Probable cause to stop

[Donslock]

Talk about tieing your hands......


KELOLAND.com | Sioux Falls News & Weather, South Dakota News & Weather, Minnesota and Iowa News


SD Court: Avoiding Checkpoint Doesn't Justify Stop


Published: April 19, 2012, 11:39 AM


0


inShare.


PIERRE, SD -


The South Dakota Supreme Court says a driver's avoidance of a sobriety checkpoint does not by itself give police sufficient reason to stop a vehicle and check whether a driver is intoxicated.


In a decision issued Thursday, the high court noted that it previously had ruled that avoidance of a checkpoint did give law officers the reasonable suspicion needed to justify a traffic stop. The justices say they are now joining with recent federal court rulings to hold that turning away from a checkpoint is not sufficient reason for a stop.


However, the high court upheld the drunken driving conviction of a South Dakota man who turned onto another road before reaching a checkpoint near Milbank. The Supreme Court says the man's driving provided reason to stop him.


© 2012 Associated Press. All rights reserved. Material may not be redistributed.

 

[Zoe]

The term you need is "Reasonable Suspicion" for a stop. (Not "Probable Cause.")


This also comes down to similar rulings regarding people running away from the police of foot.


A brisk turn of direction away from police isn't necessarily RS for a foot pursuit... but a rapid turn and sprint away may be.


(And it all comes down to the "suspect's" history or social experience with law enforcement.)


My $0.02?


If someone sees a checkpoint down the road and they have the opportunity to take a side street to "avoid the hassle" that does not constitute RS for a stop.


If someone comes up on a checkpoint, and then turns around or makes a 3-point turn and backtracks, to me a "reasonable person" would agree that this is suspicious and indicative of someone who has a guilty conscious and thus constitutes RS for a stop.


But, as far as the ruling that the OP posted... I don't let rulings like these bug me. This is how the system works, with all of its checks and balances.

 

[CPDG23]

I am very pro law enforcement but I am completely against any checkpoints other than border crossings.


I think this is a good ruling and a step in the right direction. :thumbsup:

 

[ccsobaker]

A brisk turn of direction away from police isn't necessarily RS for a foot pursuit... but a rapid turn and sprint away may be.

Huh? Not sure what you mean here, can't really chase someone if they just turn and don't run.


We don't do checkpoints anyway, only saturation patrols.

 

[OSP959(R)]

I agree with Zack.


A proper DUI checkpoint has to have signs alerting motorists to the checkpoint, and offer them a place to turn on to another road before the checkpoint if they don't want to go through it. This makes the checkpoint voluntary. Some people will turn just because they don't want to be bothered with it. That's not grounds to stop them.

 

[HILO]

I hate drunk drivers and uninsured drivers. I have no problem with check points. It is a public roadway, I wish LE was allowed to do more. No one has the right to put anothers life in danger. Our nation of laws has been twisted to protect the dangerous people while putting the innocent ones at risk. How is 5 minutes or even 10 a bother compared to being hit by a drunk or in insured driver?

 

[CPDG23]

I hate drunk drivers and uninsured drivers. I have no problem with check points. It is a public roadway, I wish LE was allowed to do more. No one has the right to put anothers life in danger. Our nation of laws has been twisted to protect the dangerous people while putting the innocent ones at risk. How is 5 minutes or even 10 a bother compared to being hit by a drunk or in insured driver?

“Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security”


~Benjamin Franklin

 

[HILO]

“Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security”

~Benjamin Franklin

Sure isn't working out well now is it? From drunk drivers, to illegals in our country, the innocent suffers the rights of the criminal.

 

[Station 3]

I have seen a few Police checkpoints around here a local PD close to the PD where i work at was doing one for a few months on fridays and saturdays. I would back them up due to the high traffic it was pretty cool but the RULE was you need to STOP EVERYCAR if your going to set up a checkpoint you cant just stop random cars because then its "unconstitutional" for the patriots out there that like video cameras. Even though its perfectly legal to do them you cant help but feel weird doing them every time i assisted. Just dident feel right.

 

[BackYardSales]

... but the RULE was you need to STOP EVERYCAR if your going to set up a checkpoint you cant just stop random cars ...

That's almost opposite of what ours do. They'll pick a number, maybe 3 or 5. If they pick 3, every third car is checked. If they pick 5, every fifth car is checked.


