July 4th Roadblock Refusal (Video)

Published On July 5, 2013 | By CopBlock | Articles

The description from this video says:

Tennessee State Trooper AJ Ross orders me to pull over and get out of my car, bullies me around, gets the drug sniffing K-9, lies about me having “Illegal Drugs” in the car, searches without consent, and tells me that it is OK to take away my freedom. All while not being detained. All this harassment because my window was not lowered enough to his preference. I broke no laws whatsoever. All of this on a day that we are supposed to be celebrating freedom and liberty. This checkpoint was in Murfreesboro, TN.

This video was shared with Cop Block by the Tennessee Valley Constitutionalist Society.

Like this Article? Share it!

About The Author

When you see "CopBlock" as the author it means it was submitted via our contact tab - see top of page. Anyone can share their police related story with CopBlock.org via this tab, we thank you in advance.
  • cone

    fucking pigs

  • just an american

    those cops are un american

  • t.

    Ah, the smell of ignorance in the summertime. Gotta love an activist with wrong info. Radical or Ariel must be his attorney.

  • Chris Mallory

    Every cop on scene should be in prison. Kidnapping, false arrest, false imprisonment, grand theft auto.

    All cops lie, all the time.

    Disarm cops for a safer America.

  • Colleen Williams

    Man, oh man! Those cops did not expect a person who knew their rights. I had close to this same situation in South Dakota, except the dog hit on the trooper. Hmn…Says I…
    According to him, he stopped us because we have Oregon plates.
    Totally because of the Oregon plates, the cop said so.
    He was very upset when his dog got a noseful of my dogs on him. His dog growled at HIM! My dogs had been in the car for a week and a half, on this trip.

    I have a 94 Trooper LS, I’m middle aged and we were pretty amused, the husband and I. That Trooper is meticulously maintained, no rust or mismatched paint, no peeling clear coat. She’s my baby.

    We were on our way home from Michigan, were we bought a house, to Portland. Driving speed limit, but when I saw the cop, I knew we were being pulled over.
    Toodles, I said, as we drove away ticketless.

  • ian

    Sue this officer for illegal detainment and file a complaint at the PD otherwise this means nothing, sadly.

  • http://truthspew.wordpress.com Tony P

    And the cop even says it “He’s innocent and knows his rights”. These checkpoints, IMNSHO are BLATANTLY unconstitutional – they violate the 4th Amendment with glee.

    Here in RI I know the Supreme Court here ruled them unconstitutional. And I believe MA has done the same. More people need to openly challenge police agencies and haul them before a judge to explain how this doesn’t violate 4th Amendment rights.

  • Ariel

    From an earlier thread to t.: “I don’t give legal advice anymore than you do. I would never assert my advice will save you from arrest, you do.” To go further, you still keep making shit up thinking it’s real. You’re world is such a fascinating study on intellectual dysfunction. You can’t make distinctions except in the very narrow area of your profession, and even there there are questions.

  • Ariel

    Tony P,

    DUI checkpoints aren’t unconstitutional if kept to the specific purpose from what I’ve read. What they have become is an opportunity to find other things not within that purpose. It’s why roughly 10 states have banned them.

    SCOTUS continues to allow “the other things not within it’s purpose”.

  • Ariel

    I edited my 0112 comment and should have changed you’re to your.

  • gadfly

    get informed, you don’t have Fourth Amendment rights in this situation,
    “The Michigan Supreme Court had found sobriety roadblocks to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, by a 6-3 decision in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990), the United States Supreme Court found properly conducted sobriety checkpoints to be constitutional. While acknowledging that such checkpoints infringed on a constitutional right, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued the state interest in reducing drunk driving outweighed this minor infringement.”

  • YankeeFan

    To add to what Ariel said. They are legal and constitutional unless a state has outlawed them. Here in California, there are several criteria for them to be legal. The criteria for what cars to stop needs to be random and decided prior to the checkpoint, their must be a field commander present, it must be advertised to the general public and it must be placed at a location and time in which the chance of catching drunk drivers is likely. There may be more but I know these are just a few of the requirements or the checkpoint can be declared unconstitutional!

  • Ariel

    YF,

    I don’t have a problem with DUI checkpoints. I have a problem with catching 5 DUIs and 80 other “crimes” where DUI checkpoints just become a fishing expedition. There are some real arguments out on the web, including some statistical data, that DUI checkpoints mostly find crimes not DUI.

