Cops Get Owned at Las Vegas DUI Checkpoint [VIDEO]

This content was shared via CopBlock.org/Submit by a gent who noted,

I went through three DUI checkpoints on the night of this incident, and this is the only one that did not release me immediately upon refusing to answer questions.

I was detained at a DUI checkpoint for refusing to answer their questions, after refusing to answer all questions I was released after nearly six minutes.

Incident Date: 8/30/2013
Individuals Responsible: “sgt.” Cook and unidentified colleague
Outfit: Nevada Highway Patrol
Phone: (702) 486-4100

Text from video description:

8/30/13 22:25. MLK x W Cheyenne ave, north Las Vegas NV. Driver refuses to answer questions, first officer aggravated, calls in NHP Sgt. Cook and proceeds to get an education on the laws surrounding suspicion-less stops/searches.

RELATED CONTENT: CopBlock.org/KnowYourRights

.

copblock-banner-320x90-cameras
Click for Cameras / Dashcam suggestions
EPN

CopBlock

When you see “CopBlock” as the author it means it was submitted via our submission tab – you can share your story too. If you enjoy this content and/or believe “Badges Don’t Grant Extra Rights” get yourself some CopBlock Gear from our store or donate just $1/month to the CopBlock Network.

  • JC

    You intentionally drive through 3 DUI checkpoints and you complain about your rights? You did this just to start a confrontation with the officers. They detained you. How do you think you won anything? By the way, The supreme court has ruled these checkpoints are legal and do not violate any rights.

  • wickeddevelopment

    cooperation with the police is not measured by how many rights you forfeit.. so they are unlawful to continue to detain you.. but it helps you if you carry a copy of the law itself.. when you are stopped you can simply hand them the law its self but when they are not informed to this until you give them the law and then they act knowingly and willfully in violation of the law.. it is a education of the law we need to get out there at all levels

  • wickeddevelopment

    so you dont know the law either then. sure the check point is legal but they cant violate rights performing one as in any stop they perform

  • t

    6 minutes?

    Six minutes.
    S I X MINUTES
    360 seconds

    Oh…the inhumanity of it all.

  • RAD

    The police are a corrupting influence. Society would be so much better off without them.

  • Bejezus

    That is twice the average length of the sex act in the world. Or, in cop lovers world, enough for you to roll over, lick some cop boots, and forfeityour rights . . . Twice!

  • Bejezus

    So . . .the supremes never called it wrong? Yeah . . . . You don’t think things through, do you?

  • JC

    That is your opinion not mine. This subject has been brought to the supreme courts attention many times. They ruled the checkpoints are legal and do not violate anyone’s rights.

  • JC

    If the officers believe a crime is being committed, yes, they can search you. Otherwise they will impound the vehicle until a warrant is issued.

  • Aaron J Mobley

    “By the way, The supreme court has ruled these checkpoints are legal and do not violate any rights.”

    They said the same thing about “separate but equal” facilities for whites and blacks. Plessy v. Ferguson 163 U.S. 537 (1896).

  • Aaron J Mobley

    “That is your opinion not mine. This subject has been brought to the supreme courts attention many times. They ruled the checkpoints are legal and do not violate anyone’s rights.”

    So had “separate but equal.”

    Lum v. Rice, 275 U.S. 78 (1927)

  • Aaron J Mobley

    “If the officers believe a crime is being committed, yes, they can search you.”

    False. They have to do more than BELIEVE a crime is being committed. They have to have credible information sufficient to warrant a prudent person’s belief that a crime has been committed. That’s not the same as merely believing that a crime has been committed. It’s a higher standard than mere belief. At least it’s SUPPOSED to be.

    “Otherwise they will impound the vehicle until a warrant is issued.”

    Only if they have the kind of credible information I mention above. Impounding a car is a seizure, and thus subject to the same criteria as a search.

  • Christian Langford-Snape

    I think you missed the point. Yes they can if they suspect a crime may/is/has happened, but why should this guy be harassed for not answering? When he gets to the point, if they can’t find any evidence, he should be allowed through. Not answering is not a crime, and does not give the police the grounds to hold him any longer. Remember it’s innocent until proven guilty, not assume guilty, question until police have something, then charge. And as the guy mentions above me, assuming somebody ‘might’ have committed a crime is not evidence.

