DUI Checkpoint Refusal: Who Does it BEST?

There's an art and science to handling yourself at a DUI checkpoint. I gathered a few examples from other KZbinrs. I'll rate and rank each one to see who does it best.
Check out their original videos:
Ryan Scott
• CHECKPOINT Belligerent...
2strokeYardSale
• DUI checkpoint refusal...
Jesse
• Attorney/Uber Driver T...
Leave Andrew a voicemail with questions or ideas: www.speakpipe....

[@shadeboogy4912]

The last guy, Jesse, is an attorney in my town as a matter of fact. That's one of the same deputies that pulled him as an Uber driver, and demanded to search the vehicle. He's also a great Uber driver. I've had him a couple times. 5 stars!

[@urkcin9385]

Is that raleigh nc? I feel like I've heard of him

[@Lol_Pig]

I KNEW that had to be him!

[@shadeboogy4912]

@@urkcin9385 that’s Wilmington. But I’m sure he travels back and forth

[@WhatWhy42]

Thanks for the Uber Rating, lol

[@giancarlocarattini4985]

@@johndoe4558 Wait?!? What?? Jesse is not an attorney? He has a bar card! And not one that gets you martinis, either. That particular officer knew the judge he clerked for and said he thought he looked familiar and recognized him, so...

[@edswiskey7373]

Ryan had the right to remain silent but not the ability

[@Andrewflusche]

Hahahaha. Truth.

[@jonathanjohnson8656]

Every time I hear that I can hear Ron White saying it lol.

[@alexm7777]

How do you gain that ability and overcome your nervousness?

[@SOG-xb4qh]

​@@alexm7777You won't until you try.

[@Dev-In-Denver123]

@@alexm7777That’s a good question. I guess some of us are just born different. You’re like one of those chicks like my gf who says they get too nervous to lie 😂. It’s like do you wanna go free and avoid jail and court and fines or dontcha?? 😂

[@honkhonkv2236]

- "Hi sir" - "🗿" - "Understandable have a good night"

[@ayush_dwr12]

underrated comment 😂😂

[@Hosea3_1992]

I can tell you why this guy is an attorney he doesnt want you to know what he knows so he can make money off of you. You don't need a license first and foremost. You can take the bar exam without going to law school with the proper requirements met. Your 4th amendment. Go read about it. Look up your straw man

[@lowmax4431]

😂😂😂

[@notme2day]

@Hosea3_1992 #1.Only 4 states allow you to take the bar exam without going to law school. #2. Not everyone is interested or has the time to study the law to be able to pass the bar. #3. People need lawyers, I'd imagine that's why this guy is a lawyer and your probably not. #4. YES, in fact you do need a law license to practice law. Without one you can be charged criminally. You might want to try to do some *real* research. UT has higher standards than your strawman TikTok law degree you seem so proud of. LMAO

[@noControl556]

As Ron White said, "I had the right to remain silent, but I lacked the ability"

[@dillfincollins6516]

They call me 'Tater Salad' 😂😂😂

[@mykalhildebrand5727]

First officer angry is escalating amazingly well.

[@johnnyjacuzzi7498]

First officer must’ve slept through de-escalation training.

[@carlmorgan8452]

Looked like an assault to me.

[@kkttss1928]

He is a punk showing off in front of his buddies. He has no business being in law enforcement

[@robertmiller2633]

He missed it when he blinked !!!!!

[@The0Matador0]

He is a bitter old tyrant past retirement.

[@786Puffy]

Just call the officer what he is, no euphemism like "needing de-escalation training": He's a violent POS

[@fasillimerick7394]

I think the point of repeatedly asking, "am I being detained", is to get law enforcement to explicitly acknowledge a detainment.

[@TEverettReynolds]

It's more than that. They have a time frame they are required to abide by to complete their investigation of you. This is why cops can't keep you detained for hours on the side of the road while they look for other things to charge you with or make you wait for the police dog. Legally, when they stop you, they are required to start their investigation of you and the law ule\code you may have violated. Once they finish that initial investigation, they are legally required to cite\arrest you or just let you go. Most people will chit-chat with the cop, prolonging the stop, and sometimes giving the officer more time or information to come up with another reason to cite\arrest you. The clock starts with the initial stop, contact, and detainment.

[@eq1373]

@@TEverettReynolds only problem is that there is no "clock"

[@selfdo]

@@eq1373 But there IS. It's the time necessary to complete the LAWFUL purpose of the stop. For a DUI checkpoint, they're allowed under Sitz v. Michigan due to the SCOTUS majority opinion excusing them as a "minimal intrusion", necessary to screen drivers for signs of impairment. The time should be as little as fifteen seconds, if there's no overt signs of impairment, to wave the driver on through. Of course, a cop will, if he wants more time on a particular person, simply say things like "I smelled alcohol on his breath" (or the car smelled of 'weed'), or "his speech was slurred", "his eyes red" or "pupils dilated". This is where having a dash cam and using the cell phone to record, Record, RECORD the encounter can refute the cop's assertion(s) if he's wrong and/or LYING. Most jurisdictions consider fifteen minutes to be a "reasonable" time to hold a motorist for purposes of writing up a moving violation(s). Beyond that, there must exist "reasonable, articulable" suspicion that criminal activity is "afoot", mere "hunches" or "profiling" most certainly doesn't qualify, in order to hold the detainee any longer, to get the "drug dog" or otherwise investigate and/or get a search warrant for the vehicle. This is WHY you say as little as possible, but simply "Am I FREE to go?", and "I don't consent to any searches". Repeating those phrases won't necessarily get the cops to let you go, nor stop them from searching ANYWAY, warrant or not, or whether they get the four-legged "probable cause on a leash" to do the CUED "alert song-and-dance", but it will do a LOT to enable your attorney, should the matter come to that, to show that you did not consent to prolong the detainment nor to any searches or seizures. Typically, 45 minutes to an hour is considered the maximum that one can be detained in order to secure a search warrant or to wait for the K-9, beyond that, as it's ALREADY a de facto ARREST, it becomes questionable as to its legality.

[@hankwilliams-hx9ww]

Any lawyer worth half his ass can argue that he's being detained. It's a moot point, for now. Somebody might successfully open up that can of worms one day but for now I think we're good. It's unnecessary.

