He Has No Drugs And Knows His Constitutional Rights

By: Ben Swann
611
DUI Check Point

Across the nation yesterday and likely all throughout this weekend, local law enforcement will be putting up DUI checkpoints.  The idea behind these checkpoints is that they help to get drunk drivers off of the roads.  Unfortunately, time and again we see that these checkpoints do very little in that regard while managing to trample over the constitutional rights of sober drivers.

Today, I was alerted by a viewer to this video as he asked for help sharing it.  It was taken not even 24 hours ago by a young man in Rutherford County, TN by the name of Chris Kalbaugh.  Chris was stopped at one of these checkpoints last night and as you will see in the video he complied with the law.  The whole time Chris was recording his encounter with police.  Over and over his constitutional check-pointrights were violated and once again he was told the same thing so many of us have heard over and over: that we must sacrifice our liberty for safety.  In Chris’ case, none of the conduct by police in this video made him or anyone else on the roadways in Rutherford County any safer.


Here is the video and a quote from the Rutherford County Libertarians Facebook page:

“As we speak, video of police abuse here in Rutherford County is being viewed by hundreds of thousands of people all over the world, thanks to reddit picking it up. Concerned citizens are flooding the phone lines and email inboxes of the local sheriff’s office, police department, and highway patrol. Hats off to fellow member Chris Kalbaugh for asserting his constitutional rights.”


  • Andrea Lalama

    This is a total failure, we, the american people have lost A GREAT FREE COUNTRY to a tyrannical government. very sad indeed.

  • bmwdude

    Welcome to Amerika 2013. Between the bogus asset seizures and staged drug searches, as seen here, we are facing gestapo tactics daily. This is the tip of the iceberg. There are thousands more videos on YouTube displaying egregious LEO behavior occurring all over the country. Wish I had an idea how to stop it. Our elected officials simply don’t listen.

    • Bob Loblaw

      Tar and feathers. That or charge those levying war against us with treason. They’ll stop doing this if they face a firing squad rather than suspension with pay as a penalty for such violations.

  • infowarriorinaction

    My browser doesn’t recognize any of the video formats available. :/

    • Phydeux

      Its a YouTube video. You need Flash.

    • Phydeux

      Its a YouTube video. You need Flash.

    • rjnvpn

      Just use another browser.

  • DSCEO

    All the more reason to put cameras in your car covering the interior and exterior and every angle. Imagine if he caught footage of the cop planting evidence on him, like they do in Texas…

    • GaryTruth

      How many of us were sure the cop was going to drop a bag of something in the poor guy’s car.

      • Bob Loblaw

        I’m sure they would have if they hadn’t spotted the camera. They turned it around because they still thought about planting something and destroying the footage but decided against it. And they DO do it in TN as well(that’s why they’re out there). I would have loved for him to have gotten a pro car DVR system for this sort of thing. They wouldn’t spot it, annd you could send them to prison for framing you.

  • Robert Timsah

    Just posting video’s of this is no longer enough. At what point do we exact change and how do we do it? Those around me are just not waking up fast enough and it’s getting late. They’ve essentially made it illegal to defend your liberty or rights. You post a video like this and it enrages me, but these police actions actually comfort the average joe six pack. They’re the problem.

    • GaryTruth

      In the ‘fantasy’ part of my mind, I see a group of true patriots stopping these violators of our Constitutional rights. And by stopping, I mean ending this nonsense.

      • Robert Timsah

        I don’t know how we stop it without them using violence. If you stand up for your rights, you have to do so with force today. They’ll violate your rights forcefully, otherwise. Then you stand up to them and you just become “another criminal” that the matrix-pluggers can ignore and throw away.

        • Phydeux

          Simply gather enough like-minded people and show up on the Rutherford County Sheriff’s front door, and/or whatever entity is responsible for the Sheriff’s dept. Enough protesters and the media will show up. And that’s when they really start to squirm.

        • Barbara Schold Kiser

          EXACTLY…You resist them “assisting you” you are then arrested for resisting arrest and assaulting a LEO. They need to be checked back into place.

        • uptheirs

          Robert Timsah; We must get down on our knees and ask them very nicely to stop. Why of course only action on our part will stop them. A gun for a gun like in the old West.
          I am a long ago cop and I say this while my ears get Red!
          They are not cops, just remember this. They are your masters! NOT!

        • Bob Loblaw

          Stop paying for it. Stop catering to them. Shun the system. Don’t pay AT&T to give the NSA all your info. If you have a business, don’t serve them. Thank them, and tell them that the system is corrupt and if they are working for it, they are giving moral and material support to those levying war on the states. They cannot serve the system and uphold their oaths. If they serve the system and keep secrets like those Snowden exposed, they are committing treason and belong in front of a firing squad after being convicted. You are either with treasonous loyalists, or you’re with the Constitution and freedom. You’re either exercising and protecting/respecting rights, or you’re violating them.

          Officers like the ones in the video have violated a man’s rights and we should demand those men be held accountable for treason.

          It doesn’t matter what regulations etc. the Feds lay down. If you make sure anyone following treasonous orders is convicted and executed, then they will not carry out those orders. They will quit and expose tyranny like Snowden and be patriots simply to avoid being seen as a loyalist coward.

    • Apo Strophe

      video’s? video’s what? who is video, anyway?

    • Anne Rockwell

      The internet is the greatest tool we have right now. We have more than enough numbers, but are so spread apart that our influence is diluted. I think those who watch Benn Swann should anonymously post their geographic location. We could also spread the word to like-minded people/groups online to come do the same. The region with the most concentration of freedom supporters begins to self-organize and work towards city council membership, etc. with the help/resources of all the online supporters across the country who are philosophically isolated. We restore our country’s principles in one city. It becomes an example, and hopefully takes off from there? I’m sure there are holes I can’t think of, but that’s the best I can come up with.

  • Charles Walker

    become your voter precinct chairman. 180k pcts in usa 50k people with freedom agenda can control the usa.

  • Shaft Johnson

    Time to start a web database of these buttholes. Of course continue to sue them personally but I think it is time to take names and let them know how it feels to be the subject of unwanted attention like they make us.

  • Shaft Johnson

    Time to start a web database of these buttholes. Of course continue to sue them personally but I think it is time to take names and let them know how it feels to be the subject of unwanted attention like they make us.

  • Real dad

    Well those pigs need to have some new brainwashing done..
    I think America needs some Real Peace Officers.. Looks like a LawSuit to me..

  • Kirschwasser

    Looks like we are the reincarnated version of the Soviet Union now.

    Checkpoints (accompanied by dogs) were two of the items most commonly found stationed along the roadways behind the Iron Curtain during the 45 year Cold War.

    When you exercise dominion (via force) over both the issuance of credit and the transportation corridors required to utilize that credit to facilitate trade with, then an unseen iron grip forms that can be used to strangle the lifeblood out of the masses.

    The checkpoints are obviously the final shoe to drop in that equation.

  • James

    I had almost exactly the same experience with the Oklahoma County Sheriff last year. They stop every car, demand I.D. then run every persons name for warrants regardless of whether or not they are suspected of committing a crime.

  • Barbara Schold Kiser

    WOW 3000 more views in less than 15 minutes … AWESOME ..keep sharing

  • Travis Brown

    I just read some of the youtube comments attached to this video. I have no hope for America if those people commenting in favor of the cops have a say in the direction America is heading in. Mind blown! I feel so sad for those people.

  • http://resisttyranny.com/ Sean Ackley

    I feel sad for our “liberty” we achieved in this country. This is a sad day in ‘Merika.

  • JosephPlummer

    Cops need to learn that excising your rights is NOT evidence of a crime.

    • Michael Langley

      Did you hear the cop say “He knows his constitutional rights.” Now that we have a video of a falsely, induced hit, for drugs, by “drug” dogs, can we consider stopping the practice, except where probable cause exists?! I have no problem with their use in taking down fugitives. But, these false drug hits give the officers too much chance to plant evidence in a car that was not supposed to be searched in the first place!

  • Sally_Oh

    Excellent expose of how corrupt our peace officers have become. They drank the kool-aid. They think their badges give them extra rights.

    • Bob Loblaw

      More importantly they think it “authorizes” them to violate yours. They took an oath to protect against such violations. When they violated his rights(and those of others) they were levying war on the states. This is boldfaced treason, punishable by firing squad. Until people call for such accountability, these guys MIGHT get suspended with pay, and go right back to it. If they faced a firing squad they’d stop it or resign.

  • Patrick McIntyre

    This is just another symptom of a much larger disease… Thank You Ben Swann for bringing this story to us. Keep up the great work.

  • Ann

    If you notice, the office asked him nicely to roll down his window. It was a simple request. Nobody wants to talk to someone through a small opening in the window. Mr. Kalbaugh’s response suggested he had something to hide. Were his constitutional rights violated? Yes. But he instigated it by being antagonistic. If he would have just shown the officer some common courtesy and answered his questions, it would have shown he was of sound mind and not drinking and driving. The officer would have let him go and be on his merry way. Instead, Mr. Kalbaugh’s behavior proved suspicious. Police have to deal with all kinds of people and if someone gives them a reason to be suspicious by their behavior, it is their duty to investigate. How did the office not know he wasn’t some kidnapper, rapist, or murderer with something to hide? Both parties were wrong in this from what I can see.

    • Colt

      Total Horse Manure, Ann. And while you may be well meaning, it’s people like you that have allowed the nation to become sheeple. There is a legal process here that was violated by the officer. Why don’t Cops just bust down the doors of every house and ransack them.. after all, there may be a kidnapper or Rapist or murderer in one of the homes. Innocent people should not have to “prove” they are innocent unless there are legitimate charges against them.

    • Bob Loblaw

      He had no obligation to roll it down further. That is not a suggestion that there’s something to hide, nor is it probable cause for a search(hence the dogs). Suspicion is not probable cause. They can smell cookies baking and say it smelled like pot and kick your door in but all these excuses and rationalizations about how it “constitutes probable cause” are all BS. None of these suggest he has committed a crime. Their duty is not to investigate “suspicious behavior”, but to fight CRIME that has happened already or is in progress. How do you know the officer doesn’t have yellow cake in his garage? Your job isn’t to know if everyone is a criminal; it’s to pursue ones you know are criminals or which you have good reason to suspect they are. He displayed nothing to indicate that. He simply did something that’s called EXERCISING your rights while the officers VIOLATED them (and their oaths as they are committing treason).

    • Will

      show us your papers

    • The Confederate American

      Actually, rolling down the window gives them an opportunity to reach in to your vehicle unwanted or unwaranted, a “search and seizure” violation, if not more.

      With all due respect, I don’t care what the officer’s have to deal with. I’m tired of the exercising my rights being considered grounds for those in authority to abuse or violate them.

      If you do not have just cause to stop me then I sholdn’t be stopped at all. I shouldn’t have to roll my window down or step out the car, especially when I have good resaon to fear abuse and usurpation of authority by zealous, over anxious, albeit porbably well menaing police officers. And they shouldn’t seek to do any of that without explicit known cause regarding me or passengers in my vehicle directly.

      We need to have officers who know and will abide by the constitution and bill of rights (not to mention state constitutions) despite spurious “lesser” laws that violate those rights. The constitution — every issue, every time.

      Law officers should know it, and respect it, as the supreme law of the land. Doing otherwise is not only a violation not of our rights, but of THE law. It is itself criminal.

      • HypeandFail

        Excellent post! We need more Andys and far, far fewer Barneys. Or, in many cases, fewer of the new AmeriStazi which we seem to be getting more and more and more of every day.

        What would the Founders say? Didn’t they throw a Revolution against governmental overreach and hubris like this? And, didn’t they try to set up a system that would prevent such things in future? Pity we pretty much ignore the Constitution and Bill of Rights these days….

    • Smoothjc1

      Ann you could not be more wrong in any thing you said. What is suspicious about standing up for your rights ?

    • UncleJam

      So we should relinquish our rights if they ask nicely? If it is just a simple request? The driver did not instigate anything. The driver, if anything, is practicing cilvil disobedience against an out of control system. Your logic would imply that civil disobedience is “antagonistic” and “suspicious.” The police’s jobs isn’t to judge behavior. If they see EVIDENCE of drinking and driving, than they can make a decision based off that. This is why we have a system based on EVIDENCE so people are not subject to an officer’s opinion of what concludes “suspicious.” The officer was clearly the aggressor.

    • shadowcii

      It is clear that the police instigated the contact demanded him to roll down his window.

      The minimum standard a cop must have is “reasonable suspicion.” Which means: “the officer has sufficient knowledge to believe that criminal activity is at hand.”
      Is having a window rolled down part way sufficient knowledge? How? What crime?

      What you are describing is paranoia.

      Also it is never suspicious to invoke the law.

      There will come a time when you are not in favor with the regime in power and you will be glad that you are protected by the LAW.

    • Joe Maffei

      It’s not about nice, it’s about our rights. Police are trained to intimidate. and look how they turn when someone isn’t intimidated. Mr. Kalbaughs response did not suggest he had anything to hide and the courts have said so time and again. 10s of millions have been paid out over the years on civil suits against departments for his very thing. Why they want you to roll down the window has nothing to do with hearing each other. They want to smell your breath. They want to smell the car. This is an illegal search to begin with. The courts have ruled time and again if both parties can hear each other that suffices. They have also ruled that someone exerting their rights and refusing to answer questions does not constitute any sort of suspicion.

    • P. Nym

      Everyone has to deal with all kinds of people. The difference is that LEO has legalized force on their side and they get to carry firearms without question. How do you know the officer wasn’t a rapist or a murderer or someone with something to hide?

      • Russ Whiteman

        And they have to deal with a large number of armed nutcases who think that police are their personal enemies. Fanning the flames towards the cops doesn’t really help anyone. The problems we face are coming from -much- higher levels than the poor slobs being made into targets.

        • P. Nym

          So what? No one forced them to take that job. The rest of us have to deal with armed nutjobs as well, except we’re prohibited from carrying firearms in/near schools, post offices, etc. The police are nothing but footsoldiers of tyranny.

          • Russ Whiteman

            Sure…you’re completely and absolutely correct. After all, it’s not like cops have a much higher chance to get shot than civilians. I don’t know -what- I was thinking…

            But no one forced you to drive past a checkpoint either. I don’t think that argument holds ANY water.

          • P. Nym

            Cops are civilians. Quit putting them on a pedestal just because they have a uniform and a badge.

          • Russ Whiteman

            They’re on no pedestal in my world, but neither do I consider them to be the enemy, as so many on this thread seem to do. My experiences with cops have been almost universally positive, in each of three major cities (even when I was in the wrong). They’ve also been uniformly polite and helpful in every single case of dealing with my mentally ill wife.

            Most of those posting here may consider them untrustworthy scum, but as a group, they’ve given me plenty of reason to think otherwise. You, on the other hand, seem awfully quick to rush to judgement of people you’ve never met.

            I think I prefer -my- world to yours.

    • Brady2600

      Your saying this as if they wouldn’t have searched his car assembly line style, like they do at many of these checkpoints. It doesn’t matter if your polite, the police have made it routine practice in many cases to do what they did. You don’t have any obligation to roll down your window at their request legally, if this is antagonistic, pretty much anything could be considered such.

  • lawabidingcitizen

    I, literally, felt sick to my stomach after watching this video. I would say that I can’t believe this is what our country has become. But that would be a lie.

  • billy

    What are our rights when getting stopped by cops, don’t we have to show our ID. did he eventually show his? this sucks ransacked car scratched up paint job no recourse. is there a good resource to watch or read to get all the facts about what we should do if stopped? thank you.

    • Will

      he wasn’t stopped tho. He went through a checkpoint

    • Bob Loblaw

      No, you do not have to show your ID. You simply have to identify yourself (e.g. My name is Sam Johnson.) and that I think you only have to do if you are suspected of a crime. This means you shouldn’t have to identify yourself unless they can tell you that you, your car etc. fit the description of guy that robbed a bank, or that they saw you commit a crime, etc. As for what to do, it’s really half chance as to the officer’s mood and the kind of guy he is. There are good practices/procedures but if he’s a jerk he won’t care. If he’s nice, it won’t be necessary.

    • shadowcii

      You are not required to answer any questions.

      They can search you if:

      1. You consent.

      2. They have reasonable suspicion that you have committed, are committing, or about to commit a crime.

      3. They obtain a warrant.

      To invoke the law on your behalf say something like, “I do not wish to answer that. I don’t consent to searches.”

      Remember The cop is your adversary not your advocate.
      They are allowed to LIE to you. So if you ask them a question, like “Am I required to answer that question.” the cop can lie and say, “YES”.

      Would you ask your adversary for advice in a confrontation? And if you did, would you expect an answer that benefits you, or him?

  • Helen

    There needs to be enough action so that a legally mandated re-education of our police force is required. Right now hundreds of thousands of our police force personnel have no idea about the rights of the people they are charged with ‘protecting.’ I think bugging our own vehicles and knowing our rights to passively resist based on our rights at check points and other encounters would be a lovely thing. What if one-tenth of the constitutional violations upon law abiding citizens were recorded and uploaded daily, then pushed forward using social media. Just one tenth of the incidents that happened, Today, Nationwide? After one single week there would be an uproar nationwide to re-educate and re-evaluate how the police are supposed to interpret citizens and citizens rights. It would open dialog and scrutiny. It could be debated about safety vs. liberty and new rules of engagement could be drawn. The LEO would have to educate and illustrate respect for each citizen and the rights that they have in their contact with persons. Perhaps it is a bit idealist in some situations, but I can guarantee that the police in this video knew the driver was not a threat within moments of the encounter. He just pissed them off and rubbed their ego wrong. Within moments of an encounter with a drunk or a dangerous person, they would have treated the situation entirely different.

  • shadowcii

    This man had nothing to hide…he had his privacy to protect.

    It is never wrong to invoke the law in your defense.

    Each time each one of us exercises our rights, we make it more difficult for them to harm ourselves and our neighbors.

    And on the side, each time each one of us “goes along to get along” we make it easier for them to harm our neighbors.

    That is why I believe I have a duty to invoke the law every time i meet lawless officials.

    • Bob Loblaw

      “Privacy” in this sense is a euphemism for your 4th amendment right to be SECURE. When it’s the NSA’s secret activities, assets, gadgets, etc. they don’t call it a matter of “National Privacy”. Don’t let them frame it as non-essential like it’s the color of your underwear. This is your security they are violating.

  • alabubba

    Many states have made it a criminal offense to “Obstruct a Law Enforcement Officer”. That’s a catch all that simply means they can arrest you for any reason, any time. All they have to claim is that you didn’t comply with their commands. Welcome to the United Police States of Amerika!

    • MrDamage

      Most of the time when a person is arrested for “obstruction” they have not, in fact, violated the obstruction law and the cops know that. They just don’t care that the individual is guilty of no crime because being arrested, strip searched and imprisoned long enough for a defense attorney to get the bullshit charge tossed or dropped is more than sufficient punishment for their real crime: contempt of cop.

  • nobaddog

    The officer said hes completely innocent, knows his rights and what the constitution says. But that made no difference the officer continued what is now harassment!

  • Leighsa

    oh shoot….”this guy is perfectly innocent and knows his rights and the
    constitution. ” …looks like we won’t be able to get away with our
    usually tactics. why aren’t we both on the same side. We all want to
    stop crime and stop law breakers but why do they want to break the law
    in order to do it. The oath taken by an enforcement officer is normally
    one that includes “I swear (or affirm) that I will support the
    Constitution of the United States,
    and that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the State of
    (State Name) and support the Constitution and laws thereof; and that I
    will, to the best of my skill and judgment diligently and faithfully,
    without partiality or prejudice, execute the office of police officer
    according
    to the Constitution and laws of this State.” Those that are upholding
    the law must be held to a standard. is there any consequence for
    violating this man’s rights? why aren’t they trained by their
    departments to execute their jobs without breaking the laws.

    • Bob Loblaw

      No, we don’t “all” want to stop crime. Many officers do, and many actually intend to commit crime without consequence. If I touched your 5 year old daughter’s behind I’d go to jail but TSA etc. get away with it and many take the job because of that. Many also take the job to make a living. Those guys don’t care if they’re committing treason or fighting crime as long as they follow orders and don’t get fired.

  • http://www.smilesandstuff.com/ Melissa Canchola

    Messed up.