  • Christian Langford-Snape

    I wouldn’t say the cop got ‘owed’, if anything the cop won. He detained a guy for a prolonged period of time explaining his view of the law and then ‘let’ him go.
    This isn’t about whether DUI checkpoints are legal (that’s another debate) it’s about being able to freely assert your rights. Cops often think asserting your rights makes their job harder, so your being ‘un-cooperative’, and then think that’s grounds to assume guilt, which leads to unnecessary detainment and questioning.

  • The Insane Atheist

    So in order to AVOID DUI checkpoints all you’ve gotta do is take a detour??? Then what’s the point of DUI checkpoints??? Oh yeah… there’s none…

  • Alan Williams

    It is de-sensitizing police to the idea that citizens are required to comply blindly with any request when, in fact, they do not have to answer questions or take sobriety tests. He is performing a public service.

  • wickeddevelopment

    WRONG AGAIN. AFTER VIOLATING THE FEDERAL LAW THEY LOSE SUBJUCT MATTER JURISDICTION AND THAT MEANS THEY ARE NO LONGER OPERATING A CHEACK POINT AT ALL.. SEE
    18USC245
    (a)

    (1)
    Nothing in this section shall be
    construed as indicating an intent on the part of Congress to prevent any
    State, any possession or Commonwealth of the United States, or the
    District of Columbia, from exercising jurisdiction over any offense over
    which it would have jurisdiction in the absence of this section, nor
    shall anything in this section be construed as depriving State and local
    law enforcement authorities of responsibility for prosecuting acts that
    may be violations of this section and that are violations of State and
    local law. No prosecution of any offense described in this section shall
    be undertaken by the United States except upon the certification in
    writing of the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the
    Associate Attorney General, or any Assistant Attorney General specially
    designated by the Attorney General that in his judgment a prosecution by
    the United States is in the public interest and necessary to secure
    substantial justice, which function of certification may not be
    delegated.

    (2)
    Nothing in this subsection shall be
    construed to limit the authority of Federal officers, or a Federal grand
    jury, to investigate possible violations of this section.

    (b)
    Whoever, whether or not acting under color
    of law, by force or threat of force willfully injures, intimidates or
    interferes with, or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with—

    (1)
    any person because he is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from—

    (A)
    voting or qualifying to vote,
    qualifying or campaigning as a candidate for elective office, or
    qualifying or acting as a poll watcher, or any legally authorized
    election official, in any primary, special, or general election;

    (B)
    participating in or enjoying any
    benefit, service, privilege, program, facility, or activity provided or
    administered by the United States;

    (C)
    applying for or enjoying employment, or any perquisite thereof, by any agency of the United States;

    (D)
    serving, or attending upon any
    court in connection with possible service, as a grand or petit juror in
    any court of the United States;

    (E)
    participating in or enjoying the benefits of any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance; or

    (2)
    any person because of his race, color, religion or national origin and because he is or has been—

    (A)
    enrolling in or attending any public school or public college;

    (B)
    participating in or enjoying any
    benefit, service, privilege, program, facility or activity provided or
    administered by any State or subdivision thereof;

    (C)
    applying for or enjoying
    employment, or any perquisite thereof, by any private employer or any
    agency of any State or subdivision thereof, or joining or using the
    services or advantages of any labor organization, hiring hall, or
    employment agency;

    (D)
    serving, or attending upon any court of any State in connection with possible service, as a grand or petit juror;

    (E)
    traveling in or using any facility
    of interstate commerce, or using any vehicle, terminal, or facility of
    any common carrier by motor, rail, water, or air;

    (F)
    enjoying the goods, services,
    facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any inn, hotel,
    motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient
    guests, or of any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda
    fountain, or other facility which serves the public and which is
    principally engaged in selling food or beverages for consumption on the
    premises, or of any gasoline station, or of any motion picture house,
    theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium, or any other place of
    exhibition or entertainment which serves the public, or of any other
    establishment which serves the public and

    (i)
    which is located within the
    premises of any of the aforesaid establishments or within the premises
    of which is physically located any of the aforesaid establishments, and

