OT - Douglas County - "Upcoming Roadside Sobriety Checkpoint"

[jskp229]

The other checkpoint thread was getting a little long & I wanted to be sure this didn't get lost. Not sure where it will be but wanted to give a heads up. What really bothers me is what is MADD & the nat'l guard doing in this?

I rec'd this today...

---------------------
Upcoming Roadside Sobriety Checkpoint

NARRATIVE: DOUGLAS COUNTY, CO – The Douglas County Sheriff’s Office (DCSO) will be stepping up their efforts to apprehend intoxicated and impaired drivers. On Saturday, August 20, 2011 from 6:00 PM to 2:00 AM deputies and volunteers from the DCSO and Community Safety Volunteers will be assisted by representatives from M.A.D.D. and soldiers from Buckley Air Force Base, utilizing Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) grant funds, will be conducting a DUI checkpoint at a location in Douglas County on a roadway that has been identified as a problem area for accidents and high incidents of DUI arrests. DCSO will also have extra officers working throughout the weekend whose primary focus will be to apprehend intoxicated and impaired drivers in other areas of the county.

All deputies and officers want to remind drivers “Drunk Driving. Over the Limit. Under Arrest !”

The operation of the sobriety checkpoints will be conducted with the utmost respect for the safety of the participating officers and the motoring public. Priority shall be given to minimize the amount of time a motorist spends at the checkpoint to protect their constitutional rights.

The Colorado Department of Transportation grant funding is being used to assist law enforcement agencies in their efforts to enforce DUI laws within Colorado.

-##-


Douglas County Sheriff's Office
Public Information Officer
Youth and Community Programs
4000 Justice Way
Castle Rock, CO 80109

 

[bogidu]

nevermind, just saw the other OT thread on this and it already went WAY beyond what I said.

 

[M-Taliesin]

What really bothers me is what is MADD & the nat'l guard doing in this?

Priority shall be given to minimize the amount of time a motorist spends at the checkpoint to protect their constitutional rights.

Howdy Pard!
And who covers the liability if one of them Mad Mothers gets injured while playing around with the cops at a checkpoint?
And isn't the use of National Guard a violation of The Posse Comitatus Act, ergo a violation of federal law?
See:
18 U.S.C. § 1385. Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus
Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

Also notable is the following provision within Title 10 of the United States Code (which concerns generally the organization and regulation of the armed forces and Department of Defense):

10 U.S.C. § 375. Restriction on direct participation by military personnel
The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to ensure that any activity (including the provision of any equipment or facility or the assignment or detail of any personnel) under this chapter does not include or permit direct participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law.

As for stopping people in order to violate their Constitutional Rights, however briefly, an infringement of those rights is not authorized, however briefly. Every motorist should understand that they are being stopped without RAS. Every motorist, thus stopped, has a possible civil action against the law enforcement agency involved.

So here we have a clear violation of a whole bunch of law, a trampling of Constitutional rights, and is being conducted by a law enforcement agency. Hmmm. Anybody else see a problem here?

Or as they used to say during those halcyon days of 1940's Germany... "Your papers please!"

Blessings,
M-Taliesin

 

[Gunslinger]

Howdy Pard!
And who covers the liability if one of them Mad Mothers gets injured while playing around with the cops at a checkpoint?
And isn't the use of National Guard a violation of The Posse Comitatus Act, ergo a violation of federal law?
See:
18 U.S.C. § 1385. Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus
Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

Also notable is the following provision within Title 10 of the United States Code (which concerns generally the organization and regulation of the armed forces and Department of Defense):

10 U.S.C. § 375. Restriction on direct participation by military personnel
The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to ensure that any activity (including the provision of any equipment or facility or the assignment or detail of any personnel) under this chapter does not include or permit direct participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law.

As for stopping people in order to violate their Constitutional Rights, however briefly, an infringement of those rights is not authorized, however briefly. Every motorist should understand that they are being stopped without RAS. Every motorist, thus stopped, has a possible civil action against the law enforcement agency involved.

So here we have a clear violation of a whole bunch of law, a trampling of Constitutional rights, and is being conducted by a law enforcement agency. Hmmm. Anybody else see a problem here?

Or as they used to say during those halcyon days of 1940's Germany... "Your papers please!"

