitutional, but that decision is a political one. Organizations such as MADD have lobbyed our government for years and forced the supreme court to decide that way. Our rights are being taken away one at a time. Its sad..
          • HarryWang | 1 year ago | +1
            I believe strongly in the Constitution and firmly uphold that to the best of my ability. Everyday our rights are being taken away from us an new ones are foced upon us, such as Obama care, redistribution of wealth, Patriot Act..and the list goes on. Our constitution is an easy document to read and understand, but these dumb ass politicions are dismantling it for their own personal gain, financially and power. AS being in LAw Enforcement, I encourage everyone to get a firm grip and understanding of our constitution and they should hold Officers to that high standard. I see lots of Officers on TV and other places make huge mistakes and it truly saddens me.
          • mrwp819300 | 9 months ago | +1
            Exactly! And he wasn't detained.
      • friendlygarfield | 1 year ago | +3
        God Bless America :-) SA is not a communist society yet - but them law officers would not stand for that
      • Tboner | 1 year ago | +1
        I owe you one, hit poor and meant to hit good. My bad.
        • Jonnyb | 1 year ago | +2
          LOL it's all good or in this case poor LOL
          • Tboner | 1 year ago | +1
            There you go, buddy.
    • friendlygarfield | 1 year ago | +1
      i believe Drummer to be wrong if it this occured in any other country the camera would "disappear" and he would wake up in the slammer
  • Unitedstatesslave | 1 year ago | +3
    Thats how its done!.....you have the right to remain silent for this reason!..of course he was not stumbling words and smelling of booze
  • NotUrFriend | 1 year ago | +3
    It's always best to not to submit to police interrogation without legal representation. The cops can twist the most seemingly innocent answer to their advantage. This guy did that right thing.
  • synysterV | 1 year ago | +2
    How the fuck did he get away with that?!!
    • deleted | 1 year ago | +3
      He knows his rights..
    • TallyHo | 1 year ago | +1
      He didn't smell Of alcahol or have slurred speach, it has nothing to do with rights, they both clearly got close enough to check both and decided he was clean enough not to bother with a jerk.
  • Tboner | 1 year ago | +2
    The magic words are "Am I free to go"?
  • PLEDGEY | 1 year ago | +5 -3
    Just one of many ass holes the Police must come across every day.
    • indecisive | 1 year ago | +7 -1
      I'm sure they do, but this guy wasn't one of them - he respectfully asserted his rights and wisely refused to do their job for them, that is all.
      • TallyHo | 1 year ago | +4
        There is no respect in ignoring somone trying to do their job and prevent drunk drivers. The only reason he got away is they both smelt his breath and judged his mannerisms not to be drunk.. A decent cop can tell a mile away if somone has had something to drink and these cops did that and decided not to deal with a disrespectful time waster.
        • indecisive | 1 year ago | +1
          He didn't ignore them, he declined to answer the potentially self-incriminating question - there is a difference. After checking your profile, your strong views on this topic make a lot more sense - if you have the time, check out the documentary I shared below. It only concerns U.S. law, but it might help you at least see that this discussion has two sides, both with valid points.
          • PLEDGEY | 1 year ago | +1
            Declined to answer the potentially self-incriminating question???????????. If he wasn't pissed he had nothing to worry about. If he was pissed, well congratulations, he just got off with it.
            • indecisive | 1 year ago | +2
              You know there's some room between sober and pissed, right? If it were illegal to drink AT ALL and drive, it would be one thing, but it's not. Cops need a REASON before they can do any testing, like smelling of alcohol, slurred speech, combative behavior - or an admission of alcohol consumption. He did nothing to warrant further checking - what part of the right to remain silent is troubling you? The police bank on people feeling the way you do - would you please watch the documentary I linked below? I am neither pro-drunk driving or anti-cop - I have been in both situations (a DUI when I was 18, and a checkpoint stop over 20 years later after ONE beer with dinner - in that instance, I answered honestly, was subjected to several sobriety tests, one of which I failed - ever try to walk a straight line heel-to-toe in high heels on gravel? That was enough for the cop to charge me, even though I blew a .01 on the breathalyzer. I was eventually found not guilty, but not before lawyer's fees and a 2 week suspension from my job as a postal carrier. If I had known enough not to answer, none of that would have happened.)
              • Blumpkin | 1 year ago | +2
                I ran out of plusses for you but I'd like to say you made a great argument. Well said.
              • PLEDGEY | 1 year ago | +1
                I still think he's an ass hole. I bet he'll be talking plenty if his house ever gets burgled or he gets mugged.
          • HarryWang | 1 year ago | +1
            fifth amendment..
            • PLEDGEY | 1 year ago | +1
              STILL think he's an ass hole.
        • HarryWang | 1 year ago | +1
          This guy did nothing wrong, he did what was legally his right. Not to make any incriminating statements. You don't have to talk to a cop if you dont want to and there is nothing that can make someone do it. Those officers were doing their job and they made the right decision, and let this man go without further issuesor questions.
        • ranger2010 | 1 year ago | +1 -1
          A decent cop? define that one for me please? Cops have way over stepped there bounds everywhere. Too much taking the law into thier own hands.
          • indecisive | 1 year ago | +1
            Pssst - he IS a cop...
    • HarryWang | 1 year ago | +2
      Why is this guy an asshole? Becuase he chose to assert his right not to answer any questions? Nothing wrong with that and he was respectful towards them. I laughed when the Officer immediately called over his supervisor because he wouldnt answer. What what the supervisor supposed to do, force this guy to talk? LOL, he obvioulsy is a rookie...
In addition to plain text you can also add links to:
- images
- video pages
- anything else
Simply add a link just like this: http://i.imgur.com/fhfnG.gif and we will do the rest. We will transform all links into clickable links and if the link points to an image or a youtube video page we will open that image / video in a clean pop.

Cool Stuff

Details
Human achievements, interesting facts and scenaries from around the world