    (ii)
    which holds itself out as serving patrons of such establishments; or

    (3)
    during or incident to a riot or civil
    disorder, any person engaged in a business in commerce or affecting
    commerce, including, but not limited to, any person engaged in a
    business which sells or offers for sale to interstate travelers a
    substantial portion of the articles, commodities, or services which it
    sells or where a substantial portion of the articles or commodities
    which it sells or offers for sale have moved in commerce; or

    (4)
    any person because he is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from—

    (A)
    participating, without
    discrimination on account of race, color, religion or national origin,
    in any of the benefits or activities described in subparagraphs (1)(A)
    through (1)(E) or subparagraphs (2)(A) through (2)(F); or

    (B)
    affording another person or class of persons opportunity or protection to so participate; or

    (5)
    any citizen because he is or has been,
    or in order to intimidate such citizen or any other citizen from
    lawfully aiding or encouraging other persons to participate, without
    discrimination on account of race, color, religion or national origin,
    in any of the benefits or activities described in subparagraphs (1)(A)
    through (1)(E) or subparagraphs (2)(A) through (2)(F), or participating
    lawfully in speech or peaceful assembly opposing any denial of the
    opportunity to so participate—

    shall be fined under this title, or
    imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results
    from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts
    include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon,
    explosives, or fire shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not
    more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts
    committed in violation of this section or if such acts include
    kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an
    attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall
    be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for
    life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. As used in this section,
    the term “participating lawfully in speech or peaceful assembly” shall
    not mean the aiding, abetting, or inciting of other persons to riot or
    to commit any act of physical violence upon any individual or against
    any real or personal property in furtherance of a riot. Nothing in
    subparagraph (2)(F) or (4)(A) of this subsection shall apply to the
    proprietor of any establishment which provides lodging to transient
    guests, or to any employee acting on behalf of such proprietor, with
    respect to the enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges,
    advantages, or accommodations of such establishment if such
    establishment is located within a building which contains not more than
    five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the
    proprietor as his residence.

    (c)
    Nothing in this section shall be construed
    so as to deter any law enforcement officer from lawfully carrying out
    the duties of his office; and no law enforcement officer shall be
    considered to be in violation of this section for lawfully carrying out
    the duties of his office or lawfully enforcing ordinances and laws of
    the United States, the District of Columbia, any of the several States,
    or any political subdivision of a State. For purposes of the preceding
    sentence, the term “law enforcement officer” means any officer of the
    United States, the District of Columbia, a State, or political
    subdivision of a State, who is empowered by law to conduct
    investigations of, or make arrests because of, offenses against the
    United States, the District of Columbia, a State, or a political
    subdivision of a State.

    (d)
    For purposes of this section, the term
    “State” includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia,
    and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.

  • Tiger

    You see, that way they can give chase (we all know they will) because you were trying to AVOID the checkpoint, so now they know they can charge you with something. So either way you are still screwed…..

  • Mike TheVet

    Exactly. They have officers 200-300ft in front of those signs, waiting for people to “avoid” the checkpoints and pull a u-turn.

  • Mark Meloy

    I love how he tries to scold him to save face.

  • kanenas101

    Do DUI checkpoints do anything but harass innocent motorists?

    If anything a drunk driver will know to avoid these checkpoints and will take an alternate route. If anything these should be banned and if police want to find drunk drivers, they can go out on patrol and do so.

  • Julian

    Seems like a lot of trouble for a simple “yes” or “no” answer. My guess is the guy probably had a couple of beers like anyone would after a long day and was afraid that the police would arrest him for just having any amount of alcohol in his system. Again that is just a guess.

  • ED

    Regardless of the legality of the stop, you are only obliged to provide proof that you can legally operate a motor vehicle and are under no obligation to answer any questions outside of confirming the information on your drivers license…They have no right to know where you have been, what you were doing there, where you are going and what you might do there…….

  • Charles Ayala

    hahaha they gave him the opportunity to turn around? Ha they would have sent a unit after him in a heartbeat. They look for that.

  • t

    That’s was a BRILLIANT reply.