The kicker is manpower. We might have 3 Troopers covering two counties at might. If they do a checkpoint, they want at least two Troopers and one deputy to assist. We may only have one or two deputies covering the whole county. So if there's a checkpoint, every LE unit for 30 miles is tied up. Never made any sense to me.


In general, I'm against checkpoints since I feel manpower would be better used more spread out instead of all clustered in one spot.


As for turning around, we'll have people do that if they see lights because they don't want to get tied up in traffic behind an accident. They'll do it far enough back that they can't really tell if it's a checkpoint or something else.


In the last couple of years they started picking places where there is nowhere to turn off; no side roads or driveways and very little shoulder for turning around.

 

[ryan81986]

Someone turning off may not be RS for a stop. But you can follow them until they do something stupid. Which they will if they are drunk.

 

[dcfrmp255]

This is how we do it in my county!! "If they run, we chase!!" LOL


Below are a few instances where some fools eluded the road-checks in my county and city. Around here, during a "road-check" all they do is make sure that you have your drivers license on your person and proof of insurance, but if you try to avoid them then they will come after you.......... :yes:


Bainbridge News Woman Dies Fleeing Safety Check


Bainbridge News GSP Task Force Covers County


Bainbridge News Maurice Ran and Ran and Ran


Bainbridge News Another Road Check, Another Bust


Bainbridge News That Was a Long Run


Bainbridge News Road Check U-Turn's not Good


Bainbridge News Many Run, Few Get Away

 

[FireEMSPolice]

I have seen a few Police checkpoints around here a local PD close to the PD where i work at was doing one for a few months on fridays and saturdays. I would back them up due to the high traffic it was pretty cool but the RULE was you need to STOP EVERYCAR if your going to set up a checkpoint you cant just stop random cars because then its "unconstitutional" for the patriots out there that like video cameras. Even though its perfectly legal to do them you cant help but feel weird doing them every time i assisted. Just dident feel right.

How dumb! Every car?!?! That would take forever, piss alot of people off by backing up traffic, and would not get much accomplished in the long run.


You need to leave a turn off point prior to the checkpoint, you need to advertise the location of the checkpoint and them turning off is not PC to stop.

 

[Jtsou]

Checkpoints take the drunks off the road, I support them. They shouldn't be voluntary, if you are on the highway with your drunk ass endangering me, the troopers should be able to do anything(within reason, of course) to take you down to the county SO...

 

[dcfrmp255]

How dumb! Every car?!?! That would take forever, piss alot of people off by backing up traffic, and would not get much accomplished in the long run.

You need to leave a turn off point prior to the checkpoint, you need to advertise the location of the checkpoint and them turning off is not PC to stop.

WTF!!!! If you have a "turn off point" then all of the people hauling dope, driving drunk, high, driving unlicensed, driving a stolen vehicle or doing anything illegal are sure as hell gonna take that "turn off point" to avoid being arrested/given a ticket and your not doing a bit of good!!!!!

 

[Donslock]

What they do here is set up at a point in the east/west roads where they ca turn off at but end up going through another check point anyway unless they hit the interstate. 2 of the check points I can see from my house provide extremely last minute turn around and of course there has been pc and rs to stop vehicles. my house has the quanset in the back yard and the check points usually get set up next to the open field and from the first street on the left to the soccer fields.


Google Map Maker

 

[charlie82]

When I do medical for standby, they check every car, both directions. They usually have 15-20 officers on a special state funded detail. They do 1 every friday/saturday May-Sep in different locations.

 

[RescueWV]

I got pulled over a few months ago by a trooper who was presumably set back about half a mile from a very high-profile DUI checkpoint. From his perspective, he saw me make an abrupt turn right before the checkpoint (I was slightly lost and almost missed my turn) and then found RS or PC for a stop based on the fact that the light on my license plate light was burnt out. I wasn't drunk, nor had I been drinking so the stop ended fairly quickly after he ran my plates/license and gave a written warning about the light.


Even before that experience, this was one of the biggest arguments I use against drunk driving with friends (for when "it's stupid, dangerous and illegal" doesn't quite cut it). You might be the best and safest drunk driver on the road, but that doesn't prevent you from making the same moving violations that sober person might get pulled over for. You never know when you'll have a burnt-out tail light or spend just a split-second too short stopped at a stop sign for a police officer's satisfaction.