[@catwithoutthehat]

​@@selfdo they have about 15 to 30 minutes, don't talk give your info and you'll be gone in no time, and always record the police

[@werefrogofassyria6609]

That first one shows why you always keep your door locked while driving.

[@GrantTravels23]

Right to be secure in your possessions

[@youtubecarspottersguide1]

and shut up and once your done shut up once again

[@americansmark]

A lot of newer cars automatically unlock the doors when it gets put into park or shut off. Gotta remember to lock it back.

[@chuckiemeister]

Yes good advice. You can tell the police you feel safer with a locked door and staying inside the car and then proceed to not answer any questions.

[@savyquinn9529]

The cops have an ID roadblock or whatever they can't just ask for ID they haven't spelled u of A crime or an infraction or anything so you don't have to give them your ID

[@HAST0408]

Amazing how citizens have to know to assert our rights, while our police ignore them. Never talk to the cops & always make their jobs as difficult as possible.

[@AuAdventures]

Coming from the clown who would piss themselves self if someone kicked in their front door, or a drunk T-boned you. Roadblocks are definitely unconstitutional, however.

[@LordBritish-hi5cp]

It’s not my job to make the police’s job easier

[@billalumni7760]

Agreed, it really should be the other way around but until We The People start sending a matching email or letter every single time we write on KZbin it will never happen.

[@Uneke]

It’s not your job to make it easier for them… I wouldn’t suggest making it “as difficult as possible” though lol

[@HAST0408]

@@Uneke I would. Unless you want to get locked up.

[@jacobhawkins1580]

Around 13 years ago I was on my way to ball state university to party with my then gf and her housemates... I was pulled over by the Indiana State Police on I 69. I was as sober as physically possible. I had a water bottle filled with apple juice that was around half full in my cup holder. I was asked to exit my vehicle and perform some field sobriety tests. I asked why... His exact words were "Well you maintained your lane control but you were kind of swerving back and forth inside of your lane" Without missing a beat I replied "So what your telling me is... I didn't do anything wrong..." He said "Well Smartass.. we're here now.. get out of your vehicle.." I exited my vehicle and asked for a supervisor... For some reason this really seemed to piss him off... He asked me why I wanted his supervisor... I told him I'd gladly explain it when his supervisor arrived... He told me to get back in my car and get the fuck off his interstate.. 😅... I apologized for not knowing he owned I69 and left thinking it was over and done with... When I exited the interstate some 7 miles later I was pulled over by 3 state police officers.. Asked to perform several impairment tests to which I did and then basically kidnapped and taken to the hospital for a blood draw that came up negative for anything... Had I known better I'd of sued.

[@flyguyry1]

Blood draw??? 😮

[@harrisk.9889]

If they have ordered a breathalyzer test with "probably cause" and the civilian refuses, I'm pretty sure they have the right to take the civilian to the hospital for a blood draw as an alternative blood alcohol level test

[@jeromemccollom936]

Don't worry, Donald Trump says he will ensure that police can't be sued for such violations and that taxpayers cover any and all settlements, because, maga or something

[@JayAllDay07130]

You would’ve been a millionaire

[@ryanlawrence9010]

​@JayAllDay07130? Delusional .

[@JustOneEarth]

Very good of the motorcyclist to clarify that “Do you have ID?” was meant as an order to provide ID. I’ve seen a video of a someone being arrested for refusing to ID when the officers never actually requested that the person provide it; the officers actually asked “do you have ID on you?” To which the person responded “I don’t answer questions”. The officers literally never once asked, much less ordered, that the person provide the ID to them. Just saying that the fact motorcyclist caught the distinction is a great sign.

[@TEverettReynolds]

> I’ve seen a video of a someone being arrested for refusing to ID when the officers never actually requested that the person provide it This is why **you MUST record all traffic stops,** even if it's just a voice recording on your phone in your pocket.

[@santosic]

Definitely a great thing to keep in mind. I feel at this point they do it that way on purpose to trap you and say you refused an order. But if it's worded as a request when you've just invoked the 5th amendment, then obviously you'd think you're allowed to not answer their question. Answering that "question" by asking for clarification if they're ordering you, specifically, to hand over the ID could go a long way in diffusing the situation too. At least they can't argue as easily that you refused their orders, especially if you've recorded the entire interaction. As you should.

[@anthonyjulson8840]

​@@TEverettReynoldsthat's why my dash cam stays running when the key is off.

[@leef_me8112]

Jesse was GREAT on not rolling his window down. It serves no purpose except to give the cop more control so he can say "I smelled alcohol"

[@billymacktexasdetective5827]

I disagree with a lot of what this lawyer is saying. I don't comply with unlawful orders (like telling me to roll my window down more), let the piggies respond however they like to my refusal.

[@KronoKing]

I’ve always wondered about that. If you crack ur window open just enough to give them ur license and registration they can’t say they “smell alcohol”. They need that probable cause to get you out of the vehicle and conduct a dui investigation. Either that or if they ask you have you been drinking and someone foolishly says yes, 2 beers. But if they order you to roll ur window down and you refuse. Can they order you out of the vehicle without enough probable cause? And is it a lawful order? I don’t know that’s why I’m asking.

[@hallowedbethygame2840]

They can order you out of the vehicle for any reason, in the name of “Officer safety”, established in Pennsylvania v Mimms and Maryland v Wilson i believe (I’m not a lawyer)

[@oopomopoo]

I don't get what there is to disagree to? Regarding the window, it's a window. The smell is there regardless of how much that window is open. Only teenagers think it doesnt, or that putting a coat on makes the smoking smell go away. Rolling the window down is just a personable thing to do to better see a face.if you dont want them to see your face then that's entirely your choice, but it's not some magical 'I can smell better'.

[@oopomopoo]

Mu h like he said during this video during the visor scene, a cop needs to be able to validate your face is the same as the one on the id. It's difficult to do that with 1 inch clearance if your windows are tinted.

[@robbiegarnz7732]

The first guy escalated the situation way too much. If he even had an ounce to drink he’s screwed.

[@Heather-xm9ul]

Even sober, he created too much room for the officers.