    Wait…..no it wasn’t.

  • JC

    This is 2014 not the wild west. Things are very different than they were back then. The supreme court has ruled these checkpoints do not violate any rights.

  • JC

    The officer obviously had credible information because when they searched his car, they found drug paraphernalia. The officer smelled marijuana. He believed a crime was committed. The car was impounded and searched. The driver lost.

  • JC

    The officer impounded the vehicle. It was searched and drug paraphernalia was found. The officer was right. A crime was being committed. The driver chose to drive with that stuff in his vehicle. He was busted straight up.

  • JC

    He chose not to answer questions. No where in the video does it show the officer saying he has to answer. As a matter of fact, you can’t hear anything that is being said in the video except the police radio. The officer stated he smelled marijuana. He can investigate. The vehicle was impounded and a warrant was issued. They found drug paraphernalia in the vehicle. The stop stemmed from a partially obstructed plate.

  • JC

    No where in the video does it say the officer he has to answer questions. You can’t even hear them talking. He was pulled over. The officer smelled marijuana. The vehicle was impounded and a warrant issued. They found drug paraphernalia in the vehicle.

  • JC

    It’s 2014. Things are very different from back in the day.

  • Bejezus

    If you are a cop, you were selected in part for your compliance to orders and your low IQ–you aren’t QUALIFIED to understand brilliance. That explains the confusion on your part. Shut up and get your Sargent another donut, drone!

  • Joe Farrell

    So, what is the law in Nevada on DUI checkpoints?

    Has Nevada added a law which requires that once you enter a DUI checkpoint such is implied consent to respond at the checkpoint?

    If so, then our intrepid videographer is wrong about his knowledge of the law.

    If there is no such law then the cop is wrong and should be reported for his conductv violating the rights.

    California passed a law effective now I believe , which states if you enter a checkpoint you must answer the questions. The problem is many times there is no way around the checkpoint.

    I was stopped at a checkpoint coming off a limited access highway – the ONLY way to avoid the checkpoint was to turn down a one way street with a no left turn sign coming out – so you could not avoid the checkpoint. After stopping, refusing to respond, I demanded to see the supervisor on site – we had a very polite chat about the illegality of his checkpoint – and that I was going to call every attorneys office I knew about in the area about the illegal nature of the checkpoint if they did not either move it or close it down.

    He didn’t do either of them. I called some DUI lawyers I knew, told them about the checkpoint, then next week when I was in court I talked to the prosecutor who handled the DUI cases and told him about the checkpoint, the nature of it, the lack of cooperation from the officer in charge, and that it was my belief that under the Canons of ethics he could not prosecute these folks . . . .

    He got angry at me – but I think he ended up doing the right thing.

    The law is the law. Just follow it. If they put the stupid checkpoint on the other side of the light . . . .

  • beelzebub

    Bejezuz I like you

  • JayAre420

    They can assume whatever they want. They already assume a lot of things. When people assert their rights it may make them more suspicious to the cop. But maybe after more people do it, they’ll realize that not only do people know their rights, but they will use them. We have been too complacent for the last few decades. Now we are in this mess where cops think they run the world. Do you think he should have just been compliant after going through 2 other DUI checkpoints?

  • wickeddevelopment

    strike 3 the officer lost subject matter jurisdiction in the first 30 sec of contact. so everything else was also illegal but you dont defend people you just defend anarchy it seems

  • Richard Snell

    COPS A RETARD

  • Harbinger08

    No. Your guess would be exactly wrong, because no guessing is necessary, the facts are already known. He was completely sober. He approached the checkpoint recording video with the intention of documenting any abuses by police. He went through 3 check points that night for that purpose. I’m sure he was extra careful to not give any probable cause.

    The point is to inform, by example and video, both the police and the citizenry what the rights of the citizen are, and what the police can and cannot do.

  • Every state has different laws of consent when you choose to drive on the roads of that state, its called “implied consent”. I don’t know what the laws of Nevada are but the Sgt. handled it very professionally and the first trooper should learn to be more knowledgeable about DUI enforcement. One other thing is the driver is being a jerk off, stating if your free to go or being detained is obvious, when you enter a DUI checkpoint you will be detained.