 

[C420sailor]

I've turned off onto side roads to avoid checkpoints before. Not because I was drunk or had anything to hide, but just because I didn't feel like doing the dick dance with Johnny Law. I've had them come after me and pull me over, and I've just said, 'I'm sorry officer, I saw all the lights and thought the road was closed'.


I don't see how I'm obligated to continue driving forward when I see a checkpoint. I'm free to drive wherever I want as long as I obey traffic laws. Nowhere in the NYS VTL does it say that I am required to proceed through a police checkpoint once I have it in sight, so I'll continue circumnavigating them.


But feel free to come after me. You'll just be wasting your time...

 

[WhiteLite03]

I got pulled over a few months ago by a trooper who was presumably set back about half a mile from a very high-profile DUI checkpoint. From his perspective, he saw me make an abrupt turn right before the checkpoint (I was slightly lost and almost missed my turn) and then found RS or PC for a stop based on the fact that the light on my license plate light was burnt out. I wasn't drunk, nor had I been drinking so the stop ended fairly quickly after he ran my plates/license and gave a written warning about the light.

Even before that experience, this was one of the biggest arguments I use against drunk driving with friends (for when "it's stupid, dangerous and illegal" doesn't quite cut it). You might be the best and safest drunk driver on the road, but that doesn't prevent you from making the same moving violations that sober person might get pulled over for. You never know when you'll have a burnt-out tail light or spend just a split-second too short stopped at a stop sign for a police officer's satisfaction.

If he used the license plate light as RS/PC to stop you, he would have found something else had that not existed. I grew up around WV, VA, MD and DC, and only once did I ever get stopped for tag lights... and that time it was by a Woodstock city officer, because they were green instead of white. I can't count the number of patrol vehicles I've seen without working tag lights or one or more of the CHMSL bulbs burnt out or not working. If they want to stop you bad enough they'll find a reason. No one is 100% perfect when they drive.

 

[mcpd2025]

My agency has been doing DUI roadblocks for a long time. I am an alcohol enforcement specialist and take part in a lot of the roadblocks. To this day it AMAZES me how many drunk drivers we get going through our roadblocks. Common sense would suggest that most of them would take an alternate route... but we catch a good amount through the block. Last Cinco de Mayo we caught something like 23 drunks in a 4 hour road block. We usually do full roadblocks usually 15-20 officers on a line and stop every single car, chase cars, support officers and a couple extra officers to rotate in when an arrest is made. We also do phantom roadblocks, where we have 4 or 5 officers on a line and stop every nth car and dedicate more people to chase car roles. We get a lot of funding from NHTSA and they are almost all overtime details. They are great exposure on holiday weekends, the public knows we are doing it. I would like to think that we actually REDUCE the amount of impaired drivers since so many members of the public know about it, but its doubtful. We do arrest more as a result though...


Simply driving around a road block has never been RAS to make a traffic stop. There are so many legitimate reasons to avoid a roadblock, it should never have even come to a state Supreme Court decision. That being said, you can probably find a traffic violation on any car on the raodway right now. In Maryland you can't text while driving, all your brake lights, headlights, tag lites need to work, you can't have anything hanging from your rear view mirror, you have to have a front and rear plate (if your vehicle is registered in Maryland), you have to wear a seatbelt, and any passengers under the age of 16 are required to wear seat belts. These are the main infractions that I look for during the course of my day, because most cars are in violation of one of these rules. Bottom line, if I want to pull you over, its pretty easy to find a legal way to do it. Keep in mind that just cause I pull you over for a headlight out doesn't mean I am going to write a ticket though... but its a great way to initiate a citizen contact.

 

[kadetklapp]

Around here the checkpoint has to be advertised in local media ahead of time and must have an avenue of avoidance within a certain amount of feet before the checkpoint itself. It is not unlawful to avoid a checkpoint but could be articulated as reasonable suspicion for a stop (or may only if there are other means of PC). I, for one, do not agree with checkpoints and find them to be teetering on a breach of 4th amendment "etiquette" more than anything else. Would I call it an all-out invasion of privacy? Eh, depends on how it's done, but I have not had to participate in one and I don't plan to.

 

[nluszcz]

In MS they didn't do checkpoint avoidance, they moved the checkpoint! They had signs on the highway stating that there was a DUI checkpoint ahead, in 1 mi. Then an exit ramp. At the bottom of the exit, the checkpoint! If you see the sign and exit to avoid it, you have to run through it. Thought it was a pretty good idea! You have to be sober to think "hmm, why are they warning me of a checkpoint ahead at an exit where I could get off?"