Blessings,
M-Taliesin

No, the Buckley guys are 'volunteers,' just like MADD. They have no authority to make arrests, so the PC act is not in play. That doesn't change the violation of the 4th Amendment these roadblocks create one bit. It is BS, but we've had that discussion on here many times.

 

[jskp229]

My intent was not to reopen the controversy, but as a heads-up for those of us in the DCty area on that day.

Thx

 

[JamesB]

No, the Buckley guys are 'volunteers,' just like MADD. They have no authority to make arrests, so the PC act is not in play. That doesn't change the violation of the 4th Amendment these roadblocks create one bit. It is BS, but we've had that discussion on here many times.

Even if they aren't 'volunteers,' the National Guard is technically not a branch of the US military. It is answerable the the Govenor, not the President. Colorado people doing jobs in Colorado. Again, no breach of Posse Commitus.

Doesn't mean I agree with it...

 

[M-Taliesin]

Even if they aren't 'volunteers,' the National Guard is technically not a branch of the US military. It is answerable the the Govenor, not the President. Colorado people doing jobs in Colorado. Again, no breach of Posse Commitus.

Doesn't mean I agree with it...

Howdy Amigo!
I can certainly be mistaken, but from what I read of the actual Posse Comitatas law itself, it indicated that it does apply to national guard as well.
But I can be mistaken.

Blessings,
M-Taliesin

 

[Gunslinger]

Howdy Amigo!
I can certainly be mistaken, but from what I read of the actual Posse Comitatas law itself, it indicated that it does apply to national guard as well.
But I can be mistaken.

Blessings,
M-Taliesin

Only when Federalized, under state control they are exempt and have been used in that role. I'm not sure these guys are NG. Anyone know for sure? AFR would be under PC prohibition, period.

 

[M-Taliesin]

Only when Federalized, under state control they are exempt and have been used in that role. I'm not sure these guys are NG. Anyone know for sure? AFR would be under PC prohibition, period.

Howdy Again Gunslinger!
I am not sure about other states, but here in Colorado, there is a great deal of suspicion of National Guard soldiers being used for anything apart from their charter obligations. There is a latent distrust of the Colorado National Guard, and not without sound reason to regard them with a somewhat jaundiced eye.

Case in point, the Ludlow Massacre.
Striking miners were set upon by Colorado National Guard soldiers with machine guns. They mowed down men, women and children who thought the NGs were there to preserve order. In fact, Rockerfeller, who owned the mines, sent in thugs to wreak deadly havoc on the miners to bust up the strike. When that failed, he contacted Colorado's governor at the time, and he activated the NGs and sent them to Ludlow. What followed was the horrific massacre of miners and their families.

You can read up on the background info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre

In essence, the Colorado National Guard was dispatched by the Governor of Colorado at the bidding of Rockerfeller's corporation to murder strikers and their families. And their gunning down of those citizens was brutally efficient.

While this may be a far cry from permitting NG's to volunteer to work a checkpoint, people don't much care to see the NG's enforcing state agenda. It just doesn't sit right with many in Colorado.

At least, that's one opinion.

Blessings,
M-Taliesin

 

[Gunslinger]

Howdy Again Gunslinger!
I am not sure about other states, but here in Colorado, there is a great deal of suspicion of National Guard soldiers being used for anything apart from their charter obligations. There is a latent distrust of the Colorado National Guard, and not without sound reason to regard them with a somewhat jaundiced eye.

Case in point, the Ludlow Massacre.
Striking miners were set upon by Colorado National Guard soldiers with machine guns. They mowed down men, women and children who thought the NGs were there to preserve order. In fact, Rockerfeller, who owned the mines, sent in thugs to wreak deadly havoc on the miners to bust up the strike. When that failed, he contacted Colorado's governor at the time, and he activated the NGs and sent them to Ludlow. What followed was the horrific massacre of miners and their families.

You can read up on the background info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre

In essence, the Colorado National Guard was dispatched by the Governor of Colorado at the bidding of Rockerfeller's corporation to murder strikers and their families. And their gunning down of those citizens was brutally efficient.

While this may be a far cry from permitting NG's to volunteer to work a checkpoint, people don't much care to see the NG's enforcing state agenda. It just doesn't sit right with many in Colorado.

At least, that's one opinion.