  • http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/energy-harnassed/ Mike Jaeger

    Since he is operating a motor vehicle, is it lawful for the policeman to ask for his drivers license?

    • Bob Loblaw

      Only if he a suspect in a crime and the officer can articulate that does he have to identify himself, and this can be stating ones name and does not require you to show a state issued tag.

      • http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/energy-harnassed/ Mike Jaeger

        Thanks Bob

        • Bob Loblaw

          Of course they don’t always respect/”interpret” the law as it was written/intended. They will say that your name isn’t good enough and it needs to be an ID, but depending on the officer, area, judge, etc. they sometimes do acknowledge that stating your name is fine. Of course there is an underlying argument there that you need no license at all. A license is a permit to do something that’s otherwise illegal but driving is not illegal and therefore should require no permit.

          • eyesandears

            “A license is a permit to do something that’s otherwise illegal…” So by right this means every member of Congress and the House ought be carrying a license permitting insider trading. Hmmm, perhaps a few well-placed citizen initiated checkpoints are in order.
            I’ll never bend to the idea that simply writing a law instituting the Constitutionally illegal as legal makes it legal. Profoundly absurd.

        • Brady2600

          it also depends on the state. Some states have passed laws requiring that you always must show id

    • 1kenthomas

      That varies by state. Many states have affirmed that DUI/License Check checkpoints are perfectly legal. In those states, you must display a license when asked.
      I am unaware of the state of things in TN; can anyone comment?

    • P. Nym

      No.

      • noloveinfear

        Wrong again. All state laws require that drivers be licensed to operate vehicles on public roadways (with few exceptions for farm workers, etc) and that if asked to prove that your driving privileges are valid and current, you must give your license to the officer. Full stop. There’s a reason you are required to carry your driver’s license with you while operating a motor vehicle.

        I can’t tell if you’re a troll or just taking a contrary position for the sake of starting arguments, but every assertion you’ve made (with the exception of RAS – it does exist, but is seldom referred to by that particular acronym) has been incorrect.

        • P. Nym

          You are incorrect, and you are not required to carry your drivers license with you. The cops cannot just pull you over and demand to see your drivers license.

          And every single one of my posts has been factually correct. You are free to provide any evidence that they aren’t.

    • MrDamage

      Provided the individual is free to leave, it is lawful for the policeman to _ask_ for his license. He can’t lawfully order the driver to hand over the license unless there is reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime has been committed.

  • B

    Welcome to America, your a citizen of it! and more then likely you have lived in the States for the last 20-30 years. Therefore you know what is happening in this country.

    • B

      Here is my 2nd piece of advice, when you see a check point, slow down pull over and go the other way. Here’s my 3rd just stop going out its what I do personally. The government and other authoritarian systems have no problem negating citizens civil liberties to suit their own purposes and agendas

      • 1kenthomas

        Now that’s a good way to get arrested !

      • MrDamage

        Trying to avoid a checkpoint legally gives officers reasonable articulable suspicion to pull over and detain the individual trying to do so. I’m not saying that’s as it should be (it’s not) but that’s what it is.

  • Joseph C. Carbone III

    This should be on the TV news for two days, none stop, like they do!

    I’m not joking.

  • jflorio

    Chris next time, follow through, make them forcibly remove you from the car. That would have been something to catch on film, but this was good, you did pretty good, [applause] very proud of you. I called the Sheriffs department, the gentleman who answered the phone said “There have been quite a lot of calls regarding this issue…” :) Be Well.

  • Dawn

    So they essentially put him through this for no other reason than he knew his rights and attempted to assert them. If he had just complied and played along then he would have gone through no problems. It’s a frustrating and tough choice to make: avoid hassle or allow these nazi wannabes to have their way. As long as there’s little push back, this will continue to get worse.

  • mrskerri

    First of all i would like to say that the “arrogance of this driver gave them more than “just cause” to search..granted it was a DUI checkpoint..but the ignorance of the driver and what he “felt” were is rights were not just cause to be stupid!! Not disclosing his age, or rolling down the window as asked, put the officers in a position to think he was hiding something, or better yet, put their lives in a questionable position..other than this man’s “Constitutional Rights”. These Officers are trying to not only protect him, but others on the road. They are not paid enough to listen to inconsiderant answers from a non complying individual..there goal is to keep the roads safe…Ironically, he would be calling them first if he had been hit, injured, or needed any kind of help..

    • Bob Loblaw

      They weren’t trying to do anything but violate his rights. He was not required by law to disclose his age or roll down the window further. The fact that you are calling his exercising his rights “inconsiderate” and calling his “arrogance” (not bowing to tyrants) “just cause” means you are giving moral support to men levying war on the states/public. You and they are committing treason and it’s punishable by firing squad. No officer has authority to violate a man’s rights, which that officer took an oath to protect, respect, and uphold. He violated his oath, and is not a police officer, but rather a traitor.

      • mike chavez

        i agree with your sentiment except for the firing squad comment.

        • Bob Loblaw

          Whether you agree with it or not, the law is written so that treason is punishable by death and there is a very good reason for it. It’s not “justice” or “vengeance”, or “retribution”, but necessity.

          Unfortunately this sort of criminal activity progresses as long as it remains unchecked. And for them, anything short of death or disgrace they can shrug off and continue their crimes. Our founding fathers understood that and out of this necessity they put that in the law and we have a duty to our country use the tools we have in the system before we have to face full on tyranny. Imagine Nazis with ARGUS and HELLADS drones, drone tanks, GPS, email, tasers, etc. That firing squad is there so it doesn’t come to that.

          They’re only doing all this because they think we are too domesticated to hold them accountable. If ONE guy was given the maximum punishment for treason in a case like this, they would think twice. But suspension with pay isn’t enough. Prison unfortunately isn’t either. They think they’re tough lawmen and won’t wind up in prison or will be top dog. Only the most serious of punishments will get their attention.

          Jefferson once said something like “The amount of tyranny you will live under is equal to the amount you tolerate”.

    • Duck River

      Why should he answer any of those questions? What he “felt” were his rights? Are you kidding? His rights were violated, and stomped. View the footage, and listen to the disdain of the officers voice when he views the camera.

    • John W.

      AMEN Mrskerii!!!!!!! AMEN!!

    • ItsLeeOwen

      there are no laws against arrogance dumby

    • Joe Maffei

      Officer kerri…asserting one’s rights is not arrogance. court rulings have directly disagreed with your “just cause” statement time and again in recent years. Get a freaking clue. he doesn’t have to disclose his age. Yes, he should have given them his license as he was driving a car, he has to answer NO questions. I hate it when cops who think they know the law don’t know crap.

    • Andrew

      Ummm, why are you even following this particular blog? it’s a video about dumb cops on a power trip.

      Oh, don’t tell me, are you the dumb cop in the video who STILL at his advanced age is doing roadblocks at midnight?

  • Brian

    Who are you to enforce the law if you cannot follow the law? This Dept. like many around the nation need further training. P.O.P. and “Just because you say so” are not laws.

  • Joe Maffei

    It happens because we elect people who allow it. Recall them, vote them out. Get rid of City managers that hire chiefs of police that allow this. Recall sheriffs that tolerate it. You want someone on your side, tell the city chamber of commerce your going to put this video on every travel website there is telling people not to come there and not to spend their money there. Tell them how bad these behaviors are for the city coffers. Let them help you bring pressure to remove these gestapo. Then, sue them in federal court for civil rights violations. In this economy, cities have to tighten their belts, they can not afford to continue paying out huge settlements because their cops don’t know the law. Also, these cops took an oath to uphold and defend the constitution. I have never heard of it being suspended. THey are in violation of their oath and need to be terminated post haste.

    • Bob Loblaw

      Yeah, and if you really want it to change, hold them accountable for violating their oaths and levying war on the states(treason), by charging them with and convicting them of treason. When their buddies die a dishonorable death by firing squad they will stop violating people immediately.

  • John Williamson

    Get a life kid!! The cops were there trying to avoid people driving drunk and killing innocent people then you go and waste their time to prove a point and push your propaganda. Maybe someone in your family needs to innocently lose their life due to a drunk driver for you to realize the importance of such stops. White spoiled kid who doesn’t know how good we have it in America! Go to a third world country or any other country for that matter and try these little games!! Such a disgrace… while people, including police officers, die to protect lives and this country we have little weasals like this crying about being stopped at a DUI check point… had you gone with the program like millions of us do… you would have only been stopped for less then a minute…. but you have to be annoying, ignorant and selfish…. God Bless America and save us from people like this guy…. spoiled to the core… visit some other countries… get some perspective and then speak…

    • Joe Maffei

      Williamson…You a law enforcement officer?

    • Paul

      Sad that you do not see the bigger issue here. I I mean that with respect. I appreciate your point, but still. . .sad.

    • P. Nym

      The bleating of the sheep.

    • 1kenthomas

      Exactly how many drunk driving deaths are there in TN per year, and how many of them are the drunk driver or a passenger?
      Huge encroachment on rights, with essentially *no* benefit at this point. Cronic offenders will avoid the stops.

    • 1kenthomas

      Do you know exactly *how many* people are killed by drunk drivers in TN each year– and how many of those are not the driver or a passenger– and how many of those, actually pass through checkpoints?
      This is a huge expense in terms of resources, a major intrusion, and it has essentially no effect. Repeat offenders (most of those you would care about) avoid checkpoints.
      Theatre, masturbation… nothing more.

    • noloveinfear

      The kid was just driving down the street and the officer had no reasonable, articulate suspicion that he was breaking any laws. The cop freaked out when the kid asserted his rights then proceeded to signal his “drug dog” (they’re as effective as any other untrained dog, look it up) to “hit” on the vehicle. This happens every day at the expense of us tax payers.

  • P. Nym

    While his natural rights were infringed upon, his Constitutional rights were not. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights limits the federal government, not the States.

    • chickatty

      Really? Where did you go to law school? The Fourth Amendment applies to ANY government law enforcement agency, not just the Feds. Yeesh. If that were true, we’d ALL be in trouble.

      • chickatty

        P.S. There aren’t any “natural rights.”

        • P. Nym

          Oh, my. You are ignorant. The denial of natural rights is what allows and enables tyranny. It underpins every socialistic, communistic regime. Natural rights exist whether you realize it or not. I suggest you educate yourself.

          • chickatty

            Um, I went to law school and have practiced criminal defense for twenty years. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizure. And there are no “natural rights” enforceable as a matter of law. The ignorant one would be you.

          • P. Nym

            Maybe you should’ve studied history instead, or at least paid attention in law school. Yes, I know the 4th Amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizure. That’s not the point of contention. The point is that it only prohibits the federal government, not the states. The Constitution and Bill of Rights limit the federal government, not the states. You should read it sometime.

          • chickatty

            You’re kidding, right? You really don’t think the Fourth Amendment applies to city cops or county deputies? And good luck with suing someone in court for violation of your “natural rights.”

          • P. Nym

            I know it doesn’t, but then I’m not the world’s best criminal defense attorney who’s never heard of Reasonable Articulable Suspicion until tonight.

          • 1kenthomas

            They just don’t exist in US jurisprudence, for most purposes. Return to ConLaw. Wait, have you taken ConLaw? Read a text?

          • P. Nym

            Natural rights exist for everyone everywhere. Natural rights exist whether you’re aware of them or not. Natural rights exist because we exist; they are not granted by man, nor can they be taken away by man. The denial of these rights is the hallmark of oppressive, tyrannical governments.

        • 1kenthomas

          Not since the Constitution abolished them, Estimable Chief Justice!

      • P. Nym

        No it doesn’t. The Fourth Amendment says no such thing. The Constitution does not limit the fifty sovereign nations that formed a confederation via compact. It limits their creation.

        • 1kenthomas

          I’m afraid the SCOTUS has not historically agreed with your extreme position…

          • P. Nym

            Yes, I’m aware. That doesn’t make me wrong. It makes the federal government tyrannical. Of course, my position is not extreme. It is the same position as the Founders/Framers and ratifiers. I’ll tell you what’s extreme, though: A Supreme Court who was not given the power of judicial review by the States/ratifiers, but claiming the power anyway, and then telling us what is and what isn’t Constitutional.

    • noloveinfear

      You’re a damned fool. The Constitution specifically enumerates those rights to all citizens and the 10th amendment gives the states the power to grant any rights not explicitly granted under the constitution.

      • P. Nym

        You need to read the Constitution again. The Constitution and the federal government do not grant powers to the States. The States are granting powers to the federal government. Any powers NOT granted the federal government are RESERVED to the States. Further, the Constitution does not grant rights; it protects rights from the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

    • MrDamage

      The fourteenth amendment has been construed to extend most of the bill of rights to actions by state governments as well as federal.

  • Frank

    While I agree that the police are becoming more and more untouchable and shameful in their abuses of power. They are allowed to ask for your license. The crime you are suspected of is “driving without a license” had you been walking they couldn’t demand it but you were DRIVING.

    • Colt

      When did they suspect him of not having a license? When he left home? The store? WHEN? The officers had No Reasonable Articulable Suspicion (RAS) That he committed a crime, was committing a crime or was going to commit a crime) Frank, you fail

      • chickatty

        Again, DUI checkpoint. Don’t need probable cause that a crime was committed. Get to stop everybody and make sure they aren’t impaired. And where the hell did you get RAS? Never heard of it in twenty years of criminal defense. Did you make it up?

        • P. Nym

          WOW

        • MrDamage

          [snort] Nobody believes you.

      • Frank

        He could have struck them as looking to young to have one for all we know. Ii dunno what Tennessee has on their licenses, but in Georgia it says right on the back that they must be relinquished upon request.

        • joelhodgson

          Well mine doesn’t Jimmy.. so until it does. Georgia here as well. I would have atleast gave him my license though.

        • MrDamage

          Unless the driver has committed a crime (such as a traffic infraction) is suspected of having committed a crime or is suspected of being about to commit a crime on the bases of reasonable articulable suspicion on the basis of specific facts he or she must be free to leave. If he is not free to leave and there is no reasonable articulable suspicion, that’s violation of the fourth amendment. Kind of hard to request a drivers licence when the licencee is happily motoring on his way because he’s free to leave.

    • Paul

      Only if you are being detained. He was stopped for NO reason. If he was stopped for a violation he has been detained. . . Had he been stopped for a violation, the question of providing ID becomes moot. The officer has NO right to assume that the driver does not have a license. Fact. They could randomly stop anyone with your argument.

    • P. Nym

      Sure they can ask, but they can’t demand it. He doesn’t have to comply to a request, especially if the officer hasn’t told him what he’s being pulled over for.

    • Christopher McDaniel

      It was a Driving Under the Influence checkpoint, not a driving without a license checkpoint. Good Lord people -

  • padamsjr

    Its clear to me that the camera was staged and the attitude was intentional. What an asshole 21 year old.

    • Joe Maffei

      it’s clear to me that people are fighting for their rights, putting an end to gestapo tactics and cops whine about it cause they are trained to intimidate. You see what happens when someone fails to be intimidated? Cops get pissed. The lawsuit should be worth some money. Cities all over the country are paying out on this shit left and right. when they get tired of paying, the orders will come down to change tactics.

    • FreedomFTW

      At what point in the video was “attitude” displayed? Also, explain how attitude could be unintentional.

  • Aubrey

    I am not personally a fan of these videos. I understand what they are trying to prove but it’s also a set up. If you go through a DUI check point, and answer the few questions they ask they tell you to be safe and send you in your way. By not rolling the window down and not giving his age that causes the officer to question why. Granted, it’s Chris’ right to refuse to answer, but then it causes the police to wonder why. It’s like your egging them on to do something that violates your rights when you could have just answered the questions and been on your way. I am all for liberty and fighting for the constitution

    • Christopher McDaniel

      The window was down. How many people are incapable of thought these days? A bunch of daMNED ZOMBIES.

    • librtee_dot_com

      These checkpoints are unconstitional. You can’t say you are ‘for the Constitution’ if you just allow more and more unconstitutional activities to be taken for granted…

    • lineman

      You are a liar because if you won’t stand up for the little things then you surely won’t fight for the big things…

    • Wyveryx

      Exercising your rights is not egging on anybody. By just giving in and answering questions and bypassing the use of your rights, your allowing the validity of those rights to be challenged.

    • MrDamage

      When cops do the same thing, it’s called a “sting”. Guess what corrupt cops? YOU’RE STUNG!

  • Brandon Collins

    First off let me say that you can be detained and/or questioned for up to 48 hours without being charged with a crime. You don’t have to be read your rights unless you are being arrested, at which time you are being charged. This kid and whoever added the comments to the video, doesn’t know the law. He was asked to roll down his window, and to pull over, he could be arrested for disobeying a lawful order, on that alone.

    • herp

      …You’re implying that the kid being ordered to roll down the window was a LAWFUL order. Which it isn’t.

      • chickatty

        At a DUI checkpoint, uh, yeah it is.

        • Christopher McDaniel

          Not if the window is already down…duh!

    • Joe Maffei

      Its not a lawful order Brandon. courts has ruled as long as the cop and driver can clearly hear each other, the request has been satisfied. The order is not lawful. You smell like a cop who think he knows something. Most cops, as evidenced by the video, don’t know shit.

      • Brandon Collins

        I’m not a cop, but I have a lot of family that is and I Studied Criminal Justice, and you can be detained for 48hrs without charges. If they had found anything in his car, they would have than read him his rights. And that is not a Supreme Court Ruling, so it doesn’t apply everywhere just in the state/or county that ruled on it. However, once the officer asked him to roll it down, if he refuses he can be asked to step out of his vehicle.

        • Christopher McDaniel

          His window was down Brandon.

        • Paul

          “If they had found anything in his car, they would have than read him his rights” And what did they find? Ohhhhh! nothing…that’s right.

        • grendal113

          searching the vehicle without probable cause was an illegal search. even if they had found something. Dogs alert all the time on nothing. you notice they didn’t arrest him for the supposed 48hrs right. These cops where pushing it just because he knew his rights.

    • chickatty

      Close, but no cigar. Miranda applies to all custodial questioning. You do not have to be charged for it to apply. If you are in custody and not free to leave, you must be advised of your right to remain silent before an interogation. Having said that, the officer’s instruction to roll down his window and pull over AT A DUI CHECKPOINT is, in fact, a lawful order. You can look it up.

      • 1kenthomas

        I think (alas) Miranda has changed a bit… and do they have to roll down more, than for both parties to be heard (in TN)? Does he have to show ID in TN– as is true in many States? See Joe’s comment below.

        • Joe Maffei

          this was a decision handed down by the supreme court several years ago and set precident. It has been used to defend and win many of these types of cases across the country. As long as both parties can hear each other, as long as Drivers license, proof of insurance and registration can be passed back and forth, the request has been complied with. To push it further…violates the persons rights. Another thing he an do is to exit the vehicle, and lock the door behind him and put his keys in his pocket. This pisses off cops all around the country…but there is nothing they can do about it other than violate your rights…and that my friends…is pay day.

      • Paul

        So what is the statute on the “amount a window needs to be lowered”? 3″?? 4.34″?? All the way? Enough to be able to hear the officer and inform him that you have rights?

      • Joe Maffei

        I have seen a video of produced by the university of virginia. It is published by a lawyer…the professor…and his assistant…a 29 year veteran of the police force and a law student. You are required to roll down your window only far enough to be heard. Cops don’t like it. Those associated with cops don’t like it. Those with cops in the family think cops can do no wrong. Guess what, these cops are liable for the damages to his car, they are going to be held accountable for an illegal search. They are going to be held accountable for the whole thing and if they are very very lucky the young man will decide to settle out of court for a couple hundred grand. If he really wants to screw them…the ball is in his court.

    • P. Nym

      They weren’t lawful orders. And who said you can be detained/questioned for up to 48 hours? Government?

    • 1kenthomas

      You are obviously not a lawyer; two lawyers, forwarded this to me. You don’t even know what an “arrest” is :) You can only be detained for 48 hours, in very particular circumstances (related to terrorism, mostly).
      Have a nice day! And google a bit before posting next time, whydon’tcha?

      • Brandon Collins

        Famous last words of an idiot, “I Googled it”

        • 1kenthomas

          Do you have a point? You don’t. Of course, not everything findable via Google, is true. In this case, if you have judgment (questionable), you could have used Google to educate yourself before posting. Or at some time prior to that.