    I’m also troubled by the assumption if someone turns around from a DUI checkpoint, there is reason to chase and arrest. Some states have that as part of a DUI checkpoint. Personally, if I see a line in traffic, I avoid it. Unless there is the big sign prior (or I missed that one inch buried blurb in the newspaper next to or in Classifieds) I have no idea it’s a DUI checkpoint, just a line I wish to avoid. I’ve taught my kids one thing about police: “if you run, they’re like dogs because they think running means you deserve to be chased.” Yeah, it’s sad, but show me where a cop has said “I effed up on chasing him and hurting him”.

    That’s not anti-cop, it’s just on observation on the assumptions cops make.

  • Ariel

    YF,

    Without broaching your privacy, where do you live in California? I grew up along, literally, East Valley Blvd. From Pomona to Bassett (it was unincorporated in the 1960s) with a La Puente address because of the status of Bassett. I went to Keenan (now a church), Palm, Los Robles, Mesa Robles, Torch, and Bassett HS, finished at Cortez in Phoenix. At that time, all the schools taught “civics” though the name differed.

  • YankeeFan

    Ariel,

    I grew up and live in Sacramento. I lived in Rio Linda growing up and went to high school there.

    As far as the checkpoints, I agree with you as well. I do support them and even described my very first time going through one. I was coming back from my volunteer double bingo shift and when I made the right turn off Auburn Blvd onto Antelope, there it was. The cop who asked me for my license looked all of 21 and he spent less time examining it than I did digging it out of that plastic annoyance we all place it into. When the line continued, the officer that was waving cars through kept saying thank you and we apologize for the inconvenience. I did not feel violated at all.

    When you mentioned that you turn from them it made me think of a small story that appeared on here some months back where some guy made a turn through a median to avoid one. The way he described it sounded like it was indeed an illegal turn. I remember asking the question…”Is it Illegal to avoid a D.U.I. checkpoint”? I knew the answer but I was curious to see the answers back. I remember T answering….”Stopped for trying to avoid a checkpoint. Check!
    I was disappointed as I did expect the right answer and that is…no. If you do something that we normally can stop you for, we will which is fine1 He later went on to say if i observe a wide turn with this and that to which I agreed that’s different than what you gave. That answer was nothing but a yes but the more words used allows for an explanation (I’ll make my point in a sec)

    The story of the black man arrested for D.U.I. is another. I felt that the man was wrongfully arrested and I offered my take as to why. Crossing the line with red blood shot eyes and the inability to perform the test is indeed suspicious. However, I stated he offered a very believable and reasonable explanation to those conditions that a reasonable officer would have considered. Taking into account what T said, those 3 factors plus what was observed. I would agree that an officer would make a determination if arrested was warranted. There was nothing observed besides those 3 factors. No odor of booze detected, no slurred speech and no evidence collected. In this case II feel the cops crewed up and now will cost the tax payers more money due to his mistake.

    My point is, and I am not attacking T but I am using him as he is a regular cop poster, is that a cop is a cop is a cop. They view everything through the lens of suspicion. I firmly believe that totally. Maybe it is training or it is the command structure that instills that but that’s how they are. Is that all of them? No, but I believe that is their nature. T has talked about the difference between RS, PC and BRD. I think it has been good to Hear that as many lack any understand about those but when it comes to RS, the operative word is REASONABLE.

  • YankeeFan

    Also, If I disagree with someone, it is because I simply disagree. I am not anti cop at all and fully support good cops as I feel they are needed in any civilized society.

  • courtofpublicopinion

    i just love the look on their face when they saw the camera lol too late but they covered it anyway, lmao what losers too bad they did’nt have anything to “plant”

  • Common Sense

    Its a good topic.

    One person’s “reasonable” is anothers “unreasonable”

  • Ariel

    Yf,

    Damn, your a Northerner. You do realize true Californians are all Southerners/Southwesterners? True Californians live below the 36th parallel. I do forgive you because I purposely left Southern California, even while I had little choice but some choice at 15. I liked the Bay Area, and its surroundings, when I was stationed there in ’77.