[@sneifert1968]

If he didn’t have a camera on, he would have been hella fuk’d

[@robbiegarnz7732]

@Pure Blood true the only problem is the SC upheld their ability to conduct these stops. Rightly or wrongly the buck stops there. Those officers weren’t trying to be a holes. They didn’t want to be out there any more than the motorists wanted them there.

[@remliqa]

It's hard to argue that it's unconstitutional when the Supreme Court disagrees with you.

[@remliqa]

​@Pure Blood That is like sayin the teacher can't give you an F if perform poorly in her/his class because doing so is an appeal to authority . Again, it doesn't matter what you think the law should of how the constitution is interpreted , The SCOTUS is the one who ultimately decide what violate the constitution (not you , me ,Andrew Flusche or anyone else) what doesn't . Whether you agree or like that decision is irrelevant.

[@MaydayAggro]

Finally an attorney who doesn't toe the "scotus decides the constitution" line. Totally unconstitutional.

[@MaydayAggro]

State law also does not decide the constitution.

[@SonOfTheIsle]

Spot on !

[@zeb3144]

Many years ago, I was with a friend and his dog (a feisty German shepherd) in his car and we got stopped one night. The policeman stuck his head inside to see who was on back seat and the dog only just missed removing his face. We did say to him afterwards you should never stick your head near an unknown dog.

[@odysseusnissan]

I was at a similar DUI checkpoint in CA and the cop stuck his head in my window and tried to look into my eyes point blank with his flashlight. So I closed my eyes. He screamed and cussed at me to open my eyes but I told him to get a warrant. He let me leave.

[@80Mollusc]

"Get a warrant" in response to "open your eyes!" is absolutely brilliant

[@idriwzrd]

"Let's wise up.", the officer says, ironically.

[@roguetaxidermist3969]

That was a mistake in the caption. What he actually said was "why's that?"

[@TheSakufighter]

2A violators should not be telling anyone to wise up.

[@RT-gv6us]

Andrew, I give this video a grade of 5 stars. Comparing these three sobriety check point stops CLEARLY shows the right and the wrong way for a citizen to handle these. Very well sir.

[@Andrewflusche]

Thank you! :)

[@r2r-r2r]

I did not hear him use the term "terrorist" to accurately describe the pigs.

[@r2r-r2r]

This is not freedom. When the lawyer ranks you lower for exercising 1st amendment rights and doing no harm, it is not freedom. I give 5 stars to the guy that keeps it real and tells the pigs where they can take their tyranny.

[@ww2067]

@@Andrewflusche 1:50- I know you already know this but it doesn't matter what the Supreme Court rules if they rule against the Constitution then they are committing treason and their ruling is null and void as you well know anything that goes against the Constitution is automatically null and void they knew this would happen when they wrote it. It's what the Constitution says that matters the problem is the people won't stand an if the people won't stand up to this tyranny then this tyranny will rule us as slaves. The very moment that people stand all this lunacy will be put to an end but until then we are stuck with it and we can only push so far

[@ww2067]

@@Andrewflusche it's a sobriety checkpoint not an ID checkpoint also according to the Constitution we don't have to have a license to drive anyways and that is also well established in the court of law we have a right to travel they cannot take that away under any circumstance according to the Constitution they can try they can invent all the driver's license they want but you can fight it and win in court I know lots of people that have I don't even get hassled about it and I travel all over ... I don't know what state the kid is in on the motorcycle but I do know that they are not allowed to check your ID at these checkpoints that's not what they're there for it's a DUI checkpoint you said they had to match his ID with his face to make sure he was lawful to drive the vehicle that's not what these DUI checkpoints are for. Another thing you keep saying following orders we are not in the military they are not our bosses or our masters they are not even over us in a lawful way until we break the law you need to clarify and let people know that it has to be a lawful order the easiest way you can do this is ask them is this a lawful order and of course know your rights and the laws in that area

[@cameronmoore136]

I fully understand the frustration these people are in, just trying to do their job, the slightly cracked window already being a sign of "I don't trust you", but while the guy was not complying from the get-go (not that I'm stating he had to), he was NOT being aggressive. The other person, however, absolutely was. And as someone in a position of authority, that is virtually NEVER acceptable. Especially considering the officer risked damage to the car by slamming his door. How would the officer, or other officers, react if a civilain had slammed their door? Why is it okay for an officer to slam yours, and if you react with aggressiveness or hostility, you get the book thrown at you. But if the roles are reversed, the civilian has to just take it? That's an abuse of power.

[@enmiredbythelazy4401]

Here in AZ there's another caveat. If an officer asks if you have a firearm in the vehicle, you are required to answer in the affirmative if you do. It's a load of crap as it effectively constitutes an end-run around a search, but it's the law. If you do and they ask for it, you're required to hand it over for the duration of the encounter, at which point they're required to return it to you if they're not arresting you for something.

[@ravenzyblack]

And if they decide not to return your gun to you? You have to go to court to try to fight for your 2A rights back? That’s bullshit. Another state I’ll be avoiding.

[@munkiebonez2711]

I've seen so many wrecks happen at "safety " check points. Most caused by badges chasing those who took the turn to avoid, which is a allowed. They burn out of their spots causing all sorts of hell. But their Qualified Immunity gets them out of being responsible.

[@buzzbuzz132]

Seems like turn to avoid would be easy enough, why badge chase? Most likely the turn was over the yellow line....and that is illegal......but oh my goodness, Barney just got the green light to harass.

[@springerworks002]

@@buzzbuzz132 😆 🤣 😂 😹 You'll make up any B.S. to justify government over reach.

[@lucascarpenter4365]

​@@buzzbuzz132Or turning into a street just short of beginning of checkpoint only to get chased down and held for 6 hours while 6 deputies rip apart your car then apologize when they can't find anything. Then expect you to clean the scene of everything they ripped out of your in 15 mins so you don't get cited for littering.

[@FedkaSlovanich]

bunch of cops got fired in my town after they chased a guy that made a uturn infront of a dui checkpoint and the idiots slammed into a bus in the complete wrong direction

[@geoiselin]

I'm surprised the citizen wasn't charged with hitting the bus And the cops treated as heroes for chasing an innocent suspect.