    • Christopher McDaniel

      Clearly you are incapable of comprehending video. Go back and count how many times he asked if he was in fact being detained. The officers NEVER answered…why? Because they weren’t detaining him. Jesux Christ, one of the cops even says right into the camera, “He is perfectly innocent and he knows his rights.” WTF is wrong with you people!

      • P. Nym

        The LEO was being sarcastic.

        • Christopher McDaniel

          I didn’t sense sarcasm at all from that officer. Seemed to me he was admitting that they were going overboard. Then he turns the camera away…

          • P. Nym

            No, he was mocking the guy to the other LEO. Cops think they know the law and that the little people don’t, and he was making fun of that.

          • glickton

            all they are doing at the end of the day is trying to look busy at work so they don’t lose their jobs, simple as that. they have bills to pay and they are being watched by their bosses, these people have no morals or they would find another job, why aren’t americans fighting for their constitution?

    • Hesienberg

      Look, he had his window roll down enough for the “officer” to look at him and check his breath. He did not have to answer any questions. This happened to another gentleman in Nevada, he was convicted by the judge in muni court , but the appeals court overturned that moronic decision. The gentleman did roll down his window far enough to make the officer happy and he was dragged out of the car and he blew 0.00 so they charged him with obstruction and even the moronic muni judge (I mean no offence to you) said the same thing that he could have been arrested for disobeying a lawful order. During the CA and the judge told the defendant that he could have been charged and convicted of disobeying a lawful order. But they could not find any law which requires how far a window much be rolled down for a dui checkpoint. Federal law only requires enough to render the DL and other information, anymore is an courtesy to the “peace officer”. So rolling down the window is an, request, not an order, an officer can request any information, but is very limited in what he or she demands.

    • The Confederate American

      He asked if he was being detained and was not told one way or the other, much less given a cause for such detainment. IF he had been told he was being detained then you would have a point, though it itelf is spurious, IMO.

  • Tony Atterberry

    Maybe next time he should just put the window down like he was asked.

    • Shadowcii

      …or maybe the cop should obey the law like he was asked.

    • Joe Maffei

      maybe cops are not above the constitution and need to follow the laws they swore to uphold, Or GTFO the job.

    • P. Nym

      Why?

    • Andrew Pfisterer

      probably a cop… usually when people give arrogant answers and try to defend oath-breaker cops they are either a cop or very close to one

    • The Confederate American

      Maybe Rosa Parks should have just moved, right? Maybe instead the officer should be thorouighly versd in the rights and protections of citizens in the Constitution and not seek to conduct his affairs in any way to violate them.

  • Sammy

    Are you serious? These are obvious cases of harassment. These guys think they are playing judge and jury out here. We pay for the roads. We pay the salaries. There should not be anyone harassing us on our roads. Your corrupt versions of justice and law be damned sir.

  • ItsLeeOwen

    This has to stop.

  • chickatty

    DUI checkpoints have been litigated over and over. They ARE legal and promote public safety. It would be different if this guy was pulled over for no reason. Like the guy said previously: be polite, answer Officer Friendly’s questions, allow him to determine that you are not impaired and, therefore, a threat to public safety and he’ll send you on your way with a “Have a nice night.”

    • P. Nym

      Funny how that works. The very same entity that infringes upon rights has given itself permission to infringe upon rights. That doesn’t make it any less of an infringement of your rights. And fyi, this guy was pulled over for no reason. There was no sign that he had committed a crime or that he was about to commit a crime.

      You have got to be the worst defense attorney in the U.S.

      • chickatty

        It was a CHECKPOINT. EVERYBODY gets stopped. And no, I’m pretty damned good.

        • P. Nym

          What a marvelous job of avoiding the point.

        • Paul

          Maybe you should have spent more time studying the Constitution. Just sayin’. . .

        • Helen

          Everybody gets stopped, but there are strict limits to how the officer should be allowed to interrogate a person. It is not a crime to be driving on the roadway and as such they are not, nor should they be a suspect. Unless you become a suspect because you stop into a back to conduct some personal banking. He was not nor should be a suspect for failure to comply with an officer ordering him to roll his window down further, provide his ‘papers’ or drivers license. Further, he was asking if he was being detained and the officer was quite obviously getting more and more rattled, but refused to answer him at that point. In turn showing disrespect and continuing to violate his rights. If he was to be detained, which is what was the officers obvious intent by having him pull over and park his vehicle then he had a duty to announce it as such. Performing a search on a citizen’s vehicle simply because he didn’t wish to comply with a violation of his rights does not make them a suspect. If you are an attorney as you implied in an earlier post, I am truly amazed. If you are a defense attorney, good luck to you, but more to your defendants. If you are an average Joe, then you should certainly hope you never are faced with the receiving end of a warrantless search and seizure. And don’t stand on the “nothing to hide” defense, because that will totally negate your intelligence at this point.

    • Jimmy

      Are you kidding? The boys in blue don’t ever show up until after a crime is committed. All prohibitive laws and DUI laws do is manufacture criminals. It is about control and keeping us all one drink away from being arrested. These nazi check points don’t stop people from driving under the influence I hate to tell you. The law doesn’t stop free will or stupidity.

    • Shadowcii

      This is a sincere question chickatty…can’t the same determination be made by a coherent assertion of rights. in other words, clearly and soberly telling an officer I don’t wish to answer that question and I’d like to go on my way now, along with other sober interplay would resolve the issue. Correct?

      Another way to look at is, it would be a void statute/regulation if: it required one to surrender his rights / violated the restrictive clauses found in the constitution.

      Faced with an informed suspect, they would be forced to make their determination another way. Right?

      • The Confederate American

        And that is the way they should be making their determnations in EVERY case, in ways that honor and respect the supreme law of the land. And they should be doing that for the sake of doing that alone.

    • Christopher McDaniel

      Ummm, you seem to be missing the point. The young man did in fact stop at the checkpoint. He was polite. The officer got pissed because he didn’t want to roll his window down any further.

      Tell me genius, does that law state that you have to roll your window down X number of inches? If not, then you are arguing with yourself, and losing badly.

    • Bob

      You[re an idiot.

    • Helen

      He did converse with the officer, he however, did not allow himself to be ordered around without cause thus violating his rights. When he didn’t cower and follow directions that would have him violating those rights, he became a suspect. Not because he showed impairment, but because his actions were and affront to the all assuming authority of the officer involved. This is further attested to by the other officers own recorded statement that the guy was “perfectly innocent, but knows his rights” while continuing to ‘search’ his vehicle. Look, there are good cops out there, and perhaps in a different situation these officers could have behaved differently. Fact is that most officers are not trained or educated in what civil liberties are or what rights a citizen has. If they do receive training it is meager and incomplete. They are taught how to detain a suspect and how to take control of difficult and dangerous situations. They are taught to eliminate a threat. In some cases they are specifically not allowed to be educated on what a persons rights are during these encounters because it could lead to the second guessing themselves in a potentially dangerous situation. I understand that the job they do is necessary and valid… in most cases. However, the line of LEO authority has been blurred too much. LEO across the nation need to be properly trained regularly on civil liberties and what a citizen’s rights are, more than “mirandize them and cuff ‘em”. Plus there needs to be strict and potent enforcement against them when they step over that line. Such as shooting homeless people’s dogs or illegal arrest or even unprovoked physical conflict. Don’t tell me that is rare, because I can pull up thousands of videos of such instances. It is to the point in some case it has been made illegal to video or photograph police in the performance of their duties. This is true in certain precincts in California. Educate yourself. It is fine to want to support the police, but support them for obeying the law and respecting citizens not justifying bad behavior behind the problems of a job with a badge.

      • The Confederate American

        Well said.

    • The Confederate American

      Lesser laws that purpote the legality for abuses of constitutional rights are not truly legal themselves. Just because the government can do something, and says it is legal to do so, doesn’t actually make it legal, nor right.

    • realman10000

      another shill officer

    • http://personsearchbyname.com Gary Carlyle

      legal doesnt mean legitimate. your government is a corporation. they have no more right to make rules than macdonalds do.

    • dd

      Ok it was obvious this kid was not impaired, so if this is a DUI checkpoint, he should have just been sent on his way. No the cops wanted to make a point, forget the constitution and the law, it was personal, someone defied them and they cannot deal with it. Police used to be there to protect and serve the people, now they believe they ARE the law.

  • Guest

    The comments system on this page seems to be broken. I cannot downvote any comment, I can only upvote them. It says I must “sign in” to downvote, which I have already done. I’m noticing the comments only seem to have upvotes which seems to indicate that other people have the same problem.

    • 1kenthomas

      You’re showing up as a guest, not a logged in user. Hope that helps.

    • Helen

      I was able to down vote just fine. Hmmm just testing.

  • laurita tee

    That is unacceptable. What happened to our freedoms. Smart young man!

  • Paul

    So very amazed by all of the comments that suggest “Americans” don’t see the problem with this.

    • glickton

      I’m disgusted and im british

  • Andrew

    This made me shudder. Talk about Dumb and co.

    The comedian in me couldn’t help think that “This is who the nice folks at Agenda 21 are going to be counting on?”

    Seriously, isn’t that cop a little old to still be doing road checks at night? God speed my American friends.

  • JB3830

    Probable Cause. A legal stop would have to be based on this. A drivers license/insurance are not moving violations on a public roadway and can be enforced after probable cause is found for the initial stop. Some states have enacted laws pertaining to DUI checkpoints, however there legal basis can be challenged due to their lack of meeting the initial probable cause criteria for the stop. One cannot assume a law has been broken merely by operating a motor vehicle on a roadway. Many States do not have checkpoints for this very reason.

    • The Confederate American

      Nor should they.

  • Lebanese Libertarian

    wow.

  • SelfEvident1776

    Tennessee Code Annotated 39-16-403, Official Oppression, a felony.

  • morrisminor

    We are a nation of cowards being trampled on by a bunch of porkers

  • Christopher McDaniel

    This video has ore than 21000 visits, yet the KS project labors…typical Americans – gimme gimme gimme…

    • Bob Loblaw

      To be fair, 1.25 mil is a lofty goal for a one and a half month fundraiser (that requires you to sign up at another site -instead of just using paypal which he also accepts). That said, he could promote/highlight it a bit better and people need to remember they don’t have to pay unless it reaches the goal.

  • Adam

    The cop, while searching the car (and before noticing the camera) said “he’s perfectly innocent”

    the cop admitted the dude was innocent and continued to search the vehicle.

    • CRAzz

      Best point made all night

    • Julie

      His statement wasn’t a statement of fact, it was a snarky sarcasm. The officers were mocking him. It reminds me a little of the movie Idiocracy, when the main character speaks intelligently in court and they all laugh at him. It’s your basic jock redneck thuggery.

  • esoberanis

    if he was willing to manipulate the dog to “lawfully” get inside the vehicle, what is in place to stop him from planting drugs?

    • Bob Loblaw

      The same thing that keeps him from going on an armed rampage: a conscience. The fact that he made the dog “false alert” means he has no conscience. Therefore he is prone to start randomly shooting innocent people at any moment. This is probably why he decided, and was allowed to take the job in TN.

      • esoberanis

        big difference between planting drugs and killing people. To me, him violating the law as a sort of measure of revenge proves to me either that he has no conscience or he can suspend his consciousness.

    • Cheryl Johnson

      I was thinking the same thing.

    • Kirschwasser


      “what is in place to stop him from planting drugs?”

      A camera and a huge worldwide viewing audience!!

      The way things were proceeding with the dog (manufactured alert), then I have absolutely no doubt that they would have proceeded to plant drugs in his car if they hadn’t ever discovered the camera.

      • jasonunos

        actually the second police officer made the comment “it was a weak alert” quit watching so much t.v.

        • Kirschwasser

          Unless the dog can talk, then how in the world can the deputy even possibly know if it was a weak alert or not???

          Either the dog ‘alerts’…….or it doesn’t…..the scenario is entirely binary…

          Are you suggesting that the dog and the deputy have established some sort of telepathy with one another to let the deputy know the degree to which an alert is substantial enough to search the vehicle?

          Really?

  • manny

    Where was this? the reponses are to long to see if it was posted. Was the officer’s name posted?

    • Bob Loblaw

      Tennessee. Why are you reading responses instead of the brief article which states this just below the video?

  • Shadowcii

    I’m donating to this project because he posted this video. This is real front line issues that more people need to be aware of.

  • Pete

    The Rutherford County Police force should be embarrassed . This cop has no right, he’s just a bully. You really make yourself look pretty stupid. Congratulations to this young man for standing up for his rights. If it were me I would have the County paying for a new paint job.

  • sara connor

    This officer needs to be fired and held responsible for violating this young mans constitutional rights. What a scumbag!!!!! That damn dog scratched his car. These guys are a gang of thugs.

  • Steven Plante

    This guy already messed up by complying what-so-ever. He should have NEVER pulled to the side, NEVER left his vehicle, and NEVER gave ID. He already failed. This is a poor example of how to stand up for your own rights.

    • Natedog Hicks

      til they shoot him

      • http://personsearchbyname.com Gary Carlyle

        its easy to say that with hindsight but you are right in therotical sense.

  • S

    The world is watching America with dismay as its citizens lose their liberty and constitutional rights. Fight back!

  • Who’s Wrong Really

    Correct me if I am wrong, but the job of Police officers are to “Protect and Serve”. The DUI checkpoint is probably a “Great” idea on the surface. Think about it, July 4th celebrations have a high probability of Alcohol involved and then driving. Immediately when the officer asked him to roll his window down lower the officer probably should reminded the driver that they are simply checking for safety reasons that they are searching for impaired drivers and that if he would roll the window down further he could ascertain the level of his intoxication or the lack thereof. If I was a police officer at a DUI checkpoint and someone refused to roll the window down enough that I could attempt to smell his breath or see clearly that a person was sober or not, I would assume they were trying to hide their intoxication. To me the #1 problem was the officer became enraged by the refusal of the driver to comply with his request and upon determining his sobriety they should have sent him on his way rather than overreacting and infringing on this persons rights.
    What if a “Buzzed” person approached a DUI checkpoint and was trying to “Slip” by unnoticed and rolled his window down part way and neared an officer who then told him to roll the window down in which the driver complies, answers a few simple questions and is told to “carry on” at which time he is relieved that he didn’t get caught, relaxes a bit and a few miles later is involved in an accident harming himself and others. We then would be talking about how horrible the police were for not doing their job and checking these drivers more thoroughly.
    Just food for thought.

    • Dweeb

      “I would assume they were trying to hide their intoxication”

      Innocent till proven guilty.

      (ps. sysops, this white text, with a white background, is nonsense.

    • realman10000

      this is Jason Unos the Shill police officer with another account.

    • Sad Billy

      In that case the police could then actually earn their pay check and respond to an actual crime instead of manufacturing criminals on site.

    • PhillyFreedom

      The #1 job of police officers is to uphold the Constitution. It’s why they swear an oath to do so. Our rights are not negotiable for anyone’s safety or security.

      If we did things your way, EVERY person would be stopped and forced to take and pass a breathalyzer before proceeding.

      Our American system is to protect the rights of the people, not prevent everything that could potentially go wrong in a Nanny-state.

      If a “Buzzed” person slipped through the DUI checkpoint and later caused an accident that harmed himself or others, I would not blame the police for letting him slip through. I would blame the person who drank too much and caused an accident.

  • That Guy

    At what point and time is this shit going to stop?

  • jasonunos

    At the end the kid said “all of this over a window” that statement goes both ways. If he had rolled his window down and allowed the officer to ascertain whether or not he was intoxicate he would have been allowed to go on his way without any rights being violated. the fact that he showed up with a camera rolling shows he was looking for trouble. I’m not condoning the officer’s actions in any way, He obviously went too far. but If the kid had rolled down his window he could have avoided the entire situation. Police officers have a stressful job. they put their lives on the line and many of them have seen their friends killed in the line of duty. They don’t need their time wasted by kids setting them up to prove a point. I know this post won’t be popular, but in the last several weeks there has been several police offers shot and killed in the area I live in. If anyone can give me a good reason as to why it was so important NOT to roll down his window I’ll retract. but bottom line the only reason he didn’t roll down his window was because he wanted to start something. we have a word for that where I’m from it’s called being a punk. so instead of saying “they put him through all of this because he wouldn’t roll down his window” you should be saying “he caused all of this because he didn’t roll down his window” it’s all about perspective….some of you should get some.

    • jasonunos

      Another interesting tidbit. Any DUI checkpoint must be announced in advance through the local paper. Assuming this was(it may not have been I haven’t checked) it just adds to my argument that this was a kid looking to start trouble.

      • Cash Snowden

        If the gov’t outlawed the display of Christian symbols or religious language in public, a kid like this, were he christian, knowing so many died for his first amendment rights, would show up ‘looking for trouble’ wearing a t-shirt with a big cross on it saying “Jesus is my savior.” And there would be people, who didn’t share his religion, who said he was making trouble, needlessly. The Christian kid in this example could have just not exercised his first amendment rights, obeyed, worn something else, as ordered…but Americans who assert and stand up for their rights and demand they be respected are heroes IMO. I understand you don’t see it that way, just as an atheist would call that kid wearing the cross t-shirt a punk.

        When I was a kid there were movies that showed nazis in uniforms stopping people and demanding “papers please” and we were all glad we lived in America, where cops don’t behave like nazis and where we don’t have checkpoints when we move about freely. We don’t need to sacrifice all our freedoms to stop drunk drivers. If someone shows evidence of driving drunk, even if a cop doesn’t see him swerving most people would report it. That’s the reality. Nazi checkpoints in America on the day we celebrate the independence that allowed us to have a bill of rights are offensive enough. Handling them in this way makes every libertarian’s blood boil, regardless of how anyone else may feel. To a libertarian our constitutional rights are sacred.

      • realman10000

        It’s obvious you are a police officer who works there. You deserve to be tried in court for treason and put in prison as a traitor to the constitution.

      • Kirschwasser


        “it just adds to my argument that this was a kid looking to start trouble.”

        The officers at the checkpoint were idiotic enough to oblige him though.

        They handed him exactly what he wanted on a silver platter.

        • bergson

          If the kid didn’t commit a crime how was he starting trouble. The law is the law. The police should know it. I mean if they don’t know the law then we are are in deep sh*t. We are in deep sh*t because they don’t know the law. The comment we heard was this kid just knows his rights. To them it is just so rare that someone knows their rights they don’t know how to deal with it anymore. It pisses them off. They get mad because someone actually knows what makes this country great.

        • jasonunos

          ok taking your side, if that kid was even at .09 and did the exact same thing (very plausible at .09) and the officer agrred with you and kindly sent him on his way and he got in an accident and someone was injured or killed the headlines would read “DRUNK DRIVER KILLS AFTER PASSING DUI CHECKPOINT” in the media and in public opinion the moment he turned on the camera and refused to roll down the window the officer was screwed.

          • Kirschwasser


            “and kindly sent him on his way and he got in an accident and someone was injured or killed the headlines would read “DRUNK DRIVER KILLS AFTER PASSING DUI CHECKPOINT”

            The headlines would also read: COPS AT DUI CHECKPOINT FORGOT TO CHECK TO SEE IF MOTORIST HAD BEEN DRINKING BEFORE CRASH!

            Didn’t you notice that nobody at the checkpoint ever bothered to check to see if this kid had been drinking at all?…..

            Isn’t that what the purpose of a DUI checkpoint is for??……

            …..or is it?

          • jasonunos

            I am so tired of this argument. The officer didn’t get the opportunity to ask him because he didn’t roll down the window! window goes down next question have you been drinking. it’s that simple. and let’s not forget you can’t hear most of what takes place outside of the vehicle maybe he was beaten maybe he was asked if he had been drinking we don’t know. and let’s not forget this video has been edited. at approximately the one minute mark the video goes black and the words “after he uses intimidation……” comes on the screen. why was this edited? If the point is to show rights violated why edit out the intimidation? I’ll tell you why. bc most likely he said or did something to escalate things further. he of course doesn’t want us to see that. we’ll never know.

          • Kirschwasser


            “The officer didn’t get the opportunity to ask him because he didn’t roll down the window!”

            That’s completely false….

            Go back and watch again…

            Officer Ross initiates the verbal exchange beginning at 0:15 of the clip….