    “Stopped for trying to avoid a checkpoint. Check!” Dogs chasing. The rest was lip-service. It’s a limited mentality where they project what they know onto others, judge others by that projection, and give chase. They position cops to deal with people that “avoid” checkpoints, the “avoid” is proof you have a reason to avoid. You will read all sorts of excuses, justifications, and rationalizations. Ultimately, it’s “dogs chase”, run from a dog and you’ve given reason to the dog to chase you. That’s harsh yes, but look at their rationalizations, such as “trying to avoid a checkpoint” they have no idea that that is what the person was doing, only “avoid” “checkpoint” “chase”.

    Of course cops “crew up”, sadly they don’t even have to know each other. One of my early reading experiences on cops falsifying reports was the one where on off-duty cop rear ended a woman (no, not the usual sex-offensive) and the cops that responded conspired with the off-duty cop to make it her fault. They were too stupid to realize that while the video was off the dash-cam was recording everything they said. Of course, this was just a confluence of all the corrupt cops in that jurisdiction who happened to meet so they could conspire to falsify an accident report for an off-duty cop. Just a series of unfortunate events. That defy odds.

    ” They view everything through the lens of suspicion” which becomes a narrow lens, then tunnel-vision, and finally they can’t see the world at all. Now that’s not all cops, I know one, but if you go to PoliceOne, so many need a prescription it just isn’t funny.

  • Ariel

    Common Sense,

    One person’s truth is another person’s falsehood. One person’s ugly is another person’s beauty. One person’s freedom is another person’s prison. One person’s poison is another person’s food. One person’s freedom fighter is another person’s terrorist (you should like that one). One person’s fact, OK I can’t go there as Moynihan pointed out.

    The phrase “one person…one person…” is meaningless. I know it sounds in some way profound, but it isn’t. It’s really just the opposite. I know you see arguments where here the same event is seen as reasonable and also unreasonable, but making them equivalent is just a surrender to mindlessness.

  • Ariel

    More editing, here before where.

  • http://buelahman.wordpress.com/ BMan

    What seems “reasonable” to a fool like Common Sense (the clown who supports anything and everything cop related) is certainly an affront to liberties and truth to sensible, thinking people.

    You see, as long as sycophantic ass-kissers like Common Sense continue to knob on the cop’s dick, we will still have to deal with ignorant assholes like him. And as long as the cops enjoy having the Common Senses out there schlobbing them down, protecting them with their sayanim purpose, nothing will be achieved. The “unreasonable” is acceptable.

  • http://yahoo Alvin

    When asked/ordered to vacate my vehicle, I would have rolled the window up and locked the doors. The open window and unlocked doors give them the opportunity to “plant” evidence. If your vehicle is buttoned up, they either must tow it away while they get a warrant, or break in by damaging your vehicle. Either way, they end up on the short end of the legal stick.

  • t.

    Ariel: What are talking about. I never said “my advice” would “save you from arrest”. I said, and absolutely say now, that you are far better off in any street on counter to talk to the police and to be honest. Its a lot harder to “prove your innocence” after you’ve already been arrested. Remember, the standard for arrest is only PC. Its not the BRD that you think it should be out in the street. Its a lot harder to get charges dismissed than it is to not hold them in the first place. In fairness though, I actually watched a guy tell a drug investigator to screw off and he refused to talk with him after he was arrested. I actually agreed with his decision as the case against him is really, really weak. He did it, but he won’t be convicted.
    But in the OVERWHELMING number of cases…when you hire that attorney, and pay him that big check, he will almost always take to to the PD to speak with the police. Not always, but quite often.

    But the guy in this video has taken really bad internet advice and it backfired. The checkpoint was legal. The officer telling him to pull over and then get out of the car…legal. Things going down hill after that just kinda is what it is.

    Your analysis of me is truly funny. My statements right here, within this comment…absolutely spot on. Now you certainly don’t have to agree or follow it. Its just practical advice. None of your silly it pseudo legal tricks that you read about somewhere on some CDL site. (Still funny). Its real world, everyday.

    Imdomlive in a very “disfunctional world”. Very true. But its not one of the police’s making. We exist because it is so disfunctional. I have to deal with those like you that THINK you have a clue. After, wasn’t it just you that said nobody has a freedom of speech except when addressing the government? Does that also apply then to all of the amendments? That is crackpot stuff guy. Doctor, diagnosis thyself.

  • Common Sense

    Bman,

    I love how the best those here can muster is a 8th grade cocksucker jab.

