Your video, Male Cops Strip Woman During DUI Arrest, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Pretty interesting article that is relevant to the discussion:

http://www.motorists.org/dui/roadblock

Congratulations! Your comment on One Way To Deal With A DUI Checkpoint (Refusal) has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

DUI checkpoints are usually considered "voluntary" stops. Because it's not considered a detainment, the scope of what the police can demand (as opposed to ask) is greatly reduced.

Some checkpoints, while certainly intended to find drunks, are classified as "vehicle safety checks" and in those circumstances they cops can usually demand license, registration, and proof of ins. This wasn't one of those.

Congratulations! Your comment on One Way To Deal With A DUI Checkpoint (Refusal) has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 5 Badge!

I routinely get waved straight through DUI checks. Just got a completely sober look about me I guess.

I don't disagree that deaths by drunk driving are a real danger, but DUI laws tend to only do two things: 1. Revenue creation for the city/state. 2. Punish people preemptively before they create a victim.

Whatever happened to no victim, no crime?

Was he a DUI? What was is blood / alcohol reading.? Or were the cops just lying that they smelled alcohol just to drag him out of the truck?

The gun issue - not good .. he should have brought this up at the beginning.

DUI checkpoint are akin to the KGB or the SS demanding you produce your papers whenever asked-The police in the U.S. would NOT perform these fucked-up exercises if more citizens made it harder for them-OBSTRUCTING is bullshit: It's a free-ticket for cops to arrest someone for ANY reason.

(Perhaps the resident copper here on the VS can chime-in??)

If more people through this type of civil disobedience would protest they'd scrap the "checkpoint" bullshit for random drunks and maybe do something that benefits society???

MADD was created by busy-bodies who needed grief counseling instead of a soapbox. Prohibition is for herd animals.

and here I just was commenting and defending us officers on the other "police state" video (where law enforcement handled it properly) and then here comes a video like this.

Only thing to say is the cop made a mistake and obviously become completely flustered by it as he probably knew he was being filmed. This does not give him the right to be an asshole. I have to ask what is the age of the male that is taking the PAS (preliminary alcohol screening) test? If he is under 21 there is a no tolerance policy towards underage drivers with alcohol in there system. He could of blew .01 and still be arrested. Anyone under the age of 21 should not be consuming alcohol (I know I know, we all did it) but if you do, DON’T DRIVE.

That being said, just a few notes so everyone knows (may only apply to California). In California (and I believe everywhere) you can be under the legal limit of .08 BAC and still be arrested for a DUI. There are two subsections of the Vehicle code for a dui, VC 23152(a) and VC 23152(b) which are usually both charged. The B section is only for if you are over .08 BAC. The (A) section can be used if you are driving erratically or unsafely even if under the legal limit. That section is also used for when driving under the influence of a drug (pot, prescription meds, etc..). 9 Times out of 10 in court the charge of VC 23152(A) will get dropped to a wet and reckless which is treated like a DUI but with fewer consequences.

Now, please do not take the advice of these other people and refuse all testing (in California). In California, there is a law called Implied Consent, please read here:

http://dui.drivinglaws.org/resources/dui-refusal-blood-breath-urine-test/california.htm

but to sum it up, you have to give breath, blood, or urine when arrested with probable cause for a DUI. This may not sound fair but it was put in place so people could not refuse all testing then go to court and argue there was no proof of their intoxication. There are penalties if you do not give samples so please read that link. This law can help both ways, as an example if you really are not under the influence of alcohol or at least under the legal limit, then the blood test (most accurate) will show this. This will either liberate you in court showing you were not intoxicated as the officer said or at least get your DUI dropped to a wet and reckless if you were under the influence but at a legal level. Of course, if you were really under the influence or got into a DUI crash nothing is really going to help you but a good lawyer.