[@Rick_1337]

Law enforcement should be required to hand you their card anytime they interact with you. Before they get your id, they should have to provide their own. That includes all the extra cops that show up whether they speak or not. This way if they witness an officer violating your rights and do nothing, they can be held accountable as well.

[@Michael-yo7db]

Well technically they are required to id themselves whether that be by card badge number or name and department

[@sigmamale4147]

"Hey sir, would you mind stop shooting at civilians and police officers so i can give you my card ?"

[@Robyoutube1327]

@@Michael-yo7db This isn't strictly true. Some departments have a policy that officers must do so but its not a law.

[@eq1373]

Card? What card?

[@dusteedawg2915]

I agree 💯 PERCENT!!!!!!!!

[@jamesk3565]

damn the way the officer slammed the door, just a little pissed🤣

[@feez357]

But, if he had locked his door...

[@selfdo]

That officer's behavior was not in keeping with the standards of the Illinois State Police. Was he disciplined and/or fired?

[@sarahlacey2174]

Not sure if this will work this smoothly for all people. But I love this video and I will share with my family

[@Direwolf1166]

I can think of one reason to remain longer. If a cop was being overly aggressive/demanding and you need name and badge number to file a complaint.

[@Andrewflusche]

Perhaps. But I'm skeptical that complaints really go anywhere most of the time.

[@Direwolf1166]

@@Andrewflusche you are probably right. But my dad was law enforcement and i know complaints sometimes bothered him and he would sometimes modify behavior when a complaint was made. I know most of the time it a "we investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing" but there's always the chance that on the personal level it gets to them to not be so overbearing/intrusive.

[@a-liberal-patriot]

@@Andrewflusche That's why I learned a long time ago not to complain to the department. Go up the chain: City Councillor, Mayor, Media.

[@tubedude54]

@@a-liberal-patriot Absolutely... file the complaint with an outside agency... If it's the locals then file with the State police or even the FBI.

[@scylla5114]

Complaints go nowhere they just sit or get lost along the way.

[@originalchilehed]

It's been my understanding that there's case law that establishes that merely remaining silent is insufficient to notify law enforcement that you're invoking the right, that you need to explicitly say that you're doing so.

[@shadowwhogames6063]

Correct. Silence without clarifying that you’re invoking the 5th can be used against you

[@originalchilehed]

@@shadowwhogames6063 As I understand it the real problem can start when you've been answering questions and then suddenly stop, they can claim that it points to guilt. If you never say anything they can't do that, but then they can grill you indefinitely - they don't have to stop until you lawyer up or insist on leaving.

[@MaydayAggro]

That case involved a subject who was answering questions and then just stopped talking when detectives asked an incriminating question. Remaining silent from the beginning is still fine.

[@EGGINFOOLS]

Your rights don't have to be spoken to have them or make them applicable. They were written 200+ years ago. The right to remain silent doesnt have to be spoken

[@originalchilehed]

@@EGGINFOOLS You are absolutely mistaken: "Before petitioner could rely on the privilege against self-incrimination, he was required to invoke it. Because he failed to do so, the judgment of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed." Salinas v Texas, 570 US 178 (2013) "A criminal defendant’s right to remain silent is waived unless it is clearly invoked." Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010)

[@pockets3956]

I always love when one of your videos pops up in my homepage. Thanks again for important and citizen-saving advice and critiques!

[@jamesneufeld-b7e]

I never drive when I have had anything to drink. That's a big help for me. When they tell you that you're free to leave GFOD.

[@alexanderren1097]

Unfortunately issuing DUIshave become a racket. A LOT of DUIs are completely false. Even if you haven’t been drinking they may try to get you anyway

[@andyt3938]

In Kentucky they need 4 things. A written plan for the event , signage with a designated pull off lane clearly marked, a supervisor on scene, and an announcement to the public.

[@4toes1nose]

I believe you absolutely have to video every encounter with law enforcement, without it I believe the encounters could go sideways in a blink of an eye leading to your Miss treatment

[@dewaynebattles]

Citizens lie against police way more than the other way around. That's why police will no longer work without body cams.

[@genxray951]

which is why body cameras should be Mandatory, on at all times ,with the video streamed to a secure cloud server that the police do NOT have possession of.

[@trashpandalife]

There is nothing reasonable about DUI checkpoints, despite what some clown in a black robe says.

[@stevenspilly]

Guessing you haven't had a family member killed by a drunk driver. What a shame to inconvenience drunk driver dirtbags.

[@Lol_Pig]

Its just a fishing exercise hoping to catch a couple bites. Disgraceful.

[@stevenspilly]

@@Lol_Pig so?

[@themanwithnoname1839]

@@stevenspilly imagine working a 16 hour shift with a 2 hour drive home then being stopped by these idiots? Its bullshit, so is the response of a petulent child....

[@superjare23]

@@stevenspilly So? Do you pay your taxes to be investigated because the department is bored and needs arrests?

[@jonathanzimmer6831]

Very interested in you doing more reviews on this type of content. Showing varying levels of good and bad decisions/ behavior. As always, I appreciate your work sir.

[@jimf6427]

"Five Stars." Love the channel and your excellent advice. Keep up the good work.

[@martinsuper4545]

I was a deputy for 16 years. When dealing with boats, we could stop ANY BOAT for a "safety check". That being said, I only stopped boats for probable cause. I don't believe in blanket detainments.

[@zaksmith1035]

Thanks for the compare/contrast and critique here. It's really good to see examples of mistakes you can make while attempting to exercise your rights, as well as how to handle it perfectly. Funnily enough, the true path is a kind of Zen, where you accomplish everything by doing nothing.

[@Andrewflusche]

Keep a mind like water to get through a police road block.

[@BABA-ws5eo]

Great video. I hope you do more like this to show the best way to deal with these stressful situations.

[@TheDevicemanager]

dumb idiots only make themselves into stressfull situations

[@zappyeats2579]

In the first video, I know lawyers often say in court something's seem obvious and redundant but its important to preserve for the record. Wouldn't it be the same on the road. Also I once seen a use of force case. I believe the end result was basically the cop was within his right to ask the driver out of the car. However when the driver would not get out of the car but was not aggressive or appear to be of any threat the officer was not in his right to escalate to force to remove him from the car. I'm sure this would be very jurisdiction specific but I found it interesting.