    I certainly could go into a nice jab about how your mother loves it in the backdoor, wimpers when she nuts and her “O” face resembles Bea Arthur stubbing her toe or how she laps up my baby batter like a beagle licking an ice cream cone on a warm summer day, but why bother.

    You can just watch the videos.

    Now, move along citizen, nothing to see here…

  • Faisal Fanghorn

    “Ah, the smell of ignorance in the summertime.”

    GACK, the shit smell of fascist brown shirt goose stepping NAZI pig mother fuckers.

  • Common Sense

    Foghorn Leghorn for the Godwin Law Award win!

    Tell him what he’s won!

    You won 3 rolling papers, a broken water bong, 2004 issue of “High Times” and an IOU from the food co-op.

  • Yizmo

    The DUI checkpoint is an obedience test. You failed the
    test by not cowering in fear to his “authority.”
    All that crap about “rights” your history teacher told you about…
    well…rights suddenly don’t exist once you encounter good ol boys looking out for your “safety.”
    Great jobs exposing that these DUI checkpoints are
    not really DUI checkpoints at all.

  • Faisal Fanghorn

    It’s only Godwin if it isn’t true, common bootlicker.

  • Common Sense

    Dude, dude, don’t harsh my mellow…

    Power to the people. Make love, not war. No bombs, only hugs. Stay groovy man. Far out.

    …now quick, say something profound, maybe a quote from a Founding Father, or some inane conclusion about the government.

  • David

    I was directed here via Fox news. The attorney on the news program was very deceptive. They did not show the whole situation. In Florida you do have to show I.D. for a DUI stop…..that’s it! unless you want to go in front of a judge….it’s been done before and the driver usually loses. Nothing wrong with pushing the 4th amendment….if you have the time to waste. Tell them you do not give consent to a search, close the window, lock the door….get out of the car when told. Plead the 5th.

    This was an illegal search in the state of Florida if he did not give consent. The driver needed to tell him…..I do not give consent. Locking the door and close the window protects against planting drugs or alcohol. You can leave your keys in the car….have a key hidden outside the car.

    This is from a Florida attorney’s website. So what do you do when you come upon a Driving Under the Influence (DUI) or Sobriety checkpoint?

    The first thing to do is show the officer your identification when asked. If they begin asking you questions, politely decline to answer as is your right. If you answer some questions, but not others, you will only raise suspicion and encourage the law enforcement officer to investigate or question you further. If the officer asks to search you car, respond by telling them that you do not consent to any searches. If you are ordered out of your car by the officer it is important that you lock the doors behind you.

  • Faisal Fanghorn

    Dude, the only thing that would make a badge licking psychopath like you mellow is torturing small animals (or watching people being beat to a bloody pulp by your costumed heroes). The comments you make supporting the state are very revealing about your unstable mental state. This shit is absolute pornography to you. How many times did you jerk off to this vid alone?

  • Common Sense

    Epic

    .liveleak.com/view?i=34e_1373120565

    And this is how you fail to execute your rights stoner. I bet that didn’t go the way you thought huh.

    Ha ha ha

    Police 1, hippie 0

  • Common Sense

    Its odd you mention small animals as I do trap them (raccoon, muskrat, beaver etc) for their fur.

    From time to time, I forget to take my .22 pistol with me and have to beat them to death with a club, or get a forked stick and drowned them. That is unless of use conibear 220/330′s then is a quick crushing of their neck…usually.

    Then I cut their fur off, flesh it, tan it and sell it for beer money. I feed the best parts of their stripped carcasses to my dogs. Circle of life and what-not.

    Now, Faisal, go be a dipshit somewhere else, adults are talking. And what is a Faisal? Is that a name? A tribe in Syria? A nasal decongestant?

  • Faisal Fanghorn

    I think you, t, and Slappy Adam pretty much have the market cornered in the dipshit category.

    “Its odd you mention small animals as I do trap them (raccoon, muskrat, beaver etc) for their fur.”

    No you don’t, fucking liar.

  • Faisal Fanghorn

    “I do trap them (raccoon, muskrat, beaver etc) for their fur.”

    You buy your furs at Saks 5th Avenue like the rest of the women. Either that, or t gives you one when he’s lookin’ for a little action ;)

  • Common Sense, Lord and Master of Zion

    The is the saddest reply I’ve read in quite awhile.