            1. At the 0:29 mark, then Officer Ross asks the driver how old he is (a perfect opportunity to ask the driver if he has been drinking)
            2. At the 0:35 mark, the driver tells Officer Ross how hold he is
            3. the conversation continues until the 1:04 mark of the clip (before the first written narration is inserted)…..that means that nearly 1 minute has passed during Officer Ross’s verbal exchange with the driver in which he has yet to ask the driver if he has been drinking or not

            One minute is PLENTY of time to ask the driver if he has been drinking (it IS a DUI checkpoint, isn’t it?)…

            Afterward, the written narration concludes and the clip resumes again at 1:10 ..

            The driver is told to pull over to the side and then is asked to shut the car off and exit the vehicle…

            At the 1:56 mark, the first thing that Officer Ross asks the driver after exiting the vehicle is “Are you an attorney or something?” (definitely not “have you been drinking?”)

            By now Officer Ross has had PLENTY of opportunity to ask the driver if he has been drinking (yet he has failed to do so).

            What is he waiting for?!

          • jasonunos

            two things, number one had he rolled down his window the next step was asking about drinking etc. by refusing to roll it down suspicion is immediately raised. number two we are not privy to the discussion that took place outside the vehicle. we don’t know if he was asked. on top of that there are a lot of holes in this video I am curious about. for example the portion where the officer “uses intimidation” is edited out. the screen goes dark and the quote is flashed. why is this? If this video is supposed to show how the police violated his rights wouldn’t you want that front and center? I’m not saying the kid was totally in the wrong etc. I agree that the officer took it too far, however I am not as naive as some people who are using phrases like “that poor kid” this kid was screwing with police officers and whether he is right wrong or somewhere in between that’s not o.k. in my book

    • Alan

      He coursed no one to brake the law. He did nothing wrong and exercised his rights to the full extent of the law. At most you may say that he employed the same type of tactics police use against citizens everyday of the year. It’s not only fair, it’s JUSTICE! GOOD FOR HIM! The cops have really fell into fascism. In my state and others.

    • zoinks

      Your logic is “well if he just gave up his rights and rolled down his window, he could have avoided this”. I could use the same logic and say “well, if the cops in your neighborhood minded their own business and didn’t pull over or chase someone that had a gun, they wouldn’t have gotten shot”…
      Both statements are identical in purpose, and we know both of them to be absurd. Retract, good sir, retract!

    • realman10000

      We aren’t slaves Mr Shill. We don’t have to “allow” the officers to do anything.

    • Tony Connelly

      I was thinking that too, the kid was antagonizing the officer by not rolling the window down completely, which is probably why the situation escalated. But, having a DUI checkpoint without any reasonable cause to pull someone over is antagonistic to citizens and against the law. In the words of John Rambo, “They drew first blood”.

    • Ed Yoder

      And if the pedestrian would have just handed over her purse when the mugger told her to then the mugger would not have had to shoot her. The fact that she was walking down the street with her purse openly hanging on her arm just shows that she was looking for trouble.

      That is exactly how much sense your position makes.

    • Julie

      Here’s a little perspective to you and others making this point…who are right in a technical sense, but wrong in a very big point of principle.

      The kid rolled up with his camera rolling, probably with every intention of trying to film abusive police. Another way of putting it is this:

      He set up a test for the cops. And they failed it, horribly.

      This was a DUI checkpoint, he wasn’t acting drunk. He was calm and speaking clearly using intelligent language and conscious questions and behaviors like keeping his hands visible and asking if they wanted him to remove his seat belt. And anyways, I don’t see how an effective DUI checkpoint can be operated without violating people’s rights anyways. There are issues with the whole thing on so many levels.

      What you’re saying is that if a citizen doesn’t roll over, bare their throat, spread their legs, submit in every fashion requested to the Powers of Authority in this country, they deserve anything they get. Because cops have a dangerous job to do. And they can do in however they want. The laws and rules of behavior that apply to the rest of us don’t apply to them.

      I’ve known many cops who didn’t act like some kind of big Boss Hogg…most probably don’t. I respect the probable majority of cops who do their jobs with professionalism, common decency and self control. I’m not anti-cop. But those who can’t do the job right shouldn’t wear the badge.

      • jasonunos

        wow making a big leap there. I said nothing of the sort. My thoughts is that as citizens instead of trying to bait police officers let’s help them. When you roll through a dui checkpoint do what you can to speed things along. if he had rolled down the window then the officer could smell his breathe , know he wasnt drunk, ask him if he was drinking, and send him on his way. driving is a privelidge not a right. quite frankly who the hell is this kid to take it upon himself to test the police. is he certified in human behaviors, is qualified to run a test program on criminal investigators…nope…he’s a hack with a camera who behaved in a suspicious manner. If anybody in this thread was a cop and a driver acted that way our instant thought would be he is hiding something

  • Pete

    I think DUI checkpoints are the worst for trying to assert your rights. The officer can use almost anything you do to say it was a sign you might be intoxicated, and local law enforcement has much more leeway in terms of things for which they can arrest/detain you than the Feds do at suspicionless “immigration” checkpoints. In these types of situations, you will almost certainly be ordered to secondary, removed from the vehicle, and detained for a sufficient amount of time to remind you who is boss. Like this video shows, they can walk a dog around your car, say it hit on drugs, and take your fourth amendment too. Unfortunately, most people think DUI checkpoints are great and our betters at the Supreme Court have said they are fine, so nothing is going to change.

    • bergsjon

      Trying to assert your rights? How about just knowing them? Do you think the rights we have are just trivial rights we should sometimes remind the authorities of? Let me assert them now. They are the law that made this country what it is. So when those laws are broken by the people who we have hired to uphold them then we have a completely backwards country. The very same people that have a job protecting our way of life are actually destroying it. The small things are what make sup the big things. We are slipping into another country. We are slipping into what we have been fighting against. The enemy is working from the inside instead of the outside and we are too asleep to notice
      .

      • Pete

        What I mean by “trying to assert your rights”, is that as much as you want to assert/remind the police of your rights, their job at suspicionless checkpoints is to intimidate you into giving them up. If, like this kid, you are an amateur, you are going to quickly find yourself in over your head. I support what he is doing, but if his goal was to get through the checkpoint without surrendering his rights, he failed.

  • bob

    I used to be a cop and I never would have done this crap. Go look for bank robbers, dui check points are to generate income for departments not to stop legitiment crimes that can really hurt people

    • Blue

      Any insight into the recent rash of really crappy cop behavior? shooting dogs, invading homes, etc… I don’t remember police acting this way 10 years ago. What is happening?

      • Joshua

        It has always been happening; it’s only recently that social media has made you aware of it.

        • Julie

          In fact, police abuses have possibly been much worse at various places in America at various points in history. I watched a show on…History Channel?…dunno, anyways it was about “stool pigeons” or scams the cops were running from the 1800s onwards where they would for instance have a guy go to the hospital and then accuse the nurse of offering him sex for money, then the cops would extort money out of the lady until she was broke and ruined, on the threat of busting her for prostitution. In fact “Vice Squad” cops were notoriously corrupt. The difference is, now, because of social media, we do have the means to spread the word, discuss the problem, and put pressure on particularly abusive departments until they clean house.

        • Blue

          That may well be the case.

  • ryan

    “hey now there ross, he knows there his constitution an’all,” dumb-ass cops need to read it aswell by the look of it!!

  • Herb McGruff

    The drug war: an excuse for cops to search you.

  • Hal Deatherage

    Nothing will change. “Probably Cause” gives them lots of latitude to search. Did he file a complaint?

  • Scott

    And you just wasted 10 minutes of these officers time. You acted suspicious, what did you expect them to do? You are not helping anything but leading people to believe they can do anything they want in front of the police. Also, you do have to identify yourself to any police officer without reason.

    • thematrixkid17

      Exercising ones rights should never be a ‘suspicious activity”. Also, you do not have to identity yourself without reason in many states.

    • Concerned

      Yeah, that’s a good way to trample any person’s Constitutional Rights. You label any action which exposes you as someone who knows those rights as being “suspicious.” Then you give yourself carte blanche authority to trample those rights. In this case the officer doing the trampling even acknowledged that the kid was “perfectly innocent, and he knows his rights.”

    • bergsjon

      The only reason you would say he acted suspicious was he knew his rights? So knowing what the constitution says is suspicious in today world. Did the forefathers not warn us of this happening. If I am not a criminal I shouldn’t have to be stopped and abused the way this power hungry police officer was to this kid. suspicion means actually suspecting a crime what crime was he suspected of? Why do we have rights? Why not just get rid of all our rights. Right to trial right to protect ourself. Why just give the government free reign over us. Do what they want when they want with us. We should have no say and trust in the government completely that will be best. Is there anyone on this board that thinks giving total power to the government is a good idea? The media has washed this generations brains to think our government is the most kind and helpful government and they are the evil fighting government But what is evil if not what this officer was doing saying to this kid I can do what I want with you. You have no say in the matter. Isn’t that what evil once was

    • Jesus Foshage

      I smell your stench of dirty swine. If I (or anyone else) have done nothing wrong, why do I have to identify myself? Where are our rights that my family fought for long ago. What was this country founded on. Freedom & liberty. Remember? Get your ego trip off my rights (I’m sorry you were picked on in high school and now you’re on a power trip…. Not really… Those are your issues). If the car I’m in gets pulled over because the driver broke the law (laws of the road) there is no reason that I as a passenger should have to show my ID, until I have broken a law. I have done nothing wrong or committed any crime.
      All this (supposedly) in the name of safety. I don’t need you that involved to keep me safe… I can take care of that myself… If you would quit stripping me of those rights too.

      • Jesus Foshage

        so kindly GFY. We are coming, sooner than later

    • D.d. Skreamer

      Because it’s suspicious to expect law enforcement officers to abide by the U.S. Constitution?

    • Randy Mason

      sad sad state of minds in this once free country

    • standorfall

      so the only way to not appear suspicious is to submissively comply with every order, and pretend you have no rights at all? smh

  • personal opinion

    should this kid, or someone else HAD been intoxicated – and gotten through somehow unnoticed – then proceeded to run INTO your child, wife, brother, sister, mother…..and kill them… then the police would STILL not be doing their jobs. Right??? Law enforcement cant win for losing. You cant have it both ways. I am not condoning the attitude of the first officer – he got angry too quickly – yes. But, they are out to protect and serve YOU! If you guys really want a change – go get a job as a law officer and THEN tell us how it is out there.!!

    • bergsjon

      He wasn’t intoxicated and the police didn’t ask. If the police at least knew what the law says they would maybe act differently. This guy has a power trip. He wants to be the boss rather than serve us.

      • D.d. Skreamer

        Asking a drunk if he’s been drinking is asking a drunk to surrender his 5th amendment rights.

    • Julie

      I get that drunk drivers kill people and that’s awful. And we should definitely try and stop/prevent that. But we aren’t supposed to be in a country with an omnipresent armed force that operates under the aegis of “my word is the law and if you don’t roll over and do everything I say, I have the right to damage your property, detain you just to teach you a lesson, and mock your knowledge of your rights under the Constitution because you thinking you have rights is one big joke to me.” Belligerent, power hungry jerks like this guy have no business sporting a badge or being in a position of power over others. Guys like this on the police force are like pedophiles working at Chuck E Cheese. I’m sure they love it, but it’s not good for the people they’re supposed to serve…in fact it’s a really bad idea and a mess of awful situations just waiting to happen. I’ve interacted with police before who were respectful and did their jobs without acting like this. And those police have my support and respect right back. I still think most US cops are decent people. But more and more we’re seeing cops abusing the power the People gave them and it needs to stop. Saying that anyone has no right to speak up unless they’ve worked as a law officer is garbage. We, as Americans have not just a right, but an obligation, to keep our country from turning into an oppressive police state. The problem isn’t cops in general, the real problem is the structure that lets them get away with abuse, doesn’t necessarily train in methods to avoid abuse, and covers up abuse when it happens with no repercussions or penalties. It is no more OK for police to discard rules, laws, rights and the Constitution to provide for our “safety” than it is for civilians to take the law into their own hands and go torturing and slaying criminals with no due process. Just because you can give a reason for something doesn’t make it alright. If someone killed my child (I have two kids) I would want to hunt them down and kill them. But…should I have the right, or a “pass” on due process, because it was personal? If I murdered my child’s killer, should I not go to jail? So you can’t say “well if it was your kid, you’d be fine with them taking all your rights just to make the world safer.” No. Who is going to make us safe from THEM?? One of my sons is 14. He’s a good kid, doesn’t break the law. But given the statistics in this country, there’s still a possibility he could be shot by an out of control cop just walking down the street, or beaten, or tazed, for no good reason. Because that kind of crap has been happening here, in case you didn’t notice. This video is a relatively minor symptom of a really devastating disease, and the only cure is accountability.

    • russ

      I’m a former LEO and I will tell you that officer’s don’t follow the same laws. We the people have rights and if your sworn to uphold the law you shouldn’t violate the law. Period. I’m so tired of the excuse if you’re not a cop you don’t know. Serve and protect not harass who I want because I have a badge.

    • Joe
    • D.d. Skreamer

      The young man had complied with the law. All the law requires is that you stop at the checkpoint. The law doesn’t (and can’t) require you to surrender your Constitutional rights. You can’t uphold the law while violating the supreme law of the land. You can’t have it both ways.

    • jim

      They are NOT out to protect and serve. They are out to violate and enslave. I was a deputy for two years and I can tell you that LE doesn’t give a rats ass about your rights or your dead kid that the drunk driver killed. These checkpoints are harassment of the public. You want to stop drunk driving? Require a breathalyzer at the door of every bar. Check your keys in and don’t get them back till you blow below the legal limit. That would cut 90% of drunk Driving without a nickle being spent by the police or the public coffers. I got an 80yo lady out of jail last month because she didn’t realize she could say no to these fascist cops. She was stopped for doing 38 in a 35. Cheesey, but the law is the law and she was speeding. The NAZI officer asked it was okay to search her car and being brought up in the generation that she was she saw this officer as someone whose job it was to protect her not to violate her. He searched her purse and found her daily pill planner with her medication in it. It is against the law in Louisiana to have your Rx meds anywhere but the bottle. A law designed to make it easier to catch the bastards selling drugs to our kids. Seems well enough, but it depends entirely on the common sense of the cop. Cops no longer have common sense. Goes back to the 80′s. So the cop arrests this woman who has never had anything worse than a speeding ticket all her life. Real threat to society right? Charge her with possession of two different schedules of drugs, her name is in the paper as if she is a drug dealer. She has to post $25,000 bail (costs $3000.). Has to hire a lawyer ($6500) to defend a charge that the judge will hopefully just throw out once he reads the reports. Why? Why was this woman’s life turned upside down? Because one little fascist cop got brownie points for a “drug bust”. I wish that had been your mother or grandmother and you might begin to see why WE the People can not allow ANYONE to violate our rights.

    • Randy Mason

      wrong, the supreme court has ruled, cops have no obligation to protect citizens, they are revenue collectors

  • Sammy

    Probable cause is a Nazi excuse to trample our rights. They have no right to block our roads. They work for us. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. I say keep pushing us around and soon we will have nothing left to lose and then these psychopathic control freaks will be the ones who should be afraid. Does anyone really think they are going to suddenly stop? When I look at my government all I see are a bunch of criminals subject to a different set of rules than I am supposed to live by. We need to speak with our dollars and stop backing the chemical and political polluters who really pull the strings. Without our money they are nothing.

  • personal opinion

    People get on their high horses about
    constitional rights… and then decide they dont have to roll a window down and
    speak to an officer – because they want to make point. I say grow up kid, get
    some maturity and look for bigger constitutional rights being violated – then
    speak out. Make a big impact about something that matters. This little shit
    getting so much press is completely ridiculous.

    • Julie

      You are right that he provoked harassment by not being utterly submissive and complying completely with every detail of what the officer wanted from moment one with the window. But you have to admit, he was calm and polite about it. And he didn’t actually do anything illegal, or anything that realistically creates reasonable suspicion or probable cause. The problem people are having with the cops is based on principle and this is just one illustration of it. The point is being proven time and again that we’re getting to a situation where police have the power to violate our constitutional rights freely and there is nothing we can do about it. Your post is the equivalent of saying, “unless you were shot or they laughingly ‘cavity searched’ your girlfriend, quit whining and do as you’re told.” In my opinion, every unreasonable act of police must be filmed and spread no matter how large or small until cops and their leadership get it through their thick skulls that they ARE ACCOUNTABLE and acts of police belligerence and bullying tactics will be exposed. Then when the public floods the voicemails and inboxes of their department, and they have to scramble to cope with the PR nightmare, and it happens again and again, police will perhaps be trained to respect the fact that we are Americans, this isn’t some third world dictatorship that needs “checkpoints” as an excuse to harass people. We aren’t supposed to DO that here, last time I checked. And if not, if the cops respond to this with more oppression and simply start getting tougher on filming and recording to try and protect their “right” to abuse citizens as they please, eventually things will escalate further between our abusive authorities and the People they are supposed to protect and serve. The point of this video isn’t to ENTERTAIN YOU with a spectacle. It’s a small step in a bigger attempt to address a real problem.

    • Chris

      What you just mentioned stands as the core of the problem. The government won’t take all of your rights away at once; that would never work. Instead, they take them away little by little, as you see here, until we slowly transform from the freedom and liberty provided by our founding fathers into a police state.

    • Snypr

      Compliance worked real well for the Jews in 1937. Grow a set of balls and stand up to tyranny. Stop being a jellyfish to authoritarian cops.

    • RadarCam

      how about I go into your bank account and take $1. don’t worry, its only $1. its little shit. your concern is ridiculous, but if I keep on and keep on doing that small act everyday, eventually you will wake up one morning and realize your broke. I worry about the little things because that erosion is how rights are taken. history has taught our leaders that they cant make large changes to make the people submissive. They must exploit tragedies and wait for the people to freely give up their rights. complacency. wake up America.

    • D.d. Skreamer

      While this young man should “grow up”, you need to “mature”. If you’re alright having your human rights violated by police officers, by all means, let them tare the crap out of your car. Those of us who aren’t alright with being treated as slaves, will not comply. This may not matter to you but to me it’s a top priority.

    • jim

      Again your cowardliness is the reason these officers think that they can get away with this. A violation of your rights is a violation of your rights. Which of your rights is it okay for me to come and violate? Perhaps I should come into your house and demand to stay there while I carry out police business? That’s happening now too. Where do you draw the line? I say draw the line in the beginning! Let them have none of our rights! Give me Liberty or give me death, but be warned, if you choose death I shall take many of you tyrants with me!

  • Jah Red

    Once you get yourself a DRIVERS LICENSE you have given the STATE permission to do what they did !!!!

    • Pill Pusher

      Says the the brain damaged fluoride zombie……THE STATE IS WRONG!! Maybe if we all stop eating, smoking, drinking the future of children away and then wonder why we are all so depressed we wouldn’t be in this mess. Stop supporting a system the has more people in jail then anywhere in the world!!!! Stop supporting lies. People like you are the problem. Stupid fat and lazy. No balls or intelligence.

    • CricketBug

      Not true. Ever read the 4th Amendment or even the Constitution? Getting a driver’s license in no way releases the police from following the law.

    • Kirschwasser

      That’s not even remotely true:

      United States Constitution (March 4, 1791)

    • bergsjon

      That is a silly comment. The license doesn’t give officers the right to do what they did. The license doesn’t create a new law of the land. That would be like saying if you sign this contract without reading it I can kill you if the contract says so.

    • Just Another Comment

      Is it Constitutional to make a drug dog give false indicators just so you can have probable cause to search their car?

    • dennyar

      Try that with me and see what happens. It only took one to start the Arab Spring. It will take one patriot to start taking back out country.

      • Todd West

        amen brother

      • lujotu

        So you’re gonna set yourself on fire?

    • Jucko

      You must be kidding. The Constitution over rides any state law in this situation is it is a Constitutional right. State licenses are no more than a way to show the ability to drive certain vehicles, and for identification purposes.

    • Judy

      That is incorrect, at least in my state. I have copies of everything I signed to get my driver license. Nothing says I have given anyone permission to search me (including my records) if I am not being detained on suspicion of a crime or violation.
      The 4th Amendment applies.
      He should have never gotten out of his car. He should have demanded an answer to his question when he asked if he was being detained. Until he received an answer he should not have voluntarily pulled to the side.

    • D.d. Skreamer

      Every human is born with the right to travel unmolested. No license is required. The term “driver” refers to someone who is transporting goods for commercial enterprise. If you are using a vehicle for personal use, you don’t need permission from any collective government.