[@mangomaniac4194]

U might want to watch that video again. The cop likely had the right yo remove him. But not the right to beat him up while rrmoving him.

[@zappyeats2579]

@@mangomaniac4194 I do not think the guy was beat up in this case. I don't remember the specifics but I think the point is at that point yes they could remove you if your under arrest but that is it. The video was about a case not like an audit video.

[@TEverettReynolds]

They are typically allowed to remove you from a car under the guise of "officer safety". Its not about the infraction, its about the cop.

[@evanbriggs443]

The Mimms case relates to a Lawful Traffic Stop (for an Expired Plates violation). Are these kind of Roadside Checkpoints considered Lawful Traffic Stops (without an observed Traffic Violation)? I would argue no and that they could not Lawfully Order you out of the vehicle. Your thoughts?

[@Mr.NiceGuy80]

Unfortunately, in North Carolina, we, as citizens, have limited rights at these gestapo paper checks.

[@DavidBlake27055]

This video receives 8 stars out of 5. Three bonus stars for great commentary.

[@itsnotme07]

I'd seen that motorcycle video before and he was not so much trying to "not talk" to them as test their actions, which is why he wanted an incident number and information after. I think the 1st video should have done that as that officer who opened his door and started screaming was WAY out of line and should be disciplined for his unprofessional actions. Great stuff/info Andrew! I hope I never NEED it. LOL

[@feez357]

But he should have had his door locked.

[@macmcleod1188]

Well I think the motorcycle driver took some additional risk he's also putting polite pressure on the police about the fact that citizens have rights and by letting the officers know they cannot remain anonymous.

[@m4rvinmartian]

The moto rider is a first amendment auditor.

[@thadrepairsitall1278]

In the first video I think the officer is lucky he didn't get hit or poked in the eye.

[@briang.7206]

LAPD you might just end up in jail. I'm polite to them as they have to deal all day with the crazy street people here and maybe they are in a bad mood. They have a stressful job. Again not saying the officer was right yelling at him.

[@m4rvinmartian]

*8:00** FWIW, the motorcyclist is a known 1A Auditor. At this point he is auditing, that is why he extended the stop.*

[@MaydayAggro]

It absolutely DOES serve a purpose to keep your windows up as much as possible to make it more difficult for an officer to claim he smells alcohol or weed. In most states you are not even required to hand over your license. Most state laws use words like "exhibit" or "present" rather than "provide." You can place it against your window for the officer to look at it.

[@BB-848-VAC]

Cap on everything you said

[@ravenzyblack]

Exactly it’s “show” not “handover your ID and proof of insurance.”

[@vl4n7684zt]

If you crack your window, that is enough for an officer to claim it, so don't fight that one as it doesn't benefit you either way.

[@MaydayAggro]

@@vl4n7684zt If you keep youru mouth closed and say nothing, it will be very difficult for the officer to make that case in court.

[@captainjimolchs]

Careful. I have encountered some States that have loosely defined those words.

[@johndrake3472]

No reason to get snarky - doesn’t help you, only hurts.

[@a-liberal-patriot]

After watching a few of your videos, I researched buying a dash cam. Now ordered. Will feel better with it in place.

[@shawnwatson1419]

Excellent! You should do more of these types of videos Andrew. Thank you!

[@The_Pariah]

Really enjoying your YT content, Andrew. Great stuff. Keep 'em coming. I love learning stuff. Especially the real rules of the law.

[@exile220ify]

Really love your vids Andrew - keep 'em coming! You're a total geek and we geeks love ya lol!

[@jeffreymakas132]

Except remaining silent doesn't indicate.You're invoking your 5th. Courts have ruled it has to be said.

[@The0Matador0]

That first cop is unhinged. Definitely need to file a complaint.

[@Drikkerbadevand]

The motorcycle guy handled it well. (Except the end of course) People misunderstand the idea of the 5th. You dont have to invoke it for it to take effect, you're invoking it by NOT incriminating yourself by answering questions. You can still talk to them, and be polite saying "is it OK if I reach into my pocket", "are you ordering me to [lower my window]" "good evening" etc Of course if you've had anything to drink or even if you havent, they can claim your speech was slurred etc. But then again, they can claim you smelled like marijuana or other even if you did absolutely nothing and was quiet

[@Thecelestial1]

This is wrong. There are Supreme Court cases that have been lost because people didn’t verbally state “I invoke the fifth”

[@septegram]

First guy should have had his door locked. One good reason to keep your window rolled up as much as possible (and never roll down more than one) is to undermine a case if a cop claims (falsely) to smell marijuana.

[@keensweep]

the alleged detection of Marijuana odor is not lawful cause

[@NotOfThisWorld567]

Leaving your window up prevents them from saying the "smell of marijuana is coming from your vehicle."

[@whitedevil2]

great video. 2 disagreements: 1)that biker deserved 5 stars. he didn't stay to chit-chat, he asked for their information. he may want to file a complaint or lawsuit or something else. 2)and you're wrong that it doesn't "serve any purpose" to refuse the order to roll down your window. it's not a lawful order. the purpose for refusal could be for the driver's own safety, or simply because he knows he has the right to keep it up just as much as he has the right to remain silent. just because exercising a right could lead a cop to stupidly escalate a situation, like getting mad for someone not speaking, should not be a reason to give up that right. we either use our rights or lose them.

[@parker4551]

There has been a push by some to show that driving is a right under life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

[@sherlockholmes4700]

please do more of these types of review videos, very informative 👍

[@Andrewflusche]

Thanks! It was fun to do. :)

[@Norm-R]

Absolutely agreed. I find these real world examples incredibly helpful and the commentary on what could have been done different because I would probably be like the first guy where I refuse, but still talk too much when I see how effective the second and 3rd guy were in exercising their rights.

[@ruben7937]

Yes was very informative:) Although we thankfully do not have such crazy systems in my country. Almost noone in my country are afraid of cops, they are not after getting you here;)

[@mattbrown5511]

Just how many sets of boots do you lick every day?