    Next time, try “I know you are, but what am I…”

  • Common Sense

    I had to watch that video again about the hippie. I laughed so much I started to tear up. You could really hear the fear in his voice that all his bullshit about “I’m a peaceful man” wasn’t gonna fly this time. Enjoy the short stint in the county lockup.

  • RadicalDude

    “t. says:
    July 6, 2013 at 9:34 am

    The officer telling him to pull over and then get out of the car…legal. ”

    Based on what?

  • http://truthspew.wordpress.com Tony P

    The problem is that checkpoints are ostensibly to limit DUI but they’ve crept out to include contraband, seatbelt and other violations. So by that definition I’d say it’s UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

    Your fourth amendment says, and I’m paraphrasing “Secure in your person, papers and things.”. Not too ambiguous is it?

  • Common Sense

    Tony P, when you become a Justice, your opinion will matter..

  • t.

    Dude: You are the legal beagle research machine. You tell me.

  • RadicalDude

    I don’t know, I’m asking you for research purposes. I don’t think it was legal to order him out of the car.

  • Otto Maddox

    Two funny.. well not so funny.. points:

    I love how cops think only lawyers can know their rights. If you’re not a lawyer you can’t possibly know anything.

    And it’s telling how the cop has to move that camera when he finds it.

    They just don’t want to be recorded.. recordings only hurt their “official” version of events if they are needed later in court.

    Good enough job with the checkpoint. I’d skip the whole “Am I being detained?” part myself. You’re being detained. You can assume that much. I do think it’s lame for a police officer to not answer that question.. but whatever their answer is doesn’t really matter. You can find plenty of videos where the cop answers “No” but you’re still not allowed to leave.

    I really wish people would quit saying these checkpoints are unconstitutional. That’s been decided and they’re legal for DUI and license checks. Unless we can get a case to the Supreme Court to reverse that decision it’s pointless to argue otherwise.

  • Common Sense

    RD

    Yes, I would say it was lawful to have him step from the car. The police can have occupants step from a stopped vehicle.

    I can imagine that the same would be true for a lawful checkpoint, especially given the kids demeanor.

  • oooorgle

    Common Sense says “I can imagine that the same would be true for a lawful checkpoint, especially given the kids demeanor.”

    What he actually said is that he supports any action taken by a uniformed criminal, lawful or unlawful.

  • RadicalDude

    I guess the courts have given the cops the green light to order people out of their cars during traffic stops in a court precedent called
    Pennsylvania v. Mimms. So, I don’t know, maybe the courts would find the ordering the driver out of the car to be “reasonable”.

    The car search is illegal/trespass. Turning off the camera is illegal/perversion of justice/evidence tampering.

    Tennessee Code > Title 39 > Chapter 16 > Part 5 > § 39-16-503. Tampering with or fabricating evidence

    (a) It is unlawful for any person, knowing that an investigation or official proceeding is pending or in progress, to:

    (1) Alter, destroy, or conceal any record, document or thing with intent to impair its verity, legibility, or availability as evidence in the investigation or official proceeding; or

  • RadicalDude

    Personally, I find the whole checkpoint itself and this whole incident disgusting.

  • t.

    Apparently it didnt take you too long to find that I was right. (As always).

  • RadicalDude

    Haha, you are pretty smart for a cop. Always right? Well, when you are convinced that fallacies are logical arguments, and your arguments are fallacies then it is easy for you to convince yourself you are right. The problem is that fallacies are not logical arguments.

    I’m still not convinced that the courts would go for ordering someone out of a car in this situation. For one thing, there is no probable cause or reasonable suspicion. The cop even says, “He’s innocent.” It is a different situation from a traffic stop. A big part of the “justification” for these nazi-style checkpoints is the “minimal” level of intrusion. This cop flew way past “minimal.”

    I know the courts would invalidate the search of the car, though, that much is clear.

  • t.

    OK. You go back to you “election are violence” and make that “argument” work. You are clueless and don’t even realize that you are clueless.

  • RadicalDude

    No, it is you who is clueless, you don’t know what you don’t know. Yes political elections are based on violence. Look at the biggest political election in the American political system: the presidential election.
    What is the president’s “job” ? To kill people. So when you vote for president you are casting a vote for who will be killed in violent military conflict. You are voting on who will be giving those orders the violence is based on. If you put a “hit” on someone, you are still culpable for the violence. Similarly, if you vote for government violence, you are also culpable in an ethical sense.