Just as an example, a woman was stopped for making an illegal U-Turn. Before this officers admitted she had been driving ok. Once officers pulled her over to issue a citation they immediate smelled alcohol coming from the car and her person. The female agreed to a breath test and blew a .38 BAC! For most people including guys, you would be unconscious if you had that much alcohol in your system. The woman was charged for a DUI but more importantly got alcohol counseling because the court ordered it. This is just an example of times where people who drink on a regular basis (alcoholics) may not show signs of alcohol impairment. They are such sever alcoholics who can function to an extent while intoxicated. That DUI arrest probably saved the women’s life.

All I am trying to say is I know it may seem unfair or prying to have an implied consent law here in California. All it is meant to do is to encourage people when they go out to drink to please GET A CAB or SOBER driver to take you home. Sober does not mean you “feel” sober, sober means no alcohol or you have followed the guidelines issued by California DMV on how many drinks / how many hours it takes to be sober enough to drive.

Lastly, I will say there are ways of helping yourself during a DUI situation so educate yourself and do some research (not that rusty penny or mustard or barely blowing your breath crap) if you are really worried that one day you’re going to be pulled over after consuming alcohol.

There should be a youtube series with a judge or well qualified lawyer that explains exactly where citizens (and non-citizens) stand in common situations like these (DHS and DUI checkpoints, audio/video recording of police, searches of vehicles and clothing/bags, stop and frisk, requests for identification, etc.). People would benefit from a clear explanation both from a constitutional perspective as well as the perspective of any precedence set by previous trials.

And to take this one step further: This should be funded BY the government! Law enforcement should Want people to know the law.
The fact that officers use the imbalance of power in these situations to force people into a positions where they don't know whether they are breaking the law or not is disgusting. Confusion about the law should not be a law enforcement tactic.

Marijuana DUI Bust For ... say WHAT? has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals on that post.

Why do any cars go above 90mph? ever? when is it ever safe and necessary to drive in excess of this speed? Why is there no government control over the torque or horsepower in vehicles? Wouldn't it be easier to catch criminals and racers if only cops could drive over 90mph? Why aren't peoples licenses permanently revoked after 1 or 2 DUIs? Why are we obligated to keep giving DUI offenders 3rd and 4th and 5th chances just so their lives arent adversely affected?

The same response to these questions could be applied to gun ownership. Because one, those situations where people suffer because of this kind of behavior are the exception and not the rule, and two the government has decided that it is not justification enough to infringe on peoples rights to own a fast and powerful vehicle anymore than it is to prevent people from going hunting or shooting for hobby.

If peoples guns must be removed for the good of us all, despite there being reasons to want to own one ABOVE and beyond recreation, then why not stuff like fast cars and dangerous hobbies?

To be clear: my point is a nanny state can't and should not stop short of any one persons bias on what is good or bad. Either the state should do everything in its power to safeguard people against themselves OR we have to accept that the government will allow things that may be unsafe/harmful for people in certain situations. If you accept that 2nd part then give thought to the fact that just because guns are pointless to u, it does not mean they are pointless to everyone.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'firgo, nd, drunk driver, dui, pickup, highway, intoxicated, swerve, exit' to 'fargo, nd, drunk driver, dui, pickup, highway, intoxicated, swerve, exit' - edited by calvados

Damn I miss being able to break up quotes and reply to individual points.

I'll mark the points as I go through them.

1: Can you give me a modern example of when people with guns (individuals, not armies) prevented people being fucked over by governments/corporations? Because there's a metric fuckton of guns in the states and the same people who screwed you are still in charge. No, not government, silly, they haven't been in charge since the 70s. I meant Wall Street.

2: Isn't that exactly what this discussion is about? Last time I checked, no-one was talking about banning guns altogether, just putting some reasonable safeguards in place (high capacity magazines, background checks, etc)

3: The "why don't we ban cars" argument? Really? I've heard this rebutted countless times in the last month alone, so I'm kinda skeptical that you don't already know the answer, but here it is anyway. a) cars are not primarily used as weapons b) there are already strict controls on the who can use a car (licencing, driving tests) and how they use it (speed limits, dui, etc)