Blessings,
M-Taliesin

Long time ago, M-, and typical of state militias being used to break strikes back in the day. I remember the documentary on the Harlen county strike and the one at the steel mill owned by Carnegie in PA--forget its name. Back when unions did some good, unlike today when they are boot lickers to the Left. I wouldn't worry about today's CNG. I know many in it, and they are serious about the oath they took.

 

[JamesB]

More recently,

When the Pope came to visit back in like '92, the Colorado National Guard was deployed. They were there working aid stations etc. for all the people who were not prepared for the heat of the day. Many were evacuated from the site in olive drab ambulances. But not a single encounter that weekend that I know of where the part-time soldiers got too big for themselves and started playing Stormtrooper.

 

[since9]

I'm not too worried about the CNG. I'm not at all happy with them allowing M.A.D.D. volunteers, though. That's like allowing members of the Brady Campaign to run the gun shows.

 

[M-Taliesin]

I'm not too worried about the CNG. I'm not at all happy with them allowing M.A.D.D. volunteers, though. That's like allowing members of the Brady Campaign to run the gun shows.

Howdy Amigo!
I would wager a Morgan dollar they'd absolutely love that job!

Blessings,
M-Taliesin

 

[Beau]

My question is this.What are we legally required to answer or provide while attending one of these constitution rape parties?For instance, are we required to submit to a breathalyzer? What about a field sobriety test? Are we legally required to produce a driver's license, registration and insurance? If I ever get stopped at one of these I don't want to provide any more than required by law.

 

[Gunslinger]

If you refuse to be tested, which you certainly can, you are giving prima facie "proof" and will have your license suspended. I'm not sure of the administrative process, as it will never concern me because I don't drink and drive. You have the right to refuse the breathalyzer and demand a blood test--far more accurate. You can simply state you will answer no questions. But now you have the cop's suspicion. It's a no win game unless you are sober, and then it is simply a tiny violation of your constitutional rights. But we have a lot of them, so who'll miss it...
Here's some good FAQs.

http://www.colorado-criminal-lawyer.com/dui/faq.html

 

[DCR]

Check your DUI / Implied Consent laws

Implied consent laws make it a condition of obtaining a driver's license that the motorist consents to a breath test, on probable cause that they are DUI. If you refuse the breath test, after being arrested for DUI, you have broken that condition, and your license will be suspended, typically for one year, with no temporary privileges, regardless whether you are prosecuted or convicted of DUI.

Some states require what's generally called a "preliminary breath test," which doesn't require an arrest. The test is given to determine whether alcohol is present in the motorist's breath, but isn't always the final test used for prosecution or license suspension. There may be penalties for refusing the preliminary breath test, depending on the state.

However, most states do not require a motorist to submit to the field sobriety tests (though some do - so be forewarned). The standard field tests, backed by NHTSA, are the horizontal gaze nystagmus test (watch my light, pen, finger - follow it from left to right), the one-legged stand, and the walk-and-turn. Some jurisdictions throw in a couple others, but they are not "standardized" by NHTSA.

All the field tests do is allow the officer to generate PC to arrest for DUI, and occasionally some funny video for YouTube or TV shows - all of which can be played for great effect before a jury. If your state does not require field tests, attorneys advise clients to politely decline them, just as you would a request for ID (in states without "stop and identify" laws) or other information.

These are generalities; check with a local attorney for advice on your state's laws.

 

[Beau]

Thanks for the link Gunslinger. I did learn that field sobriety tests are voluntary. It wasn't clear on identification though. I want to know if we have to prove provide a DL. I would assume yes but would like to be certain. what about registration and insurance?

Another thing that want clear was if we can refuse a roadside breathalyzer and opt for the blood test instead.

 

[Gunslinger]

Thanks for the link Gunslinger. I did learn that field sobriety tests are voluntary. It wasn't clear on identification though. I want to know if we have to prove provide a DL. I would assume yes but would like to be certain. what about registration and insurance?

Another thing that want clear was if we can refuse a roadside breathalyzer and opt for the blood test instead.

DL if asked for, as you are in a car. You would simply state you request a blood test and refuse the ba. If the cops don't think you're DUI, they don't ask for a DL, I've heard.

 

[Beau]

DL if asked for, as you are in a car. You would simply state you request a blood test and refuse the ba. If the cops don't think you're DUI, they don't ask for a DL, I've heard.

Oh I'm sure they would be asking for it when they have someone that refusing to answer the fishing questions and not doing anything more than legally required.