    • jim

      You know not what you speak of, and if you truly believe this then you are the reason they hink they can get away with this.

  • bergsjon

    People who have an iisue with how this free citizen was acting they don’t realize that we are looking at a slow degression of what was so great about america. The pride we show in our flag and 4th of July has everything to do with what we once stood for, freedom. What is freedom? It’s having your rights protected. Everything he did was his right and that is the point. When you are disturbed by that you are not understanding what we loose going down this road. Look at other countries who have no freedom. Way of life as we know is disappearing for your children. It is 1000 times worse than drunk drivers. It means hunger death poverty no justice no rights. It doesn’t stop with DUI check points it continues. That is why the forefather gave their life to give us freedom from being messed with by a tyrannical government. You cant say well lets do this for safety lets allow the government to listen to our phone calls so they can protect us. The same government who is suppose to protect us will for sure hurt us.

  • Tony Ragona

    All the officer needed to do is ask that young man if he had been drinking alcohol regardless of the window position.
    This was obviously an ego/testosterone fueled incident.

  • Jonathan Monsalve

    Oral argument included. Checkpoints are FEDERALLY constitutional, but several states have elected to interpret the Constitution differently and so they are not legal in those states. But for those states that this is legal in, asssumedly this guy’s state, compliance with the checkpoint is required and is Constitutional.

    http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1897

    • Just Another Comment

      Yea, but is it Constitutional to make a drug dog give false indicators just so you can have probable cause to search their car?

      • D.d. Skreamer

        That’s called fabricating evidence and it’s a felony.

      • Todd West

        Absolutely it is, and if you’re in Georgia, the police can force you to give blood to be checked for drugs if any probable cause (red eyes, acting nervous or strangely) is found to believe you might be under the influence, just happened to a friend of mine, she was arrested/detained, taken to a hospital and blood drawn, she’s never used the herb. Depends on the state, but in Jawger, but you can be arrested and charged under suspicion, THEN the “potential evidence” beyond suspicion (probable cause) procured. You’ll have to be bonded out and wait till they are ready to take you to court, and yeah, if you’re clean, just means you won’t be indicted, lawyers will not take your case to file suit because the state law clearly states they are allowed to do all this nonsense. Travel to Adairsville, GA sometime, they are wide open with it here, look a little red eyed or act a little strange, you’ll be on the way to jail!

        • Bill

          Um, no, it is NOT Constitutional, sir. Show us exactly where in the Constitution where it says as much.

          • Todd West

            get a GA driver’s license and pull that Constitutional stuff, as with any privilege laws, and that’s what driving is, the federal courts rarely, if ever find against the states, don’t want to put up with how the police enforce their state laws, don’t drive in their state…I’ve seen it over and over, the constitution does not grant you right to operate a motor vehicle, the state laws concerning licensing you do, and the courts will side with the state…..now, illegal search and seizure, maybe….and believe me, I’m not on the police’s side…just put up with and fought the same things as this for 30+ years, and I am telling you they can/will get away with this crap….it’s way past time for people to stand up and remove these tyrants….

          • Andy

            I think he was being sarcastic? I’m from Georgia myself, and we stomp Tennessee into a mudhole when it comes to the number of roadblocks per year. An average of 26 roadblocks per day.
            I can’t say I’m very proud of my state.

    • Frank_O

      Just because things can be interpreted as Constitutional, does NOT make it lawful, since our rights come from our Creator & not from the Constitution. The Constitution was written only to ensure our government did not infringe upon our natural rights. The Constitution was clearly wrong about multiple things in the past that abused our natural rights, especially in the case of slavery. In the case of slavery, the Constitution was wrong & illegal, since there existed a higher law that trumped the Constitution.

  • friskyness

    if this kid was hispanic the cop would have let him go……………this is a tyranny not a constitutional america……………

    • Justsomeguy151

      BS. You think they care who’s rights they trample?

  • ABM

    I would take this straight to a lawyer if I were him.

  • Stormy

    What about The Act of 1871? Research it. We have no rights anymore. They just lie too us from the time we were in school and most have no clue.

    • Justsomeguy151

      Yr going to have to be more specific. A link? I have heard something along these lines.

  • Anonymous

    You are required to give your license to cops, if you read the back of your state license. Maybe you don’t have anything on the back of yours but do you know the papers you signed in order to get your license? Do you know what they say? When a cop asks for it you have to give it. You signed your name on that. I hope it was worth them wasting your time in order for you to make a false stand about your “rights”. If you have nothing to hide, what is the deal? You don’t want them wasting your time? Looks like they did that anyways. In the end you got out of the car. If you would have rolled your window down all the way I bet you wouldn’t have even been stopped so long. But, you know your rights don’t you.

    • Judy

      I have copies of all paperwork I signed in order to get my driver license. None say anything about being required to give ID if I am not being detained or ticketed on suspicion of a crime or violation.

      • Stacey

        Not to mention, these rights are not enforced they are naturally given to all. In the corporation of the U.S.A. and the rest of the worlds humanity, no one, including the POTUS or the police can take them away. Stand up for your rights, because if we don’t, all together, they will all be taken away post haste!

        Sincerely
        S

    • D.d. Skreamer

      Stop making crap up! The right of the people to be secure in their person and property against unreasonable searches was violated. The man in question followed the law. All the law requires is that you stop at the checkpoint. The police officer must have a warrant or reasonable suspicion to search your car. Asserting Constitutional rights does not constitute reasonable suspicion. A police officer sworn to defend and uphold the U.S. Constitution violating a persons Constitutional rights, now, that’s suspicious.

    • BIOS

      “If you have nothing to hide, what is the deal?” This question alone shows that you do not understand the problem presented here.

    • Michael Malo Lauzardo

      Nonsense. You do not have to provide anything unless ORDERED not asked to by the officer and they usually wont because unless there is probably cause it will hurt whatever case they are building. The states Trolls are all over.

    • allen

      You are typically only required to show id or your licence if you are the driver of the vehicle. You are also required to submit to a sobriety test if you are the driver. The cop will try to argue that refusing to roll down the window interfered with that however the rest is clearly in violation of his rights and all I have to say to that police precinct is you better get out your checkbook because you were caught red handed

    • Randy Mason

      you are one of the idiots that will give up your guns too, Im sure

  • drew

    I thought it was great when the officer noticed the camera recording and was like, “oh shit… I hope you didn’t say something that’s going to get us fired”.

  • Robert Campbell

    I was traveling across country from Colorado to Virgina last year and I reached a Federal Narcotics Stop Check Point on I-70. I was ordered to pull to the inspection lane and after I asked under what probable cause they to search my car they get very combative and used coercive pressures. I told them that “I did not consent to any searches” and I said that “no your dog cannot sniff my car because it would upset my cat.” They told me that I could take my cat out of the car and I said what good id that going to do your dog will be set off by the cat’s scent. Once again they tried the bullying tactics, sorry but with twenty years in Special Forces I don’t scare easily. So, I decided that I would retrieve my cat and while I did that I reached in my center console and grab a bottle of jalapeño-wasabi powder and sprinkled in on the carpet. I walked back with my cat in her carrier to where I was told to stand and then the dog and his handler went to sniff in my car. Well the K-9′s sniffer got a snoot full of the powder and went berserk I even think that he bit his handler. I then said with a Cheshire grin have a nice day and carted myself off to finish my trip.

    • Crazypaws

      You made my day :)

    • Justsomeguy151

      AWESOME! Where does one get jalapeno-wasabi powder tho? Thats a great idea.

      • Robert Campbell

        There are numerous websites that sell both wasabi powder and jalapeño powder. This particular blend I got from a specialty store in Colorado Springs. Wasabi works well because it is a fine fine powder. It was a spur of the moment decision on my part but I was in a lot of pain and just wanted to get to my hotel in Topeka,take my meds, eat and crash. Normally I would not harm another animal but this was anger induced.

        • Justsomeguy151

          True but you didn’t really harm the dog, just woke him up a lil bit. :) I may have to try this.

  • V

    Driving a vehicle is a PRIVILEGE not a right. At a DUI checkpoint the officer wanted the kid to roll down the window to see if he smelled alcohol! The fact that the kid wouldn’t could indicate he was trying to hide the alcohol smell on his breath. A lot of drunk drivers do that. All u need is reasonable suspicion that something happened in order to detain someone. You don’t have to tell the person they are detained unless they ask. Yes the cop should have told him he was being detained. How does the kid know that if the handler says that then the dog gives in indicator? The search was probably a bad search and the cop took it too far but if you are asked to provide Id by the cops when ur pulled over ur legally required to do so. A state can be stricter then federal govt but federal govt still supersedes state. Federal says DUI checkpoints are constitutional. Obvious this state does too or there wouldn’t be a check point. That means the police are legally detaining u by stopping u at that checkpoint and u are legally required to provide id

    • Christopher DiIorio

      hand over your papers Citizen. what,no papers V? not even a name, you coward.

    • Andrewk295

      He was not pulled over for traffic violation or criminal act.Under these circumstances he has every reason to deny the officer’ commands. Do some legal research, you’re clearly an ignorant LEO Troll.

    • Bo Kelleher

      Driving a vehicle may be a privilege in your book, but travelling is a right. The means by which one travels is only relavent to the times in which one lives and what is ordinary and customary. Can you imagine someone saying to you that, “shoes are a privilege, not a right”, and demanding that you submit to checks of the sole thickness and contents of your socks… or your foot odor… in order to walk down the street?

      The violation here is by the state’s agents, who are seeking to deprive this young man of his natural right to travel unmolested. They have no reasonable suspicion of a crime and no probable cause to detain him and therefore have no right to stop him, even for a moment, to check his mouth odor.

    • Randy Mason

      during a dui check point where you have not violated any laws, you are not required to give your ID, that’s a lie, your not required to roll your window down any further than what he had it, you people should read the law before commenting

    • Tom

      “A state can be stricter then federal govt but federal govt still
      supersedes state. Federal says DUI checkpoints are constitutional.” You are wrong. The U.S. Constitution provides the minimum rights that states can give their citizens. The states always have the option to give their citizens greater protection than the U.S. Constitution allows. The supremacy clause means the state has to give its citizens at least the rights that the U.S. Constitution mandates, but the states can give more if they want.

      • P. Nym

        You couldn’t be more wrong. The Constitution and government in general do not grant rights. Rights do not come from man/government. And you have a complete misunderstanding of the Supremacy Clause.

    • ReplyToV

      Read the 9th amendment and tell me driving is a privilege because it’s not in our Bill of Rights. Our governments are legally required to follow our law. Officers have no power over us. The fact that he pulled over and put the window down proves how courteous he is.

    • Justsomeguy151

      The right to travel unmolested without having to show cause or papers is an UNALIENABLE RIGHT, regardless of how that travel is achieved. FACT.

    • Raygn Leisure

      Wow the ignorance of the law and the constitution is strong with this one.

    • P. Nym

      Only those laws made in pursuance of the Constitution supercede state law.

  • Danllo

    I didn’t celebrate the 4th this year in mourning of the death of The Bill of Rights at the hand of the Bush/Obama dynamic duo. This video confirms what I’ve known all along.

  • Narrowascent

    On this issue I see both sides at fault. It started with this guy not following a simple order that was not out of the ordinary or bad or repressive. I know our rights are being violated here and there but there is the other side of the coin where there is the mentality of how some try to provoke these events. I mean the guy had a camera and everything. He went into the situation with wanting this to happen . Both sides at fault here for something as silly as not rolling down the window. We need to be a little smart when watching things like this. It is the same as when in Spain we see a police charge labeled in a video as police “brutality” and the video does not show the crowd throwing rocks and firebombs that caused the charge in the first place. We need to all take responsibility for our actions its not always one-sided .

    • Randy Mason

      There is not, two sides to the story, he violated his rights pure and simple, if you want to give yours up, have at it, but don’t speak for everyone else

    • Andy

      There’s a lengthier comment I made below, but I’ll reiterate here:

      If going up to a cop with a camera is seen as ‘provocative’, then they should remove the cameras from every dash of every patrol car, or every shoulder mic worn by every officer.

      We as a society have accepted the double-standard where it seems as if it is perfectly fine to have the government record your every move, but to turn the tables and record those in power is somehow irresponsible and/or confrontational.

      Cops use video because they want to be able to catch someone doing something wrong. Every now and then they get a gem of a reel (like a shoot-out or high-speed chase) and send it off to COPS and everyone sees it. Now: Let’s consider the driver’s point of view. He had a video because he wanted to be able to catch someone doing something wrong. He got a gem of a reel and published it so everyone could see it.

      The only difference in this situation is that one has a badge and one doesn’t. The only important question here is who out-ranks who: The citizen? Or the public servant? The answer most certainly determines where you might stand on everything else seen in this video.
      For the record, I’ll respect any cop who serves with a desire to serve the community and honors his oath. But someone who just wants a badge for the power, and who can’t STAND being told “no”, doesn’t deserve the badge, nor the respect.

    • standorfall

      the kid provoked nothing. he politely asked questions and asserted his constitutional rights. the officer even states this in the video.

      being detained and bullied by loudmouth pigs in the middle of the night because you don’t have the right “attitude” is total bullshit.

    • Your Daddy…

      You must be that hillbillies brother! The other side of the coin is the American Constitution of … and without probably cause he doesn’t have to obey any order that detains or impedes this right to passage… in anyway. They clearly violated his constitutional rights. Now if you wanna bend of for an anal search…. bend yourself over but keep you ignorant comments to yourself.

      • P. Nym

        They violated his rights, but the Constitution limits the federal government, not the States. The Bill of Rights says what the federal government cannot do, not what the States can’t do. Each State is a sovereign nation with its own constitution.

        • lujotu

          I think you’re thinking of the Articles of Confederation. Those didn’t last, and with good reason.

          • P. Nym

            No, I am talking about the Constitution. Here’s a quick example: what are the first five words of the First Amendment? Pay special attention to the first word.

          • jagragg

            READ Article VI, second paragraph, and you will CLEARLY see that you ARE “in error” there, you archo-capitolist (your own description of yourself P. Nym). You “talk” about the constitution, while not even bothering to read it, or you take parts of it COMPLETELY out of context, in order to buttress a baseless argument. I keep a copy of the US Constitution in my pocket, just to deal with creeps like you.

          • P. Nym

            Yes, that second paragraph says:

            “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”

            I’d like you to take particular note of the phrase, “made in pursuance thereof”. This means that ONLY the laws of the United States that adhere to the very limited powers granted the federal government are Constitutional and shall be considered the law of the land. Any act that is NOT within the powers of the federal goernment are unconstitutional and are NOT the law of the land, and the states are therefore NOT bound by them. And do you know who gets to decide what is and what isn’t Constitutional? No, it’s not SCOTUS, the creation of the people, it is the people themselves who have that power.

          • jagragg

            The “people’s power” rests in the power of the VOTE. CONGRESS makes FEDERAL “laws,” which is why several past federal “laws,” have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. As to the rest of your rantings, I completely agree with.

          • P. Nym

            You’re fooling yourself if you think the “people’s power” lies within the power of the vote. It doesn’t. The whole thing is rigged against you by the Establishment War Party and its media cohorts. Yes, Congress passes bills and presidents sign them (or not). That isn’t in dispute. But the federal government passing bills, signing them into law, and then reviewed by another branch to determine their constitutionality (oftentimes creating legal theories to do so) is not the system the Framers nor the ratifiers created. SCOTUS does not have that authority.

            libertyclassroom.com/nullification/

            libertyclassroom.com/objections/

            tomwoods.com/books/nullification/

          • jagragg

            I’m not fooling myself. THAT is the way that the “laws” are WRITTEN. I highly respect Tom woods, however, WHEN the day comes, that ANY FEDERAL COURT rules as you have outlined, then let me know about THAT. I agree that the vote is “rigged” (www.BlackBoxVoting.org), on THAT ONE we perfectly agree. YES! The Framers/ratifiers DID intend that the US Supreme Court, would be the finial decision maker, on the constitutionality of ANY laws of congress, or of the states. “anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”

          • P. Nym

            Why would you defer to a federal government ruling? They’re the ones claiming a power they don’t have. Of course they’re going to side for themselves. Don’t you get how ludicrous that is? Do you not understand that they don’t have that authority?

            No, no, no… the Framers/ratifiers DID NOT intend that SCOTUS would be the final decision maker on the constituionality of law. Absolutely false. You are dead wrong on this one. Again, look to the Virginia ratifying convention for evidence. Additionally, Jefferson said they were never given that power and it would have been stupid if they had. Read the links in my post above, since you say you respect Tom Woods.

          • jagragg

            Frankly, I don’t give a DAMN what Jefferson may, or may not have said, before the Virginia convention. What was written, IN THE CONSTITUTION, says otherwise. “anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” THAT is as plain as it gets! Basically, in the language of our day, it says; Anything, in any state constitution, or the laws of any state, that do not conform to the US Constitution, are NULL & VOID. If you don’t understand the plain English language, look it up in Black’s Law Dictionary!!

          • P. Nym

            I’m sorry, but you’re completely wrong.

          • jagragg

            Well, that is your own “OPINION.” And just like any other ass hole, everyone has one! You can be as “SORRY” as you like, but Black’s Law Dictionary says otherwise.

          • P. Nym

            I haven’t once stated my opinion. And Black’s Law Dictionary is irrelevant.

          • jagragg

            All you’ve been talking about IS “your opinion.” And Black’s Law Dictionary is THE literary works for lawyers & Judges, VERY RELEVANT. But, I’m finished with your BS discussion, as I can plainly see that you just want to protract a discussion with “liberal BS!”

            http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/p480x480/1069134_10201179977209163_207374279_n.jpg

          • P. Nym

            “liberal BS” Well, i’ll take that if you mean classical liberalism, but yes, you’ve made it clear that you consider truth and the Constitution to be bs.

            It is unfortunate you have a closed mind, and defer to the opinions of lawyers rather than the ratifiers. The irony here is that your arguments are all based on opinions while mine are based on truths and reality.

          • P. Nym

            And here is something timely just for you. Tonight, a live Q&A about U.S. History with Tom Woods, Brion McClanahan, and Kevin Gutzman. Tune in, ask them about your erroneous position, and learn real U.S. history.

            tomwoods.com/blog/join-me-tonight-for-a-live-u-s-history-qa/

    • Justsomeguy151

      He was NEVER ordered and the pig had ZERO authority to issue any orders and admitted as much.

    • Raygn Leisure

      These are officers of the law. Sworn to uphold the law and the constitution, not bend the law to serve their ends. Your ignorance is one of the reasons we are in a police state. He had a camera. He turned on after already in a unlawful checkpoint stop. This is to protect him because consistent abuses that law enforcement has perpetrated in the name of safety.

  • Bill O’ Rights

    Chris Kalbaugh needs to personally sue the dept and these officers who committed these BS rights violations. His case is pretty clear.

    • Andy

      As much as I support Chris’s position, we’ve all seen that lawsuits do not accomplish much. We need to start thinking beyond lawsuits. All a lawsuit does is force taxpayers to foot the bill for the actions of those in power (unless the officer were personally sued, but there’s practically no chance of that happening in our justice system).

      What we need is to start organizing and electing new sheriffs to office (or mayors, if it is municipal). Lawsuits are only good after the fact, anyway, but having someone in office who knows and understands the Bill of Rights would likely PREVENT this from happening in the future. That’s how we can actually get ahead.

      There are plenty of veterans within the liberty movement who are disheartened to discover the loss of freedom at home while they were overseas. I would gladly vote for them in the role of Sheriff, and it does seem that people tend to support veterans in law enforcement roles. It beats having someone who went straight into police academy where, in this day and age, they are taught little tricks as to how to circumvent the Bill of Rights, rather than uphold it. (such as the ‘false alert’ seen in the video above).

      I’d recommend CSPOA.org as a good starting point for where we can find sheriffs worthy of support, and to grow the Constitution education movement within the law enforcement community.

      • Andy

        Having said that, not all veterans return from service who are able to leave the ‘war mentality’ behind to assume a role in civil law enforcement. But I’ve seen enough patriots in movements like OathKeepers to know that there are some worthwhile candidates out there.

      • Justsomeguy151

        Not true, its possibly and preferrable to sue pigs as individuals so they can’t hide behind a dept.