 

[patrol530]

The courts have set the rules requiring advance notice and advertising regarding the locations of checkpoints. You can't chase everyone down that avoids the checkpoint, because there are plenty that don't. An adjacent County used to just set out a sign that stated "Drug checkpoint ahead", and then run down all that U-turned. That was shot down in the courts as well, years ago.

 

[BackYardSales]

An adjacent County used to just set out a sign that stated "Drug checkpoint ahead", and then run down all that U-turned. That was shot down in the courts as well, years ago.

That reminds me of another agency. They would put a unit out where it could be seen and a second unit a few hundred feet behind it, but hidden from traffic. Cars that hit the brakes as they approached the visible unit were stopped by the hidden unit. The justification was that they must be up to something to cause them to panic and brake upon the sight of a marked unit. I never heard the outcome of any challenges.

 

[50theman]

Volusia did something like that years ago. Here is a video of there stuff from years ago.

 

[RJ*]

Reading all this makes me glad that I don't need probable cause, or reasonable suspicion, or anything else to do a traffic stop. Any vehicle on a public road is legally fair game in that regard. Checkpoints? We can - and do - have them, totally without advance warning. No rules on which vehicles to check either. I can perform a PBT on all drivers, or every third one, or all red cars, or the ones I want to. Check driver's licences, inspect the roadworthiness of the vehicle, the whole lot.


This has not been called to question - it's never been an issue. The explanation I have is that we haven't abused that power to harass people.


I've always wondered why the US is so determined to make life so very difficult for law enforcement. My theory is that somewhere down the line (not the current generation of LEOs, but someone before them) pissed in their own pool by going overboard with the powers given them. This in turn has led to all the limitations now in place on what law enforcement may do.


On another note, the main point of a sobriety checkpoint is not to catch drunk drivers. That is a secondary objective. The primary objective is maximum visibility to a maximum number of road users, thus sending the message that if you drive drunk, you run the risk of being caught - hopefully, that will make people think twice the next time they're liquered up and want to go a-driving.

 

[MEVS06]

San Antonio/Bexar County has no DWI refusal.... If you don't submit to SFST or a breath test on the side of the road they arrest and draw blood. I think that is so wrong.


I was stopped one night on my way home from my LEO job and was asked to submit to a breath test. I laughed and asked if I was under arrest to which he (SAPD) replied yes. I asked for a lawyer and exercised my right to remain silent. Then the "Blood van" showed up tried to make me give them a sample. I asked to see the warrant, which they did not have. I told them all to take a long walk off a short pier. I demanded to speak to a Captain because they wanted to disarm me, mind you I was in full uniform at the time. I laughed and told them to try and take my weapon and see what happens. Needless to say a Sergeant showed up and released me. I cannot stand SAPD one bit. This is why I can't wait for my fiancee to finish school because we are moving the Hell out of this shit hole of a city...

 

[FireEMSPolice]

San Antonio/Bexar County has no DWI refusal.... If you don't submit to SFST or a breath test on the side of the road they arrest and draw blood. I think that is so wrong.

I was stopped one night on my way home from my LEO job and was asked to submit to a breath test. I laughed and asked if I was under arrest to which he (SAPD) replied yes. I asked for a lawyer and exercised my right to remain silent. Then the "Blood van" showed up tried to make me give them a sample. I asked to see the warrant, which they did not have. I told them all to take a long walk off a short pier. I demanded to speak to a Captain because they wanted to disarm me, mind you I was in full uniform at the time. I laughed and told them to try and take my weapon and see what happens. Needless to say a Sergeant showed up and released me. I cannot stand SAPD one bit. This is why I can't wait for my fiancee to finish school because we are moving the Hell out of this shit hole of a city...

An LEO being non-compliant to other LEO's?


A certain Miami officer was compliant to an FHP Trooper...lol


Curious, if they had tried to disarm you, what would you have done?

 

[Steve-O]

San Antonio/Bexar County has no DWI refusal.... If you don't submit to SFST or a breath test on the side of the road they arrest and draw blood. I think that is so wrong.