[@sparty94]

hi andrew, i've watched some of your videos, just wanted to say that i appreciate what you are doing to help protect our rights.

[@ivarorno]

But by having the officer verbalize it surely it would affect his qualified immunity? Previously he could just claim "I was doing as I was told" or something, but now he's aware that he's detaining people and he should be aware of the legal requirements for that.

[@jeffreypowell1966]

I understand and agree with the idea that it’s best to comply with an officers request to roll down the car window (unnecessary power plays against the police often end badly for the citizen), but what I’m wondering is, by doing that aren’t you giving the officer the opportunity to say he/she smells an odor of alcohol or marijuana coming from inside the vehicle? I think maybe that’s why some people say it’s best to keep the window only minimally cracked.

[@harveywallbanger1738]

Other people claim that if you only open your window a crack, then any odors will be concentrated to the officers nose. In the very rare times I've encountered a DUI checkpoint, I just stop, roll down my window, and set there and read my book while officers talk at me. Usually, one of the officers end up telling me to proceed. I think it helps that I'm old and don't care.

[@superchampable]

I remember going through a DUI check point during new years. I see all these lights at the bridge thinking someone jumped again. I had just smoked a joint a mile back thinking "should I turn around?" I don't and good thing I didn't as a cop is waiting in a blind drive. I roll down my windows to air out the car and pull up to 10 cops in the center of the road. Shines his light in my eyes and asks if I had any drinks tonight and I reply no. Walkes back to talk to other officers and a moment later comes back and lets me go. My eyes are blood shoot, ash from the joint on my lap and I'm free. I was driving a manual Mustang at the time and I squealed the tires as I left. Got a few ooh and awes lol. I was expecting rd lights to come after me but nothing! I honestly think they were surprised at my courage of not turning around when I had the chance is what saved me!

[@zamin_ali]

I enjoyed how you commented on each video. Please make more in the future. ✌

[@deenine]

Thank you for this video. I saw that first one before and I get annoyed when the person tried to "get" the police by asking teh same question over and over again.

[@princep1398]

The fact that the supreme court doesn't understand that these "no-probable-cause-having check points" are unconstitutional let's me know clearly that they can't be relied upon for protecting people's rights against unconstitutional legislation. Also, I still don't see how people don't realize that Pennsylvania v mimms was a unconstitutional ruling. Just because the order was a "minimal intrusion" doesn't escape the fact that it is used to circumvent 4th amendment protections. How is it any different than, if instead of illegally searching your pockets, he orders you to turn your pockets inside out for officer safety? I wouldn't be surprised if this hypothetical senario gets tested in court and the upper courts affirm that "officer safety" is more important than the rights of the people.

[@T4nkcommander]

The supreme court is part of the incorporated U.S. which as a contract entity is not beholden to following the constitution. Hence why they license people for things the constitution says are a right. Anything in the federal U.S. jurisdiction is statute law. If you subject yourself to their rules, you gotta play by them. Smarter to be a State National or USA Citizen. Then you can exercise your rights. Well, provided you don't face an ignorant or corrupt official. But there are ways to deal with them.

[@kellyvcraig]

The sad thing is, this is nothing more than a fishing expedition to uncover a crime, but which in many or most places is prohibited, since it tramples liberty rights without cause.

[@neglectfulsausage7689]

They threatened to take away federal highway funding unless states reduced BAC limits from 0.12 to 0.08 over he last 40 years.

[@FedkaSlovanich]

@@neglectfulsausage7689they should remove fines at replace it with community service, its bullshit that departments are pressing fines just for money.

[@HazellRahh]

I have actually wondered what a lawyer thought of these exact three videos! Thank you!

[@gabrielramirez-bb9xe]

Love the correction and the Advice. Awesome

[@randyparker7833]

Loved it. My wife is always asking how to safely and peacefully ignore/dismiss police. However passively standing by tends to be the issue for lack of legal regulation that protects our CONSTITUTIONAL right. E.g right to security of documents and freedom of speech and the grand 5th. If we just quietly ignore these unconstitutional acts. How do we expect to fight them in court. Can one sue the police for unconstitutional acts if one fully comply with the unconstitutional act?

[@goodcitizen3780]

Yes. It is understood that you are being compelled under the threat of force. Ideally you would have them state that you could/will be arrested if "blank".

[@mamapia5419]

I remember Jesse from another video where a condescending officer lies to him by telling him it's illegal to film.

[@jesusgavemeaids]

I've always been curious about the legality of cops telling you to tilt your head back to look up your nose. Some people crush & snort pills (& other drugs) & cops used to harass me & my friends all the time & sometimes asked us to look up our noses for residue of drugs is what I assume. But I always wondered if we were legally required to do that. & we were just walking in most cases; not driving.

[@snakemanmike]

They have no legal right to do that unless they can provide reasonable suspicion or probable cause, but if you refuse, it may escalate the encounter. That's a tough one. I personally think that those cops need a lesson on the constitution, but the question for you is whether it is worth it, given that it could be a nasty fight, with you even being arrested. If they violate your rights, do you have the resources to hire the quality lawyer it takes to fight them in court? Are you willing to go to the trouble to assert your rights in this matter, not knowing how far they may carry it? It's a tough decision.

[@m4rvinmartian]

They have no right to detain you while walking, in a non stop and identify state, if they have no Reasonable Articulable Suspicion that you have committed a crime, or are about to commit a crime.

[@goodcitizen3780]

@@m4rvinmartian They have no right to detain you anywhere, for any reason, barring RAS. There is no such thing as a stop and ID state beyond the colloquialism. There are states which require you to have been arrested and those which require only that you be detained.

[@GalaxyFluke]

I’ve never heard of this

[@scottsallese6343]

First question should have been, what law have I broken. If no law was broken, the police do not have a right to stop or detain you!

[@Barkebain]

The Michigan supreme court ruled that the US SC was wrong, and we don't have these disgusting things any longer. I treat all police encounters the same. First of all I try to avoid them if at all possible - never answer my door for police. If it can't be avoided, I record, identify cop(s), demand a lawyer for all questions, invoke my fifth amendment right, then I don't say another word no matter what other than to ask if I'm free to go.