      • P. Nym

        Too funny. Government infringes upon rights, and your solution is to keep the government. “Hey, let’s keep electing people!”

  • firefighter

    its not a camera that is provocative….but how the driver responded to the cop….if he had just rolled down his window and complied with the officer the he would have been on his way….not complying told the officer that he had something to hide whether he was drunk, or on drugs..So im gonna stand next to the brothers in blue cause if it werent for them doing their job..firemen and rescue squadsmen like myself would have to come cut someone out of a car because a drunk driver had an accident. also people take this constitutional rights thing way to far…he wasnt singled out he was just being an idiot by not following the officers orders so that officer could maintain a safe highway..Had I been an officer in that situation i wouldve pulled you over just because of they way the driver handled himself…Plus too the driver was provoking the officer enough said

    • standorfall

      addressing the officer as sir and politely asking questions is PROVOKING? what planet are you living on?

    • Donovan Bock

      You’re a bootlicking loyalist.

    • Tommy

      You are just like all the other liberals, rights do not matter when it interferes with how YOU think things should go and the way they should go is your way whether it is constitutional or not.

    • BrilliantDisguise

      You are ignoring the fact that he is NOT REQUIRED to comply in the first place……..you said that “not complying told the officer that he had something to hide” but guess what? Refusing to comply with an unwarranted interrogation and/or search IS NOT probable cause for suspicion of a crime. There was NO provoking of the officers here, simply a young man who KNOWS AND VALUES his rights as a free American……It’s a shame that you yourself seem to know and value them so little.

    • Aggravated

      thats a load of b.s. I was pulled over because my car has no place for a front license plate, i have driven that way for over a year. With that aside, being that it is a proper reason to pull me over, i was pulled over. As i was pulled over, i was instantly harassed about did i have drugs in the car, without even running my plate or license. Even after running my license, which i have apsolutely record at 35 yrs old, not even misdemeanors, he continued to harass me, made me get out of my car, brought out the k-9 he had with him, never asked consent, claimed the dog got a hit even though he showed no sign of it whatsoever (i watched the dog the whole time). Searched my car for 20 minutes, scolded me for calling my children’s father so someone knew what was going on with me. Even though i know my rights, i co-operated even though he never asked consent to search, i stood by patiently to get it over with knowing i had nothing in my car. So anyway this is a long way of telling you your full of it! WAKE UP TO REALITY, THE POLICE STATE DOESNT CARE IF YOU CO-OPERATE OR NOT

    • Anj

      If that’s how you feel you need to say / do something about police making unconstitutional requests to begin with and not try to hang a noose around a citizen’s neck. Comply with that.

    • Bialzibob

      Your brothers in blue? Sounds like you are in or related to law enforcement and probably have a skewed view on this topic. You can consent to having your constitutional rights violated if you want. It just makes it worse for the rest of us who value them, and our right to privacy.

    • susyq1

      sorry, you know as well as anyone, you violate a Constitutional right one time, you trample on all of them, and if they refuse to go to a hospital you have to wait until they’re unconscious, the “protect them from themselves” is a bunch of bull and as a cops wife……………nope, you DON’T HAVE THE RIGHT!!!! to take away my rights!!!

    • exring

      If you are so afraid of your fellow citizens you should probably be finding another line of work.

    • helrazor

      So firefighter,

    • helrazor

      by your statement, in my opinion, you are ready to pull on the jackboots and start goose steppin, correct ?

    • Veteran

      Free men and women do not “comply”. We do not “obey”. They are called -unalienable rights- for a reason. No one -gives- you rights. Your -born- with them. And we have the -choice- to buy into the false sense of security that the illusion of authority gives us or we can have the courage to stand for what is right on our own, -especially- when someone tries to assert power over you. All this man did was stand up for his rights, he wasnt rude and he asked a questions he -deserved- an answer to. The officer got -angry- that his “orders” weren’t obeyed and singled this man out for that reason alone. Then he and the other officers involved

      continued to -abuse- their PRIVILEGE of authority -through trusted public consent- proving only that they need to have their badges removed before they disgrace the honored position of peace keeper further.

    • pff136

      I respect the law enforcers in this country but you have no right to infringe on peoples’ Constitutional rights. You do not supercede the Constitution. And the only reason you think the people are taking this “Constitutional rights thing too far” is because you lose the power to do whatever you want. You don’t have the right to do whatever you want to American citizens. I’m sorry. It’s “innocent till proven guilty”. …not the other way around. They didn’t ask him about drinking and just assumed he had something to hide because he exercised his rights? You people should say “move along” if there is no reason to stop and search him. You people need to get off your high horse and remember you work for the people! WE pay your salaries. Don’t get me wrong. I have every respect for those in law enforcement who understand that. I hate it that you guys are the ones who have to witness the bad stuff while we go about our lives working, raising families, etc. But just because you have to witness things that are bad (that was your choice to get into that field of work), doesn’t mean you take away rights in order to lessen the bad things you have to see. Benjamin Franklin said if the American people give up their liberty for safety, it eventually leads to losing both. How true that is. You guys stop people for no legitimate reason, force DNA blood extractions on occasion, as if we’re all criminals first. Those actions alone have taken away some of our freedom for your so-called “safety”. Please don’t take it all personally. You are also an American citizen and these same abuses could affect you and your family someday. Walk a mile in our shoes.

      • jasonunos

        The first step a police officer takes in determining if a driver is drunk is odor. he smells your breathe. I’ve been stopped several times at DUI checkpoints. I roll my window i talk briefly with the police officer and I move on. Had this kid done that the exact same thing would have happened. instead he chose to keep the window higher than his mouth which is police academy 101 for this kid is hiding something. and guess what the officer was right the kid WAS in fact hiding something. a camera. the kid wanted to cause a problem so he did. If i was a citizen of that town I’d be mad that the kid wasted the officer’s time when he was trying to do his job.

    • Anj

      “Enough said”, by the way, says a LOT about you. Convince yourself yet? I don’t think even you believe the crap you put out here about compliance and something to hide, the hell of a leap from this guy in this vid to cutting some drunk out of a car, excusing the bad behavior that you KNOW was exhibited – Is this really how it goes? You have to “come up” with crap to excuse each other’s behavior so you can continue to call yourself part of the gang? I’m not entirely sure that your comment doesn’t actually say a whole lot about the entire operation. Sounds more to me like a cult or gang attitude. Try this attitude on – Those check points are provocation in and of themselves or we wouldn’t be here discussing this now would we. Maybe I was wrong. I said surely you’re not all just mindless cows but thinking individual people but, maybe I spoke too soon.

    • P. Nym

      You’re pathetic.

  • standorfall

    dui checkpoints have done little to stop drinking and driving. the tired argument i heard yesterday on the news “more convictions = fewer deaths” has never been shown to be true.

  • Mary Mcculley

    We are living in a police state America, if this doesn’t wake you up, then wait till it happens to you, because it will. There is no ‘innocent til proven guilty’ anymore.. it’s ‘guilty til proven guiltier.’

    • Steven Brown

      For some places, it’s nothing more than a money grab. What a police officer in a larger town or even a state trooper might give you a warning for, a small town cop will write you an expensive ticket for. Small towns police forces look for any reason to pull you over for a shakedown. If you’re driving a commercial vehicle they’ll really go out of their way to pull you over on for some unspecified reason and slap an expensive ticket that you or your employer may have to pay. It’s like a modern-day Ludowici in many small towns.

      • Mary Mcculley

        Steven, you have hit on an issue that I am most familiar with- being an out-of- towner- caught in the web of small town small mindset law. I was held on a million dollar bail- on a trumped up gun violation in a small town, for ten months. The misdemeanor I was guilty of -had a maximum sentence of six months. I know first hand about the abuse of power that judges and ‘officers of the law’ enjoy as if a privilege. America has traded privacy and our ‘constitutional rights’ for what we have been told is ‘security.’
        We are told ‘we cant have both’ – so we allow this police state to intimidate us. But not me. Oh no, I will not bend over, I will not back down. goo.gl/W5spu

  • kim stephenson

    this makes me furious…those deputies had no right to do this! the young man in this video was more than polite and within his rights…I hope he sues their butts off!

  • Misti Beck

    Back in my home town, unlawful searches are done all the time. If they
    ask if they can search, (and most of the time they don’t ask) and you
    refuse, they’ll say that your refusal gives them probable cause and
    search you anyway. There have been several lawsuits brought against the city and county police in my home town for this very reason. If you give up your rights for the sake of safety, you deserve neither rights or safety!

  • Brandon

    I am against officers abusing their power, but I do think that most would agree DUI checkpoints are not a “tyrannical overreach” or a “police state.” I can’t begin to tell you the number of people that are taken off the streets for being hammered drunk, and busted going through a DUI checkpoint. I have been hit by drunk drivers on two separate occasions and seen their disregard for the law. I am all for liberty and privacy, but when someones life has unnecessarily been taken away from them because that driver was exercising his “right” to not comply at a checkpoint, then where do we draw the line?

    • Justsomeguy151

      If someone is swerving, pull them over. Stopping everyone is absolutely unConstitutional and even the pig admitted the guy did nothing wrong.

      • Brandon

        I will concede to you that those in power will no doubt abuse it. However, a simple stop on a public road is harmless unless you provoke a response. The driver intended to generate a response from these officers and he got what he desired. If our rights were absolute we would be a lawless society with no structure or principles. You can enjoy your freedom however you like, but when your rights infringe upon my liberties, we have a problem.

        • Justsomeguy151

          YOU say its harmless, I say its a blatant disregard for the Constitution, something these pigs SWORE an OATH to uphold. Thats like you saying “Its only a little tyranny”. This man didn’t demand to have hos rights violated, he flexed his existing rights as it is his RIGHT to do, not just when its convenient for fascist pigs. You are so wrong. There are rules pigs need to follow. Notice he NEVER answered this man’s question “Am I being detained?” Because he KNEW he had no PC. When a pig asks yr permission, its perfectly legal to say no. The pig’s only authority was him raising his voice, NOT going to stand up in a court of law. Sounds like you do have a problem, several in fact. Yr only OK w/ Liberty as long as it violates others rights. If someone is swerving, pull them over. Blanket check points are absolutely unConstitutional.

          • jasonunos

            good point….except that you’re wrong. elected officials have made them legal. you may not like that they are but they are. federal law hands the decision to the states. the states (at least 38 of them) have med them legal so your “unconstitutional” argument is bunk

          • Justsomeguy151

            Except that YOU are wrong. Any law which violates the Law of the Land, is in invalid on the face of it, regardless of what any elected criminal says.

            Read the 16th volume of American Jurisprudence 2nd Edition, section 177, in which it explains the supremacy of our Constitution :

            From the 16th volume American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177:
            “The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail”. This is succinctly stated as follows:
            “The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. As unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.”
            “Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no right, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it…”
            “A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, in so far as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.”
            Any court, government or government officer who acts in violation of, in opposition or contradiction to the foregoing, by his, or her, own actions, commits treason and invokes the self-executing Sections 3 and 4 of the 14th Amendment and vacates his, or her, office. It is the duty of every lawful American Citizen to oppose all enemies of this Nation, foreign and DOMESTIC.

          • Justsomeguy151

            Read the 16th volume of American Jurisprudence 2nd Edition, section 177, in which it explains the supremacy of our Constitution:
            “The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail”. This is succinctly stated as follows:
            “The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. As unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.”
            “Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no right, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it…”
            “A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, in so far as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.”
            Any court, government or government officer who acts in violation of, in opposition or contradiction to the foregoing, by his, or her, own actions, commits treason and invokes the self-executing Sections 3 and 4 of the 14th Amendment and vacates his, or her, office. It is the duty of every lawful American Citizen to oppose all enemies of this Nation, foreign and DOMESTIC.

        • P. Nym

          Rights are absolute.

    • pff136

      In a free society, things can go wrong. It’s a travesty but that’s the way it is. You don’t take away freedoms because of an attempt to make the world safe .If a person is driving erratically, by all means, pull them over and do the questioning and testing. There would be a legitimate reason to pull them over. But these checkpoints are not about freedom; they’re more like “show me your papers” from Nazi Germany. I was pulled over by park police in Nashville about 4 years ago and wasn’t really sure why. I think I missed a yield on a park turnaround but I wasn’t from there and it was totally unintentional. The park police pulls me over but doesn’t tell me why. He asked for my insurance and registration (and he was not nice). And then he asked me what my intentions were in Nashville, like I was from another country! I used to live in Detroit and know how customs are at the border. I am from a TN town only a couple hours away. I was appalled at being asked these types of intrusive questions. I didn’t know my rights like I do now and I was afraid to be written a ticket because I didn’t want a large fine. So I complied. I had met up with a friend at the Nashville Farmer’s Market and after I was pulled over, he pulled over my friend for no reason. If anyone else has come across this park police in Nashville near the Farmer’s Market, I’d love to know.

      • pff136

        The only way to make a totally “safe” society is to have complete totalitarian/authoritarian police state. Do we really want to live like that?

    • dennyar

      there is a difference between a dui check point and a Gestapo style abuse of authority.

      • jasonunos

        gestapo style!? really!? if it was “gestapo style” as you put it, he would have been beaten questioned and possibly even shot. the kid was punk with a camera trying to make a point. and let’s not forget we are taking him at his word on everything. the tape was cut up and edited we don’t know what he took out. a prime example is near the begining it goes black and he says “after using intimidating tactics……” well if the point of this tape is to show police infringing on rights why edit out the intimidation? I’ll tell you why. bc the punk was most likely baitiing the officer into it. he showed up with a camera rolling to a checkpoint that was publicized. his rights weren’t infringed upon. he asked for what he got. if anything the police did him i favor. I mean come on prior to this video did anybody know who this kid was? how much will he make of this tape when he sells it to mainstream media.time to use our heads everybody your letting a 21 year old punk screw with your minds

        • jagragg

          The cops KNEW that the kid wasn’t drunk. They were just using such “tactics” to punish & harass him:

          CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
          No. 99—1030. Argued October 3, 2000–Decided November 28, 2000

          Petitioner city operates vehicle checkpoints on its
          roads in an effort to interdict unlawful drugs. Respondents, who were
          each stopped at such a checkpoint, filed suit, claiming that the
          roadblocks violated the Fourth Amendment.
          The District Court denied respondents a preliminary injunction, but
          the Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that the checkpoints contravened
          the Fourth Amendment.

          Held: Because the checkpoint program’s primary
          purpose is indistinguishable from the general interest in crime control,
          the checkpoints violate the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 3—15.

          • jasonunos

            how did they know he wasn’t drunk? all they knew was he appeared to be hiding something. I’m not saying the cop handled himself properly. he didn’t by any means. I’m saying in the same situation most people would have at least had a problem with the kid. and as i said in a similar post. if this kid was driving at .09 he would very easily been able to handle himself in the same manner and if the cop had let him go and he had run someone over the headline would read “DRUNK DRIVER CRASHES AFTER PASSING DUI CHECKPOINT”

          • dennyar

            What drunk person do you know who is with it enough to cite Constitutional limitations of authority? What drunk do you know who can think rationally in defense of those limitations and personal civil and constitutional rights? There is no right of the police to detain a lawful citizen. So what if he had a camera, he is aware of the status of our freedom and evidently not a lemming. That’s all the camera means to me. You calling him a young punk is just a sign / symptom of a portion of society that has accepted being handled like a caged animal. Should I throw you a carrot, banana or do you prefer peanuts? People with your mind set are what drives the divide in our country. Congratulations on being a part of the force that divides us. On the other hand you have the freedom by that same Constitution that protects this “young punk” to speak your mind and I would defend that just as I would this “young punks”. Back to your assault on my Gestapo analogy, today it’s incidents like what happened at this check point, what’s tomorrow going to hold? Tomorrow just might be true and full out un-hindered Gestapo tactics. Police brutality isn’t Gestapo? It happens, has been happening and we need to be educated, alert and ready for it. This “young punk” was as evident by his camera. So don’t get your panties in a bunch because he’s smart, ok? Also use your head. Selling the tape to main stream media? Come on it’s on youtube! PUBLIC DOMAIN. He attached no claim message to the video. Prior to my reply did anyone know me? So what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? I don’t mind at all a good conversation, and heck maybe you could offer a point of view I haven’t already considered but I don’t think it’s very mature to call someone probably much younger than you a “young punk”. Lets try to remain civil.

        • Tom B

          People like you make me puke.My family served with Washington at Valley Forge!You spit on America!That 21 year old punk kid has the same rights as anyone.

    • jagragg

      CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
      No. 99—1030. Argued October 3, 2000–Decided November 28, 2000

      Petitioner city operates vehicle checkpoints on its
      roads in an effort to interdict unlawful drugs. Respondents, who were
      each stopped at such a checkpoint, filed suit, claiming that the
      roadblocks violated the Fourth Amendment.
      The District Court denied respondents a preliminary injunction, but
      the Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that the checkpoints contravened
      the Fourth Amendment.

      Held: Because the checkpoint program’s primary
      purpose is indistinguishable from the general interest in crime control,
      the checkpoints violate the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 3—15.

      • Tom B

        People could care less about these silly court decisions.The courts are always sucking the governments pecker legal or not.Just look at what Roberts did in the SC healthcare case and agreed you can be taxed for doing NOTHING.

    • Tom B

      You can be more SECURE in Cuba then.Why not move and let the people keep their rights while you give yours away.You have no respect for the soldiers lying in graves that fought to protect your rights.

    • LibertyMonger

      You never give up freedom for false sense of security.

    • http://personsearchbyname.com Gary Carlyle

      thats not a good enough reason to install a tyrannical state. there are better ways to deal with things.

    • P. Nym

      I’ll say it: DUI checkpoints are a tyrannical overreach and are indicative of a police state.

  • MJ

    The issue here is NOT whether the checkpoint was illegal or not. Chris stopped at the checkpoint with no qualms. The issue is with what the officers did after the stop.

    • jasonunos

      For the record the checkpoint WAS LEGAL. end of debate. Federal law mandates that DUI checkpoints are up to the state but if the state allows them they must publicize them. This one was publicized which is how the kid new it would be there and why he showed up with his camera rolling. People may not like that it’s legal and may claim them to be “unconstitutional” but the leaders who have been elected made them legal end of story.

      • MJ

        Thats what I’m saying. The checkpoint is legal. Fine. The officers were violating his rights with their individual actions.

        • jagragg

          Correct!

        • LibertyMonger

          Everything Hitler did was “legal” also.

      • jagragg

        AGAIN! my only response to you, is that you should READ THE LAW, and stop
        pronouncing the law. READ “City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000)”
        was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States
        limited the power of law enforcement to conduct suspicionless searches,
        specifically, using drug-sniffing dogs at roadblocks. Previous Supreme
        Court decisions had given the police power to create roadblocks for the
        purposes
        of border security (United States v. Martinez-Fuerte), and removing
        drunk drivers from the road (Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz).
        This decision stated that the power was limited to situations in which
        the search was “designed to serve special needs, beyond the normal need
        for law enforcement.”

        • jasonunos

          You should the entirety of the brief not just the parts you want. The case involved drug sniffing dogs that were used at EVERY STOP. that was ruled unconstitutional. They are only allowed in “special circumstances” as far as dui checkpoints go in general, the supreme court has ruled that it is up to the individual states to determine their legality. The only mandate by federal law is that they be publicized in advance. This stop was. Setting all of that aside, The police officers are doing their jobs. at the outset of the stop the police officer was friendly and in no way rude. If the kid had rolled his window down and talked with the cop he would have been sent on his way with no problem, at some point we may live in a safer country if some people tried to actually help out our police force instead of throwing up roadblocks

          • jagragg

            Oh I HAVE read it, and it is you that is doing the picking and choosing here. EDMONDS case, JUST LIKE THIS ONE, involved a “drug sniffing dog.” Which was BEYOND the stated purpose of a DUI checkpoint. Those cops KNEW that the kid was NOT intoxicated, and only went after him BECAUSE he questioned their actions.

            You would make for a really good Nazi, “don’t question authority!”

      • LibertyMonger

        WOW almost all of you love living on your knees. Read what our founders said about following unjust laws. It is called civil disobedience. Just because the corporate owned government writes unjust laws does not make them legal. How bout they make a law that allows them to burn red haired babies. I guess if its the law than it is just, huh?

      • http://personsearchbyname.com Gary Carlyle

        they were not elected and they are not leaders of anything other than a corporation.