I was stopped one night on my way home from my LEO job and was asked to submit to a breath test. I laughed and asked if I was under arrest to which he (SAPD) replied yes. I asked for a lawyer and exercised my right to remain silent. Then the "Blood van" showed up tried to make me give them a sample. I asked to see the warrant, which they did not have. I told them all to take a long walk off a short pier. I demanded to speak to a Captain because they wanted to disarm me, mind you I was in full uniform at the time. I laughed and told them to try and take my weapon and see what happens. Needless to say a Sergeant showed up and released me. I cannot stand SAPD one bit. This is why I can't wait for my fiancee to finish school because we are moving the Hell out of this shit hole of a city...

While I have no doubt that you had such an encounter with SAPD, let's explain the No Refusal a little more...


It's not as simple as a SFST refusal, arrest & draw blood. In order to draw blood, I have to get a search warrant. In order to get a search warrant, I have to get a judge to issue it. In order to see the judge, I have to complete an affidavit that includes my probable cause for the DWI arrest and swear to it under oath. For being such a paperwork intensive process, it really is quite simple. I've unfortunately gotten quite proficient with the process with the number of DWIs that we arrest.


In order to make an arrest for DWI, I guarantee you that I will have obtain much more evidence than a simple SFST refusal. Are there officers who attempt to short cut the system? Of course there are & hopefully they will be caught sooner than later.


I'm happy to hear that you were released by the Sgt. No wonder so many cases are ultimately dismissed and never see the inside of a courtroom... BTW, know what SAPD really stands for? Sorry A _ _ Police Department.

 

[11b101abn]

The term you need is "Reasonable Suspicion" for a stop. (Not "Probable Cause.")

This also comes down to similar rulings regarding people running away from the police of foot.


A brisk turn of direction away from police isn't necessarily RS for a foot pursuit... but a rapid turn and sprint away may be.


(And it all comes down to the "suspect's" history or social experience with law enforcement.)


My $0.02?


If someone sees a checkpoint down the road and they have the opportunity to take a side street to "avoid the hassle" that does not constitute RS for a stop.


If someone comes up on a checkpoint, and then turns around or makes a 3-point turn and backtracks, to me a "reasonable person" would agree that this is suspicious and indicative of someone who has a guilty conscious and thus constitutes RS for a stop.


But, as far as the ruling that the OP posted... I don't let rulings like these bug me. This is how the system works, with all of its checks and balances.

I goota correct you: reasonable Suspicion does not use the "reasonable person" standard. Instead, it uses the "reasonable peace officer" standard.

 

[theolog]

...I am completely against any checkpoints other than border crossings.

Luckily for society, 200 years of objective case law disagrees with your subjective opinion.

 

[MEVS06]

While I have no doubt that you had such an encounter with SAPD, let's explain the No Refusal a little more...

It's not as simple as a SFST refusal, arrest & draw blood. In order to draw blood, I have to get a search warrant. In order to get a search warrant, I have to get a judge to issue it. In order to see the judge, I have to complete an affidavit that includes my probable cause for the DWI arrest and swear to it under oath. For being such a paperwork intensive process, it really is quite simple. I've unfortunately gotten quite proficient with the process with the number of DWIs that we arrest.


In order to make an arrest for DWI, I guarantee you that I will have obtain much more evidence than a simple SFST refusal. Are there officers who attempt to short cut the system? Of course there are & hopefully they will be caught sooner than later.


I'm happy to hear that you were released by the Sgt. No wonder so many cases are ultimately dismissed and never see the inside of a courtroom... BTW, know what SAPD really stands for? Sorry A _ _ Police Department.

I did not comply with the officer because he said I stumbled out of my car. Which I did not, I am 6'3" and my vehicle is not easy for me to get into or out of in full uniform. I knew he had no PC for a blood draw, heck he didn't even ask for my DL so yes I did not comply with him. He looked like he was part of the "south side party crew" himself. I kept asking him why his nose was so red and why he kept wiping his nose the way he was. Should have ask him for a blood sample...

 

[Zoe]

I goota correct you: reasonable Suspicion does not use the "reasonable person" standard. Instead, it uses the "reasonable peace officer" standard.

Ah yes. Thank you.


But of course I gotta correct you: My state (MA) doesn't recognize the term "Peace Officer."

 

[11b101abn]

Ah yes. Thank you.

But of course I gotta correct you: My state (MA) doesn't recognize the term "Peace Officer."

Eventually your misguided state will see the light. Ill wait. I'm patient.