  • t.

    Wow.

  • Ariel

    Wow is a real good argument. It’s right up there with “so is your old lady””

  • t.

    Wow. im so gay

  • http://www.warzoneonline.com GMAN

    I would love to put a shotgun in his mouth and pull the trigger!!!

  • shwru980r

    The policeman could think you’re trying to hide the smell of alcohol or cannabis by not rolling your window all the way down. He could then have given you a field sobriety test and failed you and taken you to jail. The policeman could have treated this person much worse. Sobriety check points have been ruled constitutional by the supreme court.

  • t.

    Ariel: So by your sophisticated response….I take it must agree with the colossally goofy ideas that: A) Elections are violence and B) the the Presidents job is to kill people.

    And you wonder why I don’t take you seriously.

  • Thunder

    t. you said that what the officer in Tennessee did was legal, I’m not sure where you’re getting your information from but before you appear in the pulpit to speak the truth you should make sure you’ve read the gospel.

    “In 1997 the Tennessee Supreme Court set out a three prong test in State v. Downey to determine whether a DUI checkpoint complied with the 4th amendment. The first two prongs are always satisfied – the critical question always boils down to the degree and reasonableness of the officer’s intrusion during the stop. For example, a DUI checkpoint does not permit an officer to indefinitely detain someone. Nor would it permit a search of the entire vehicle, or perhaps even a person.”

    Stop scaring others into thinking they have to do what these “tin gods with a badge and a gun” tell them to do. This isn’t the 13 colonies anymore. The fact that you have to be a college graduate to be an officer in the military (completely necessary, btw) but a high school graduate or minimal college credits without a degree to become a police officer is the scariest aspect of this.

    They’re given a wide scope of powers and don’t have the brains that God gave a goose.

  • Ariel

    t.,

    “Ariel: So by your sophisticated response….I take it (you) must agree with the colossally goofy ideas that: A) Elections are violence and B) the the Presidents job is to kill people. ” Nope, not one iota. Never said it, never implied it, nor ever thought it. The President only kills people in his role as Commander-in-Chief, a necessary role “for the common defense” and only a small, but very important, part of his job.

    When you think your fantasies are realities, you of course can’t take anyone seriously because you are only talking to yourself. And you shouldn’t take yourself seriously. I’m surprised you actually recognized my response was sophisticated, given that fog you exist in.

    You make shit up,and think it’s reality. Your comment I quoted from above is just one more example. BTW, I wouldn’t take the “me” you’ve made-up seriously either, but then that “me” doesn’t exist, so I’m left not taking you seriously.

    In your favor, your disconnect from reality keeps your ego fed by “I’m winning, I’m winning”. Oh, wait, that’s not really in your favor.

  • RadicalDude

    To be precise, it is a long-running custom of Presidents to order mass killings intermittently between vacations at camp David.

  • Ariel

    RD,

    Which of course they do because their butt needs scratching, and ordering mass killings ends the itch. I am not in anyway writing you wrote that so I can knockdown your argument. I don’t think you have an argument there.

    Do you really want to hold to your statement as having any insight? Cynicism is OK, but even the cynic recognizes his limits.

  • RadicalDude

    What about if the mafia takes a vote on whom they’re gonna kill? Is voting violent in that context?

  • Ariel

    RD,

    Conjoining absurdities doesn’t make an argument. OK, we voted for FDR in 40, in 41 he asked Congress to declare war. Voting in 40 was thus an act of violence?

    You’ve got a long road in making the Mafia and the US Government equivalent. First, the Mafia is predominately Sicilian, and they didn’t read Locke or Paine, or care who the Scottish philosophers were, nor did they write a Constitution. Second, the Mafia is truly a criminal organization so they actually don’t try to defend people’s rights even poorly. Should I go on or just say false comparison?

  • RadicalDude

    wHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?

  • Ariel

    None if you can’t see it, and it’s not worth my time to go further. Have a good night.

  • RadicalDude

    Thanks, you too.

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    Not to dig up an old thread… Wisconsin, where I serve, has it written into its state constitution that any type of check point is illegal. I can say in my many decades of service that checkpoints are more trouble than they’re worth and cost more money than revenue will replace.

    As for the kid in this video, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Roll you danged window down and answer the one or two questions we might ask. You’ll be on your way without incident.