      • P. Nym

        Then that federal law is unconstitutional and therefore invalid.

  • LawGuest

    Almost all the people commenting here seem to have relatively little knowledge of the actual laws surrounding DUI checkpoints and TERRY stops. Very little of what I saw in this video was against the law.

    This man is incorrect in several of his assertions about what conduct is required of him at a DUI checkpoint. His arguments would lead to the conclusion that at a DUI checkpoint you simply must stop your car, keep your windows up (so long as you can hear), and sit there mute. If you do that, he thinks the officer must let you move along after a certain brief period of time.

    There are requests you must comply with, there are questions you must answer, officers may order you to exit your vehicle, and failure to do so can result in a “reasonable suspicion” (probable cause is not the correct standard here, despite what certain commentators have indicated) that you are engaged in an illegal activity.

    Now, you can make arguments about whether the law itself should be different, but that seems to be a separate argument that the one, by and large, taking place below.

    • jagragg

      “LawGuest,” my only response to you, is that you should READ THE LAW, and stop pronouncing the law, like you even know anything outside of the badge you carry. READ “City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000)”
      was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States
      limited the power of law enforcement to conduct suspicionless searches,
      specifically, using drug-sniffing dogs at roadblocks. Previous Supreme
      Court decisions had given the police power to create roadblocks for the
      purposes of border security (United States v. Martinez-Fuerte), and removing drunk drivers from the road (Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz).
      This decision stated that the power was limited to situations in which
      the search was “designed to serve special needs, beyond the normal need
      for law enforcement.”

      • LawGuest

        See above for my response to Edmond.

      • P. Nym

        “Stop pronouncing the law”

        You mean like SCOTUS?

        • jagragg

          You & I know what “SCOTUS” means. MOST people don’t, so I state “The Supreme Court of the United States,” for the purposes of clarity. The “LAW” is decided by 9 justices in Washington, D.C., NOT some cop on the beat just trying to bully his way through.

          • P. Nym

            I think you should reread my post. SCOTUS pronounces law. They have usurped a power not granted to them by the States. SCOTUS has no Constitutional authority to determine if legislation is constitutional or not. That right belongs to the people – the States. They simply declared that they had that power, and the people did nothing.

          • jagragg

            WRONG!
            You need to READ Article III, Section 2, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution; “….the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact….” This is the “authority,” that they have had from the very beginning, it is not something new, as you would like to believe.

          • P. Nym

            You are wrong. Learn about Marbury v. Madison. And who said anything about new? M v. M was 1803.

          • jagragg

            READ the CONSTITUTION, like I told you to. Re-read my comment as well, ” it is not something new.” The “LAW” for SCOTUS is plain to see for ANYONE that bothers to READ IT!

          • P. Nym

            Yes, so follow your own advice. Read Article III, and then learn that in 1803, SCOTUS sezied for itself the power of judicial review, which the states did not grant it. This is indisputable.

            Look, I have no doubt that you would like to see the system that the Framers and the ratifiers created exist rather than the Leviathan we have today. But you have to understand that you are on the wrong side of this one. You are arguing for the centralized control of the federal government that it has seized and made for itself, not the limited federal government that the states and people created. Part of that limitation is that the SCOTUS does not decide if its own acts (that is, the federal government) are constitutional or not. It does not legitimately have that power. That power alone rests with the people.

            Do you honestly think that people of the sovereign states would allow the federal government, of which they were very skeptical and fearful, to have the power to make law and then decide for itself whether that law is constitutional or not? It’s laughable and ridiculous. It’s the fox guarding the henhouse.

            Look around you. States are already ignoring unconstitutional law. They’ve passed legislation against Obamacare; they’ve passed legislation allowing marijuana sales, use, and possession; they’ve passed legislation making it a crime for anyone to enforce federal law regarding gun control.

            Please do yourself a favor. go to libertyclassroom dot com and learn.

    • Tom B

      You sound like a robot.You don’t have to comply to anything when it’s illegal to begin with.Don’t ever try to be a lawyer and don’t give legal advice that’s total garbage.

  • jasonunos

    What bothers me most about this entire thread is that the same people raging against the system are the same people who would be screaming at the cops if they let this kid through and he ended up killing someone only to find out he was not sober. bottom line the real problem is most of you just don’t like cops.

    • 1kenthomas

      Yeah, whatever. There are only 250 “influenced driver” deaths in TN per year– less than 70, are drivers of other vehicles. So the odds are pretty low here.
      This is a police state. The police are using “DUI checkpoints” as a smokescreen to fish for other things, abuse constitutional rights. That makes them the Stazi.

  • Tom Horn

    As I look at it I can see the police officer being a A hole but I’m not sure that’s against the law. The point about the dog is absolutely true. The only reason the dog is searching is to get the ball so it’s pretty easy to train him to a command for a false positive. The young man while he may have be in the right was playing a dangerous game…..that camera could have easily disappeared and he could have been charged with something in addition to resisting arrest which would explain the beating he took.

    • Tom B

      Freedom is always dangerous to people who want to control you for their benefit.

  • Bill589

    It’s not that the cop may or may not have broken a DUI checkpoint law. It’s that the DUI checkpoint laws are unconstitutional. I don’t blame the police that enforce the written laws; I blame the creators of the unconstitutional laws – most politicians, and then the people that keep them in positions of power

    • jasonunos

      actually you’re wrong. you may not like that you’re wrong but you are. elected officials have made DUI checkpoints legal in 39 states. federal law mandates that they be publicized. If you don’t like the law elect new officials. hell run yourself. we live in a republic people not a democracy.

      • Bill589

        I’m right, and you just agreed with me. Elected officials have made DUI checkpoints legal – but they should not have per the Constitution. And I’m TPM, so yes, I fight to restore our constitutional republic.

      • 1kenthomas

        The US is a *constitutional democracy*. Elected officials protect themselves from the responsibility of their legislative acts– yes, the People should use their powers to change that, not only by voting them out of office, but by imposing legal consequences.

        • Tom B

          You mean Constitutional Republic.America has never been a democracy and the founders despised them.

    • Anj

      Why exactly do the police get a free pass from blame? Are they cows or thinking people?

      • Bill589

        The police are low on the totem poll, just doing their job – else they be fired. So I blame them less.

      • 1kenthomas

        Evidently, we want them to be cows…

      • Bill589

        Basically, I just blame them a lot less. Walk a mile in their shoes. Would you lose your job and have your family suffer life-long loss to make no other difference in the world?

  • jagragg

    ALL OF YOU PEOPLE NEED to do a Google search: …..City of Indianapolis v. Edmonds….. It is a US Supreme Court case that strictly PROHIBITS (forbids) the police from setting up these very types of road blocks. EVERYONE, please make out several copies of that case, to keep in your car, so if you are stopped at one of these ILLEGAL ROAD BLOCKS, you simply hand them a copy of that case, and tell them to leave you alone!

    • jasonunos

      let me know how that works out for you….lol you’re funny

    • LawGuest

      You are completely incorrect. Edmonds held that these stops could not be for the purpose of furthering the “general interest” in crime control. Rather, these stops needed to be “designed to serve special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement.” DUI checkpoints satisfy the “special needs” test because they protect OTHER motorists from drunk drivers.

      The stop found unconstitutional in Edmonds was a checkpoint created by the Indianapolis PD to randomly search for drugs in motor vehicles. There was no “special purpose” here beyond the general interest in crime control – unlike drunk drivers, drivers whose vehicles simply contain illegal drugs do not generally pose any more of a hazard to other motorists than those whose vehicles do not contain such drugs.

      Read up.

      • jagragg

        Having ALREADY figured out that the kid was NOT “intoxicated,” what they did following is EXACTLY what the EDMONDS case PROHIBITED. Especially with that BS “dog sniff” crap. THAT is total BS!

        • LawGuest

          I see nothing in the video to indicate that they determined the driver was not intoxicated. Further, police officers may still use K-9s at checkpoints so long as the purpose of the checkpoint itself satisfies the Edmond requirements. Requirements that DUI checkpoints do satisfy.

          • jagragg

            That Sir, is for a court to decide. The US Supreme Court specifically mentioned that the “dog test” is pure baloney. The cops turned a “sobriety checkpoint,” into a warrant-less search checkpoint, (direct violation of the 4th Amendment) which IS exactly what the court struck down in EDMONDS.The kid did NOT cuss at them, as a matter of fact, he treated them better than they treated him. As the cops clearly indicated, they do NOT care for people that stand up for their constitutional rights. American citizens are NOT “slaves” that jump to any “command” of anyone wearing a badge. And with all of the “police misconduct” these days, that people are becoming aware of, thanks to cameras, allot of folks are VERY defensive anytime around police, for ANY reason.

        • LawGuest

          Further, Edmond was not the last time the Supreme Court weighed in on this issue. Illinois v. Caballes (2005) held that the use of drug dogs was permissible at DUI checkpoints so long as the search did not unreasonably prolong the stop. Again, I see no indication in the video that the dog’s presence prolonged the stop. Rather, the young man had been stopped prior to the presence of the dog, for refusing to comply with the officers request to role his window down.

          Once the dog “hit” (the validity of which I lack the knowledge to debate, though I agree that forced “hits” would indeed by an severe blow to the legitimacy of the principle behind the justification of the use of such dogs), probable cause was established and the hand search became permissible.

          • jagragg

            Well, at least we agree on one point: “though I agree that forced “hits” would indeed by an severe blow to the
            legitimacy of the principle behind the justification of the use of such
            dogs” which is EXACTLY what happened. See the Cop say “get it!” That is a “forced hit,” because the dog did NOT STAY on “target.”

          • LibertyMonger

            Just because they say it is so and we allow it does not make it constitutional.

      • 1kenthomas

        Yes– but with approx. 250 “impaired driver” related deaths in TN in 2012, — impaired not meaning DUI!– only 75 deaths involving another driver–

        does this meet the SCOTUS standard? :) I question…

        • Ookook Eekeek

          the brand of a douchebag, the buttlicking smileyface

    • P. Nym

      Then there is Sitz v. Michigan.

      Of course, SCOTUS had no authority to rule on both Sitz and Edmonds.

      • jagragg

        The US Supreme Court HAS the “authority” to rule on ANY CASE, as they see fit.

        “Nor can the checkpoints’ purpose be rationalized in terms of a highway safety concern similar to that in Sitz, or merely likened to the anti-smuggling purpose in Martinez-Fuerte. Neither Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, nor Bond v. United States, 529 U.S. 334, precludes an inquiry into the checkpoint program’s purposes. And if the program could be justified by its lawful secondary purposes of keeping impaired motorists off the road and verifying licenses and registrations, authorities would be able to establish checkpoints for virtually any purpose so long as they also included a license or sobriety check.”

        This is EXACTLY what the court struck down as a violation of the 4th Amendment in Edmonds.

        • P. Nym

          Actually, they don’t. Nowhere in the Constitution will you find that power granted to SCOTUS. Further, nowhere in the Constitution does it say the States are bound by the Bill of Rights. Even Jefferson argued that the States could restrict speech, etc., precisely because they are sovereign. The Bill of Rights limits the federal government, not its creators.

          • jagragg

            Again, you ARE WRONG! And this PROVES that you have no concept of WHAT the constitution even says.

            AGAIN, you are making up stuff out of whole cloth. Your grasp of the US Constitution is severally lacking. As stated elsewhere, you need to READ the Constitution, Article III, Section 2, paragraph 2; “…the Supreme Court SHALL HAVE appellate Jurisdiction, BOTH AS TO LAW AND FACT….” (emphasis added for clarity)

          • P. Nym

            No, I am not. I implore you to educate yourself.

          • jagragg

            “Educate YOURSELF!” READ the Constitution, Article III, Section 2, paragraph 2; “…the
            Supreme Court SHALL HAVE appellate Jurisdiction, BOTH AS TO LAW AND
            FACT….” (emphasis added for clarity)

          • P. Nym

            Yes, that doesn’t refute anything I’ve said. Try reading the entire Article.

  • thebearded1

    God bless camera phones…the best invention to circumvent illegal intervention. Should we not be chasing criminals INSTEAD of the general public? This is very much akin to one of those agencies that starts with…N…and ends with…A…and I fail to see the difference in either being enacted in the same manner. If you are upset with the overreach in Washington, it starts at home!

  • Justin Green

    We should reach out to more libertarian groups to help Ben meet his goal, I mean Ron Paul raised millions in a day. Way can’t we raise millions in a half a month for Liberty?

  • HostileElite vs GullibleWhites

    Constitution cannot protect from cowardice. this is not left vs right, GOP vs Dems, Socialism vs liberty. This is war against White people.

    Why do hostile globalist elite defend Israel as a Jewish ethnostate with Jewish only immigration, but ravage White majority Europe/North America into a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural Gulag with non-White colonization?

    The world is 93% non-White, only 7% White. But 3rd world colonizers, Muslims, Sikhs, Hispanics, are aggressively advancing their agenda to annihilate gullible Whites, just as China annihilates Tibet.

    How long will gullible Whites cuckold for murderous anti-White elite, who confiscate our guns, infiltrate/subvert our banks/FBI/CIA, indoctrinate White kids in academia/mass media, plunder White jobs/wages, & butcher White soldiers in bankrupting wars?

    “Native” Americans invaded from East Asia. Yellow & Brown races committed 10-times more genocide, slavery, imperialism than Whites. Since Old-Testament, Whites have been victims of Jewish/Crypto-Jewish, Turkic, Muslim, N.African imperialism, slavery, genocide.

    Gullible Whites should reject subversive ideologies- libertarianism, feminism, liberalism- & reject hostile slanders of racism. Peace to all humanity, but White people must organize to advance their interests, their fertility, their homelands. Spread this message. Reading list: goo.gl/iB777 , goo.gl/htyeq , amazon.com/dp/0759672229 , amazon.com/dp/1410792617

    • 1kenthomas

      Wow. You’re a piece of work. Hope the NSA, is following your BS. Die. Just die. Glad to do it– you deserve worse, certainly no place in America.

      • Ookook Eekeek

        go eff your mother

    • Glenn Webber

      Troll.

  • bioshazard

    On this subject, here is a quick read on your constitutional rights.

    http://www.justice.gov/usao/ne/press_releases/Civil%20Rights%20Book-NE-2.pdf

    • Tom B

      We don’t need a gov website to define rights as we all know they are snooping on everyone and breaking laws all over the world.

      • bioshazard

        You may not need the website, but I am certain there is a great portion of the American population that doesn’t have that good a handle on their rights.

    • Tom B

      Peoples rights don’t come from government so why should I check with the government about rights that don’t even come from them..The DOI was very clear.

      • bioshazard

        Its a simple run down of your rights. If you are already aware of them, keep scrolling. I know that 3 people have already thanked me for posting this on my facebook.

    • Tom B

      Government does not grant rights it is suppose to protect rights.

      • bioshazard

        No one is disagreeing with you.

    • Tom B

      We don’t have a democracy as the site pretends we do.America is a Constitutional Republic.They start the whole site off with a lie.Government lies again.The founders hated mob rule.

  • jasonunos

    http://www.officer.com/article/10952972/routine-traffic-stops

    read this it’s a short article. If a driver doesn’t roll down his window at night the officer cannot see his lap which could have a gun a knife a bomb or anything else in it. I’m sorry call it unconstitutional if you want but if i’m pulled over and the officer asks me to roll down my window. I’m going to roll the damn thing down. It’s common courtesy for an individual who whether you want to admit it or not is putting his life on the line.

    • Tom B

      Maybe the cop should just shoot him and be done with it is where you are going.People like you have no business even living in America.Get on back home to CUBA!

      • jasonunos

        what in the hell are you talking about? how do you go from “can’t see his lap” to maybe the cop should shoot him. wake the hell up. police officers are shot at all the time during traffic stops. and by the way I don’t you dare tell me I don’t have a right to be an American. I’ve served my country. I’ve lost family to wars. I lost a cousin who was a police officer to a gangbanger who intentionally ran a red light bc his iniation was to kill a cop. Pull your head out of your ass and quit defending a punk who gets his rocks off by screwing with people who are trying to protect our streets.

        • Tom B

          Sorry,that punk you refer to has rights and you are just like the LEO in the video that will probably end up in a major lawsuit.If you want security over liberty you deserve neither as the framers always said.Everyone in America has a duty to defend their rights and no rogue LEO”s have a right to trample on them.That my friend is the foundation of America.

    • LibertyMonger

      If he has probable cause. He had no probable cause to stop him to begin with. Any lawyer will tell you that you should only crack your window enough to hear the officer. The only way he is able to detain anyone is if they are under arrest. If they are not under arrest they are free to go.

    • P. Nym

      I’ve never heard someone say forfeiting your rights is common courtesy.

  • Tom B

    All the people who agree with what is going on in America with the police state should move to another country ASAP and stop ruining America for people who want to retain their GOD GIVEN RIGHTS.You can always give your rights up in CUBA and let the government make you SECURE.

  • Bill589

    The government checkpoints in order to randomly stop and search citizens is unconstitutional. Politicians passing unconstitutional laws surely has happened and should stop.

  • Stephanie Snyder Staker

    When are we, real Americans, going to stop allowing this cr*p? That is what it is. These police officers could have easily placed illegal drugs in his car and there would be no way to prove they did. That isn’t being paranoid; it is the truth. They didn’t like it much when they saw the camera running, did they? People, we must stand up for our rights. It is not asking much, is it? They hassle law-abiding citizens who feel like “I have nothing to hide” (and don’t) but they also don’t know their rights. While they are wasting time like this, there are thieves working on the internet to take our money, ruin our credit, etc., break into our homes (home invasions are on the rise everywhere). Want to report it? Don’t call! You can fill out a report form on the police website. Isn’t that handy? Meanwhile, they are out to hassle some poor guy going to WalMart for milk.

  • A Fan of Honest Journalism

    If an officer of the law (the dog) is empowered by it’s owners (the ‘Force’) to deliver a verdict in the field – that restricts rights – that turns out to be untrue, can then that officer be tried for defamation, lose it’s/their own credentials and be held financially culpable? If so, can’t you sue the dog for famacide, relieve the animal from ‘Service’, and impose judgement against the owners of said ‘instrument’ – for damages? Anything from a new paint job up to and including the encroachment of their Fourth Amendment civil rights? Put up or shut up – for making a little bit of overtime – at the expense of the Constitution. If they want to call Corporations “People”, then lets just be straight up and not hide behind Limited Liability Laws… If the dog is an ‘Officer’ than the dog is a ‘Person’ and can be held liable. Bad dog, no… bad policy!

  • Michael Torbert

    While I’m certainly sympathetic to this young man who was harassed, I think in most (all?) states you have to show your driver’s license if you’re driving.

    • Lynn

      You are right if you are talking about STATE law, there is NO Constitutional law stating that you must have a driver’s license, therefore being forced to have one is unconstitutional. The young man was staying with The Constitution correctly. Registering your car and making you get a driver’s license is just another TAX.

      • 1kenthomas

        Uh, no. Powers not granted to the Federal Gov’t are reserved to the States. They *can* require a driver’s license.
        Thanks for playing, please try again.

        • LibertyMonger

          But they CANNOT force someone to show their “papers” if they have not committed a crime or suspected of one with probable cause. They cannot detain anyone without probable cause. FINISH HIM!

          • 1kenthomas

            I *wish*. Many state supreme courts have said the opposite. No probable cause needed for ID check at DUI/ID checkpoints…

          • jasonunos

            im with you on this one kent. where the law gets blurry is that driving is a priviledge not a right. set aside the legality of the checkpoint for a moment, if you are stopped by the police whether for a violation or any other purpose, if you are operating a vehicle you must produce a liscense if asked. no passenger can be required but the driver must have a liscense and be able to prove it in order to participate in the “privilidge” of driving

          • Tom B

            Driving is a right but people allowed the states to trick them into the commercial code.A judge recently ruled on this and totally destroyed the states arguments.

          • P. Nym

            “A judge ruled”

            LOL

          • William

            I find it interesting everyone is arguing what is law and what is not as opposed to what are our human rights and what are not.

            Just because a State made a bad unconstitutional law doesn’t mean we should abide by it, it doesn’t make the law right.

            The officer had no right to bully this kid like they did. He showed no signs of being drunk, was not pulled over for any observed offense, he was not hurting any other person. He refused to cooperate with the bandits who can clearly be observed as power-drunk bullies. He was more angry about the kid not obeying every order than he was concerned about the safety of the highway.