[@captainjimolchs]

Can you point me to that Micigan case? I'd like to read it.

[@mrpricklypear22]

Great summary video with good visual and audio examples. ❤🔥👌

[@Andrewflusche]

Thank you 🙌

[@evgenyonishkevich8494]

Great tips, as always!

[@johns9478]

I've never seen a DUI checkpoint in real life before, but it's got to be unconstitutional to just detain and question people completely at random without any sort of probable cause, warrant or consent.

[@brucesmith9144]

It has been ruled constitutional if they stop all drivers and also that they publicly announce where DUI checkpoints are held. The local news outlets in my area would run an article stating when and where police would hold a DUI checkpoint. That was public notification. Most of the time these stops net them citations for expired registration, license, inspection or insurance violations.

[@toledojeeper2932]

How can it be unconstitutional when the Supreme Court ruled that it isn't ?

[@joeshmoe7899]

@@toledojeeper2932 Dread Scott, Roe v Wade,....shall I continue?

[@toledojeeper2932]

@@joeshmoe7899 ...What does Roe vs Wade have to do with DUI checkpoints ? Are you saying that because they reversed their position on some cases it effects all cases ? Or are you saying it's a bad law because you just don't agree with it ?

[@TheAsheybabe89]

​@@toledojeeper2932we're saying it's bad law because the 4th amendment is written in clear English and we know how to read. We also don't need pretenders in robes and their intentional act of shitting on the constitution to expand government overreach. Furthermore, there isn't even a constitutional basis for judicial review in the first place. The application in the US was created out of thin air by SCOTUS in Marbury v. Madison to basically give themselves the ability to override the legislature.. you know, the elected representative lawmakers of the people.

[@shmehfleh3115]

I used to work a weekend shift at a business in an old, mostly-empty mall. One Saturday evening after my shift was over, I went out to my car and saw what looked like a circus set up in the parking lot: There was a huge line of cars waiting to get into the lot, a bunch of trailers and portable flood lights set up, and cops everywhere. As I drove out of the lot, I got stopped by one of the cops who asked me where I was coming from. I told him I was leaving work--work being the very business they had occupied. I then asked him what the hell was going on, and he told me they had set up a massive DUI checkpoint: They closed the entire northbound side of the interstate, diverted all traffic into this parking lot, and were checking every single driver before letting them back out through the rest of the lot. This wasn't late at night, either; it was around 8pm, and there were cars backed up all the way up the off-ramp. I don't get how any of that was legal, including using the mall's parking lot like they did. It was a privately owned business, not some public space.

[@michaelmontgomery5326]

Driving is an occupation not to be confused with traveling which is a right, not a priviledge. Never approach a trap without locking your doors, and always speak through closed windows. There is a major difference from a motor vehicle, and an automobile/private household goods.

[@ct-lg4gm]

Rolling the window down allows the cop to abuse the go-to lie of "I smell alcohol." It's true, they could pull him out, but it's much easier for a cop to just lie in the first place. If prefer not to make it easy for him.

[@alexm7777]

More like: "I smell weed."

[@keithbanther3385]

Are we complying with the demand for I.D. with out P.C. or R.A.S simply to get on through & lessen the detainmant time? That is a 4th amendment violation

[@kamaubentley3378]

Most people are willing to give up their rights out of convenience smh it's shameful

[@luke8222]

Yeah completely unconstitutional. Constitution is always above all these wack federal and state laws.

[@alexm7777]

We do it because every state has a law that a Leo can check to make sure you are licensed to operate a motor vehicle on a public roadway if you are detained.

[@seanritter897]

Please do more reviews like this. Perhaps even some 1st amendment audit reviews

[@IAMDAY-p1q]

i like your videos because you provide very great commentary!

[@Jeffersionian]

Dui check point is opposed to the presumption of innocence.

[@chevelle1]

Why is he saying that you should comply with rolling down the window more? This attorney has great advice (as many others) on dealing with dui checkpoints, but he lost me with that one. Seems counterproductive to roll your window down more as obviously the cop can claim they smelled “the odor of an alcoholic beverage”. (All cops use the same phrases)

[@simmer2482]

Thank you!! Was thinking the same thing

[@martinedward2697]

As a young officer decades ago, the Chief said ‘ you didn’t smell alcohol… alcohol has no smell…. You smelled liquor.

[@P_Petkov]

But Alcohol does have a smell. It's very distinct and noticeable.

[@rockk9753]

That chief has a horrible sense of smell go and smell the alcohol and you'll see it does have a smell

[@MyNameJeff..]

More proof cops have low iq’s. Wth does that even mean?

[@mitchhedberg4415]

that is completely wrong

[@israeljarvis8086]

I appreciate you're channel. Very informative and interesting

[@edwardhollenbeck9700]

I've been told by an attorney that Pennsylvania VS Mems has 2 qualifying conditions that have to be met before the police can order you to get out of the vehicle. Condition one is that it must be a lawful traffic stop. Condition two is that the police officer must have reasonable suspicion that you constitute a reasonable threat to them. Your response would be appreciated.

[@mikemike1690]

Pa vs Mimms is one of the most misused rights violations. It is often misinterpreted even by lawyers. After having read the decision and briefing, the SCOTUS ACTUALLY said that in order for an officer to remove you from your vehicle, THEY MUST BE ABLE TO ARTICULATE OFFICER SAFETY TO DO SO. It cannot be “just because”. There has to be a reason they can articulate that they need to separate you from your vehicle. Either it’s contraband, evidence destruction, fear of flight, or a weapon. I read it and thought it was very clear. Possibly needs to go back to the Supreme Court for clarification. Just like Pa driver’s license checkpoints are illegal. They say they’re legal because dui checkpoints are in Pa. However, the Supreme Court held it’s a MINIMAL INVASION for a dui BUT NOTHING ELSE because there is no PC that a driver does not have a valid license.

[@kennethhubbard7668]

This dude is like 75% pro cop

[@Mostopinionatedmanofalltime]

I don't see that. He seems to be a good advocate.

[@jimhanty8149]

Arnt most people that are decent citizens…?

[@alexm7777]

No he isn't. Otherwise why does he always say to not talk to the police?

[@treymeadows7943]

Hi Andrew, I wanted to say this is a fantastic channel and I’m looking forward to more videos in the future. But I did have a question: I work at a hospital, but there are a lot of speed traps on my daily commute there. (No tickets thank goodness) Is it okay to be friendly and tell the police officer, “I’m just headed to work, I work at the hospital officer” if they ask where I’m going? Should I decline to answer any questions after that initial cooperation? Or is this kind of nicety something to avoid all together? Thanks!

[@leef_me8112]

The cops are there to enforce the law, some will still enforce it when no crime has been committed. Some say all cops are bad, but that is not 100% true. But the problem is that you have no prior information on the cop that pull you over. Don't volunteer any information. Talking allows testing if your speech in impaired. The 2nd sentence of the Miranda warning is "Anything you says can and will be used against you." My point isn't to scare you, just give you something to consider.

[@MrTheHillfolk]

I wouldn't want them knowing where I work,plain and simple.

[@alexm7777]

Being nice is no guarantee that you will get out of a speeding ticket. Lots of videos on this channel tell you to not talk to the police so that is what you should do.

[@MMigan-jx4fp]

You have a great channel and you give excellent advice on very important and relevant issues of the day. However, I have to differ with you on this video, specifically the third example. He shouldn’t get 5 stars; maybe 4 or 4.5, because he failed to invoke his right to remain silent. Under Salinas v. Texas, 133 S. Ct. 2174 (2013), the prosecution can (and will) use the silence of a suspect who: 1) is out of police custody (and not Mirandized); 2) voluntarily submits to police questioning, and 3) stays silent without expressly invoking his/her Fifth Amendment rights. Thus, he should have expressly stated that he wished to remain silent. Wouldn’t you agree? I haven’t read all of the comments so apologies if someone has already brought this up.

[@leemcmullan]

agree

[@leemcmullan]

I give biker 5 stars

[@alexm7777]

One could argue that only matters if one starts talking.

[@nickc7494]

Good luck with that attitude, give respect get respect

[@Kickstarter77]

That cop made a huge mistake by yanking the door open cuz if he would have had juice that cop would have had a bad night

[@richardstone5241]

I was in Law Enforcement in the 1970's but we considered ourselves "Peace Officers" and I was proud to serve as such. I never harassed people and looked for ways to make an arrest. Did I arrest people? Yes, if, there was a "crime". At that time, we were not taught "detention" because the minute you prevent a person from travelling they were considered to be under arrest (at that time we called it a "custodial arrest") and that was to only be conducted if there was a reasonable suspicion of a crime that could be "articulated" to the individual. And, if there was any questioning of the person that was considered to be a "custodial interrogation" for information. I had a great time serving as an officer and the people loved me for my service. Today, I am embarrassed and ashamed of how "Law Enforcement Officers" conduct themselves. Just a bunch of BULLIES!!!!

[@captainjimolchs]

That was before Terry v. Ohio. Technically, most are still PEACE officers. "Police officer" has a very narrow definition in most states.

[@zachdanielson7051]

Your the man Andrew! Thanks for your content. Clarifying question: for the video with the motorcyclist; would the only reason to not stick around be to have no further inaction with the police? What if you believe something went wrong with the encounter and you need to follow up with the officers supervisor? Is there any way to contact a supervisor without grabing a card or name? Thanks!!

[@gi70st]

the department knows who is working the roadblock at a given time and location

[@Grendelbc]

It's highly likely that the sergeant who told him to call him with any questions would NEVER bother to return his calls. Asking for the ID of the cops in question immediately was the smart thing to do.

[@alexm7777]

Is the bodycam footage not sufficient enough to identify the officers in the video?

[@Jamesaepp]

Ehh. I don't think the cyclist should get docked points for asking for officers identifying information as efficiently as possible. It allows for filing a complaint and building an OTR history of an officers conduct. How could one do that better? Have a flip book on ones person with the routine questions to give to an officer? Pretend to be a mute but communicate via text?

[@SeanRD82...]

A police officer cannot open your car door without permission unless there's probable cause, a search warrant, or an immediate concern for public safety.

[@sebastianricci6517]

I would give a 3 out of 5 stars on this lawyers assessment

[@hotchow8766]

Quality content, Mr. Flusche. Thank you.

[@stopsheeping]

I could see someone hiring this guy as counsel, then counsel melting in court. Basically we're to do whatever these costumed scumbags say so our day will go smoother. Now does anyone wonder how we got to this police state?

[@rmmm6725]

I have another viewpoint. If you don’t break the law and comply with simple commands you won’t have to worry.

[@drivernephi5587]

@@rmmm6725 until they plant evidence or read a drug test wrong and you stay the night in jail

[@alexm7777]

​@@rmmm6725your viewpoint doesn't work in the real world because the system is not perfect

[@coolraul07]

@Andrew, I'm in VA. How do you feel about "presenting" DL/reg/insurance as opposed to "giving" them? I've seen officers play games with not giving back documents in a timely fashion to keep drivers around longer. ("Oh, the other officer has them, he'll be back...") I feel even stronger that at checkpoints I should only PRESENT versus GIVE since there was no RAS to pull me over and they only need to see that they're current.

[@goodcitizen3780]

At a checkpoint you are detained. Different jurisdictions will have different requirements. Idaho, for example, requires that you "display" your license. You shouldn't have to physically hand it to the officer right? Wrong. Idaho also clarifies later that by "display" they mean "physically surrender". Word games

[@tritonh5683]

I just say hello, and he ask me where are you going? I say home from work. Then they let me through.

[@iHaveTheDocuments]

The difference is these guys are praying for any interaction with police, many farm for it. They want to start a fight to upload it to KZbin. That's why the camera is rolling

[@208miuwu]

I was stationed in Sandiego in 2004 came through a check point and the police literally pulled me out of my car, left it in drive and the car kept going. Had a Korean officer talking with me I couldn`t really understand, Bright flood lights in my face as I would maneuver to keep the light out of my eyes the police officer was saying I`m uncooperative. Finally a different police officer looked at me and said let him go he`s fine. I couldn`t find my car and my ID, wallet and cell phone just laying in the front seat for someone to take. I never took orders for the west coast ever again.