            Your arguments should not be what is law in what state, but whether or not behavior like this is acceptable. We already know laws are way out of hand, there are so many that any decent enough lawyer could find any one of you guilty of some law or another. Laws have grown out of control. We need to start thinking about HUMAN RIGHTS and less about all the nonsense the courts have dribbled in the last 100 years.

          • P. Nym

            I agree, and you’re talking to the wrong guy. I’m not the one you need to convince. I’m an anarcho-capitalist. I’m all about natural rights and very well familiar with the nature of government, no matter the size, shape, and form.

          • William

            Yea not as intended just hit reply near end of thread, didn’t realize it was going to be directed at you was more a general comment with the ongoing debate of what is law and what is not.

          • P. Nym

            Gotcha

          • Tom B

            Robertson vs.Dept.of Public Works 180, Washington State Supreme Court 133,147.LOL,read the decision!

          • P. Nym

            Why would I want to do that? You don’t see how ridiculous it is that one guy out of 300 million “ruled” on something at a whim? How can you not laugh?

            Here are the courts, especially SCOTUS, for you:

            1. Decide what you want to happen.
            2. Make up a new legal theory.
            3. Cite previously made up legal theories to support your newly made up legal theory.

          • Tom B

            Since you don’t know your rights move to CUBA and OBEY slave.

          • P. Nym

            I don’t know my rights? What in the world are you talking about? Listen, dude, we are on the same side here and I think we generally desire the same thing. The difference, though, is that you are trapped in thoughts and arguments that are wrong and that have been pounded into your head by government. Forget them and learn our real history, and not what government says the Constitution is and means, but what the people said it means:

            libertyclassroom.com

          • Tom B

            No legal theory here bonehead.This is a Washington State Supreme Court decision.How stupid can you be?

          • P. Nym

            Oh. Name calling. How nice.

          • P. Nym

            You are incorrect.

        • Constitutional Law

          Uh no. The States, just like the Federal Government, are bound to abide by the Supremacy Clause. All Laws made MUST be in accordance with the Constitution or are null and void. Furthermore, while you can argue the cops can ask for the license because he was driving, the cops can NOT stop him from driving if they have no Probable Cause that he has, is, or will commit a crime. You can’t just stop people and harass them.

          • P. Nym

            You couldn’t be more wrong. Try reading the Supremacy Clause sometime. It states that only federal laws made IN PURSUANCE THEREOF (that is, only laws that follow the Constitution) are the laws of the land. States can ignore unconstitutional legislation and invoke their right of nullification.

        • Tom B

          True,If you don’t understand the right to travel rights.Commercial code has little to do with ones rights to travel.At least one judge recently ruled honestly about the right to travel without a license on the public highways.

    • Lauren M Dudley

      In Kansas, the police can demand to see ID even if you’re just walking down the sidewalk.

      • P. Nym

        No they can’t. You’re wrong.

        • Lauren M Dudley

          Well, they have before. Many times. Thanks for just flat-out informing me that I’m wrong. X-P

          • P. Nym

            Cops breaking the law and infringing on rights? i’m shocked. That doesn’t mean they can legally do so. They cannot legally and lawfully stop anyone to demand id if they’re just walking down the sidewalk. That’s a fact.

          • Lauren M Dudley

            I live in a very rural and isolated community. The cops here feel no compunctions about demanding to see I.D. if, for instance, you approach one at night to ask a question about where a homeless traveler might find a place to sleep. This has actually happened to me. A man approached me with this very question, and I took him to the police station to see if they would let him sleep there. The officer on duty demanded to see MY identification, and when it was concluded that my license had expired three days previously, I was made to walk home in the dark. Who could I conceivably complained to about it? Honestly. It’s the mentality that they hold all the power, and we have no right to argue with their demands, or we are automatically suspect.

    • Tom B

      You must not read to many cases on the right to travel then.

    • P. Nym

      You do not. Police cannot pull you over and ask for your license, just as they can’t stop you on the street and demand id.

      • Michael Torbert

        In most states, but not all, you aren’t legally required to produce ID if they stop you on the street.
        In most or all states, if you’ve been pulled over while driving, you are legally required to show your driver’s license. Depending on the state, the law may be different for checkpoints.

        I’m not supporting this, and don’t agree with laws allowing the police so much intrusion into our personal lives, I’m just saying what the law is.

  • anon

    It’s also illegal to record a police officer- ironic.

    • Know your rights

      No it’s not. recording the police was upheld by the supreme court and also one sided recording is legal in TN. as long as one of the people involved in the recording is aware it is legal.

    • Tyler

      Is it?
      http://reason.com/archives/2012/04/05/7-rules-for-recording-police

      I guess if you’re in IL or MA it is.

    • Tom B

      That’s not what the 1st circuit court ruled.

    • P. Nym

      No it isn’t.

  • jojo58

    TN was one of the first states to jump on the VIPR bandwagon, this way the people of TN can get interrogated before they arrive at the airport to get felt up and xrayed. I hope the people of the state get rid of this crap ASAP.

  • Link

    he should have just complied with the police, had he done so they would not have got the dog out and his car would not have been scratched, he purposely drove into a dui checkpoint under false pretenses and with an ulterior motive, oh and the driver thinks he is so very smart, progressive, intellectual, etc….blah, blah, blah,

    someday he will be dying somewhere and a cop or emt person will save his sorry ass

    • markcwells

      No, sorry. It’s time people stand up for their rights.

    • Tom B

      Stand up or be stood on.

    • Andy

      And had the colonists only complied with the king, there would have been no trouble, right?
      But noncompliance is what leads to the birth of free nations. Sadly I believe that free nation is dying—not so much based on the video above, but by many of these comments seen in response.

      • griefstruelove

        I agree with you. I know we need laws, and I disipline my children. However we need to be able to freely think for ourselves. We should not blindly follow those that hold power. That being said I would like to see how this video would have played out if he had rolled down the window and given his age before declining a search. He made it seem he wanted to hide something.

        • William

          Since when did giving the impression of “having something to hide” = illegal search and seizure? I grew up in a smaller town where all the cops were ex-high school bullies who had a family history of abusive parents. They barely graduated high school and if they didn’t go into the military they were recruited into the police force.

          The result was a bunch of alcoholic police drunk on their authority and power. This made everyone uneasy when having any encounter with the police. So naturally, you’d be nervous around them, and you think because one is nervous are seeming like they have “something to hide” that they should get their human rights violated?

          Andy, I join you in your concern for the free nation. However, I think it is already dead. The majority of citizens seem to prefer status-quo and have a general “head in the sand” mentality. They are happy to be driven by the media and told what to think, how to feel, and how to live. So long as they have their mc donalds, they care not that they are already slaves, so long as they have their comforts.

          I was grateful to have read your response Andy, as I’m disheartened by the other responses to this article. Ranging from unintelligent belligerence (come on kids, I know you are angry, but that doesn’t help the cause) to the real problem of people thinking we should just comply with the government and cops so that we can hold on to this illusion of safety.

          Sure, the kid in the video had his own intentions. But in a free nation, he would have never had the opportunity to capture such abuses on camera. If I wanted to catch our enforcers in an illegal act, I should be free to try, but it should be impossible to capture.

          In any case, whether or not he had drugs is irrelevant. Having and using drugs is a human right. If you are doing no harm to another, what right do you have to tell a person what they can and cannot do to themselves? But that is a whole other debate isn’t it.

          Bottom-line: The cops in this video were wrong to bully the kid who was only exercising his rights. Sadly, these police officers are exactly the same kind that I grew up with, so it is also quite clear the caliber of recruitment needs an evaluation. Any psychological profile of an abused high school bully would prove that they would not do well in a position of lawful enforcement. But I have seen these police academies, they do no such proper psych evaluations, quite the contrary, I’ve been told by the recruiters that the uneducated bullies are precisely the ones they are looking to hire.

          Reminds me of the dark ages, not so sure we left that behind…

        • Justsomeguy151

          No he didn’t. Those blanket checkpoints are the very epitome of what the 4th Amendment was written for. I’d like to know what our nation would be like w/out POS pigs and instead we had honorable men and women who SWORE an OATH to up hold the Constitution and actually understood it and honored it.

    • ANONYMOUS

      it doesnt matter why he drove through the checkpoint them cops were CUNTS for no reason there drunk with power and think there above the law cops like that should have there badge taken away

    • Justsomeguy151

      NO ONE is bound to comply w/ tyranny that absolutely violates the hell out of yr rights. Those pigs should have honored the OATH they SWORE to uphold the Constitution. You must be a Libtard to think that trampling our rights is OK.

  • hoagy

    R sole thugs…. they’re the same in every country…. now why would that be I wonder???

  • John

    Driver was being a bit of a jerk, as well as the police.

    • Tom B

      LEO’s don’t like people who have rights they only like good little sheep that they can trample on to make themselves feel superior.

  • Teacher

    At the very LEAST Ross and his fellow officers must be fired!!!

  • LoveNY2

    When police abuse their power I would be supportive of this video..HOWEVER, I believe this young man was provoking the police because he was recording this to post on the web. I side with the Police on this one….

    • Janson Smithers

      You wrote:

      “I believe this young man was provoking the police because he was recording this to post on the web.”

      Something like that would only be “provocative” to someone who is hiding something, or is scared to be seen as abusive.

      • Tom B

        Gee,The only person provoking anyone is the LEO.It’s as plain as day.

    • Justsomeguy151

      NO, he recorded it because he KNEW that the pigs would act like Nazis and violate the shit out of his rights and break their OATHS that they SWORE to uphold the Constitution.

  • READ THE CONSTITUTION

    Constitutional rights do not matter at checkpoints?
    Are you kidding me Officer Ross! Our Constitutional Rights are of the utmost importance in situations like this, it is the check and balance against tyranny.
    Officer Ross, you behave in a manner that Adolf Hitler would be proud of. You are out to destroy the civil rights of law abiding citizens. It’s no wonder that lawful citizens are afraid of people like you and your abuse of authority.

    • P. Nym

      For a guy whose handle is “Read the Constitution,” perhaps you should follow your own advice. Read the Constitution and tell me where the States are bound by the Bill of Rights, which limit the federal government, not the States.

      • shawn werner

        So youre saying states are independent entities and are not bound by federal law. You have a lot to learn P.Nym(phomaniac)

        • Justsomeguy151

          That’s not federal law, its constitutional law. the Feds only have as much power as WE give them. Which is why states can decriminalize marijuana because the PEOPLE voted that way and damn what the District of criminals thinks.

        • P. Nym

          That’s correct. The states are sovereign, independent nations that formed a confederation though a compact. That compact created a federal government with limited powers and one that is subservient to the states. Of course the states are independent entites. When the states seceded from England and won their independence, England recognized each as its own nation.

        • Tom B

          That;s true.

      • Justsomeguy151

        What part of “Law of the Land” do you not understand?

        • P. Nym

          What part of “the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof [this Constitution]” in Article VI do you not understand?

          • Justsomeguy151

            Apparently YOU don’t understand any of it.

            Read the 16th volume of American Jurisprudence 2nd Edition, section 177, in which it explains the supremacy of our Constitution :

            From the 16th volume American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177:
            “The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail”. This is succinctly stated as follows:
            “The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. As unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.”
            “Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no right, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it…”
            “A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, in so far as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.”
            Any court, government or government officer who acts in violation of, in opposition or contradiction to the foregoing, by his, or her, own actions, commits treason and invokes the self-executing Sections 3 and 4 of the 14th Amendment and vacates his, or her, office. It is the duty of every lawful American Citizen to oppose all enemies of this Nation, foreign and DOMESTIC.

          • P. Nym

            I understand it far better than you. I don’t think your piece says what you think it does. You just made my point and completely refuted your own. It is the same argument I have just made: any laws passed by Congress that are not in pursuance of the Constitution are null and void on the spot.

            Look to the ratifying debates, since it is the ratifiers’ beliefs and understandings of the Constitution that matter. Specifically, Virginia was told during its ratifying convention it would be “exonerated” should the federal government attempt to impose “any supplementary condition” upon her.

            I urge you to learn the facts, not the opinions of lawyers and jurists. Learn about nullfication. Study the ratifying conventions and debates. Read Tom Woods and Brion McClanahan.

          • Justsomeguy151

            BS. Yr arguing out of both sides of yr mouth, claiming that states aren’t bound by the Constitution then saying its not OK for them to violate it. Why would it not be OK to violate it if it was not binding to them? I absolutely reject judges and lawyers opinions re: actual law, which is all they are. I don’t think we’re disagreeing too much but the notion that the states can do whatever they want, violating the Bill of Rights is false.

          • GoingConstitutional

            The Federal Government has supremacy over the State in certain circumstances. The powers delegated to Congress in Article1, Section 8 to be specific. Any laws, treaties or pacts that were not made in accordance are NULL and VOID. The States are bound by the Constitution BUT they are not bound by the Federal Government. If Congress passes a law in accordance with Article 1, Section 8, and the Bill of Rights, then it is Supreme over the State. Any law not made in accordance can be nullified by the State or the People. The power is divided, but the States LEGALLY retain the right to dissolve the Federal Government. They created the compact and retained their sovereignty.

          • Justsomeguy151

            Many states have passed their own legislation in anticipation of a federal gun grab, nullifying the feds ability to pass laws that expressly violate their sovereignty and the Constitution and I’m all for it. What about Hillary at the UN trying to sign that BS gun treaty where Americans would become criminals overnight simply for owning weapons? Is that binding? Some will try and argue that it is but its clearly draconian, clearly in violation of the 2nd Am. and it is NOT by the consent of the governed. This administration and Congress is chock full of traitors and I don’t think voting them out will work. We need a complete overhaul.

          • jagragg

            AND, it will NEVER be “ratified” by the Senate. They have ALREADY passed a resolution to NOT SUPPORT the UN’s “Small Arms Treaty.” The President CANNOT make any treaties ON HIS OWN, they HAVE TO BE “ratified” by a 3/4th majority in the Senate BEFORE they become “law.”

          • jagragg

            The states can ONLY “dissolve” the federal government by holding a constitutional convention, of 2/3rds of the states in the union.

          • P. Nym

            Both sides of my mouth? What are you talking about????

            * The Constitution lays out the very limited powers of the federal government, which is the creation of sovereign nations. The Constitution limits the federal government from violating the sovereignty of the states. The states, as sovereign nations, have their own constitutions. The restrictions placed upon the federal government in the Constitution do not apply to the states. Look at the first five words of the First Amendment as evidence. Yes, if the states want to restrict speech, the press, owning/bearing arms – as much as they may be an infringement of natural rights, and as much as they aren’t in violation of the state’s own constitution, they can do so. The Bill of Rights only applies to the federal government.

      • Bob Bennett

        Excuse me, but the delegates to the constitutional convention that came up with our bill of rights knew that rights are not granted by governments, We have certain inalienable rights from our birth on. As an American citizen I am distressed that you would think that any one of our states had the power to limit our rights as identified by the Constitution (not granted by, but protecetd by) the bill of rights. This young man was more than respectful to the police. It is too bad that these poorlyBob bennett trained officers weren’t respectful of him. The NC Highway Patrol set a good example for the nation. I am hopeful that more people like this young man help to root out this unprofessional behavior of a few police officers.

        Bob Bennett

        • jasonunos

          for the record the kid was lying about a lot of it. cnn.com has the entire video unedited on their website. apparently he edited out parts where he calling them pigs and other names and used very suggestive language that he had drugs in the car. the TN highway patrol has filed a defamation suit against him

          • Justsomeguy151

            Liar. Where’s the link?

        • P. Nym

          You’re excused. I guess you’re distressed with Thomas Jefferson, then. Look, you can be distressed all you want, but it is a fact: the union is a compact among fifty sovereign nations. That they have the sovereignty to pass laws restricting speech, press, etc., in no way makes it ok to do so. I am merely pointing out factual information to many who are confused about the nature of the Union as well as state sovereignty.

      • Tom B

        The US Constitution is the SUPREME Law of the land and no state Constitution can override it.

        • P. Nym

          You are 100% wrong. Read Article VI, pay close attention to “in pursuance thereof”, and learn about nullification.

          • jagragg

            Paragraph 2 of Article VI; “THIS CONSTITUTION, AND THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES WHICH SHALL BE MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND; and Judges IN EVERY STATE SHALL BE BOUND THEREBY, (here’s the important part for you P. Nym) ANY THING IN THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF ANY STATE TO THE CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING.” Which means, anything in any state constitution or laws of any such state, which does not comply with the US Constitution, is essentially NULL & VOID.

          • Tom B

            Ask any judge in America if a state constitution overrides the US Constitution.They would laugh at you.

          • P. Nym

            Why would I want to ask a judge? The very people who ignore the Constitution and create their own legal theories to justify their opinions? That itself is a laughable suggestion. Instead, why not look to the ratifying conventions and debates to see what the people understood the clauses of the Constitution and the limited powers of the government to mean?

            “James Madison urged that the true meaning of the Constitution was to be found in the state ratifying conventions, for it was there that the people, assembled in convention, were instructed with regard to what the new document meant. Jefferson spoke likewise: should you wish to know the meaning of the Constitution, consult the words of its friends.”

            libertyclassroom.com/objections/

          • CaptCorona

            please explain the legal Marijuana Laws and can I ask the opinions of Judges in those States about who has final Jurisdiction..since you did say,”ask ANY Judge.”

        • GoingConstitutional

          The US Constitution is the SUPREME law of the land, NEITHER the Fed of State can override it. BUUUUUTTTTT Laws that are not in accordance with the Constitution OR laws made through usurpations are null and void. The States do have the power of Nullification. The States are represented by Senators, the People by Representatives, Congress is composed of the two. Congress makes the laws, when the enumeration of powers is ignored by Congress or when laws are made through Executive Order by the POTUS the States reserve the right to nullify them. Keep in mind the Constitution is a LIMITATION on GOVERNMENT not on the PEOPLE.

          • CaptCorona

            The States are not represented by Senators..that changed w/ the 17th Amendment. Senators are now elected by “the people” not appointed by the States legislators as was the case before the 17th Amendment. .

      • GoingConstitutional

        The States are bound by Article VI. Keep in mind that the States are represented by the Senate and that Congress’s powers are limited to what is authorized in Article 1, Section 8, the enumerated powers clause. Laws created by usurpations are not authorized. The States have the power to nullify ANY Federal law that is not in accordance with Article 1, Section 8. Neither the State or the Federal Government are the supreme authority, the Constitution is and they must adhere to it. The power is divided between the Federal, the State and the People.

        Article, VI.
        This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

        • P. Nym

          Once again, nowhere in the Constitution are the states bound by the Bill of Rights. The states did not cede their sovereignty in this regard. The BoR only limits the federal government.

          Article VI only states that laws made in pursuance of the Constitution are the law of the land. Unconstitutional law as determined by the people, not SCOTUS, is not. The federal government has no authority to restrict speech, keeping and bearing arms, etc., and has no authority to say that states can’t, either.

    • jasonunos

      in fairness you can’t hear officer ross say constitutional rights don’t matter you are taking the kids word for it and watching the entire video there are several things that throw up red flags as to the validity of everything said. I am not saying he wasn’t violated I am simply saying I wouldn’t take everything 100% the kid says as fact. One example: at approximately the one minute mark the screen goes dark and the words appear that say the officer used intimidation to get him to pull over. My question: If this video is to display a police officer doing wrong then why edit out the intimidation. It seems pretty important. I would imagine the reason is because during the time this was happening the kid said or did something furthur to antagonize the police. I could be completely wrong but the question should be asked. there are a few other areas that raise questions in my mind but we’ll save that for a later date

  • karen2009

    Please post what happened with this…I would be interested to know.

  • Dee

    After watching this video, I cannot side with the kid. If he had been a bit more respectful and answered the questions, such as how old are you, then he wouldn’t have been detained. It is a pertinent question, because if he is 15 then he isn’t driving legally, etc. When you are pulled over, you do have to answer questions. You can’t refuse to talk to the police. There are certain questions that police have a right to ask you. They are doing their job, and this kid was being a punk. I think he did it on purpose knowing full well that they would take it to the next level.

    • -Tom-

      The only problem is that he wasnt pulled over. He was forced to stop by a road block. It is not as though they witnessed him commit a moving violation or suspected him of committing a crime and then pulled him over. No this was a net search….throw a net out there and hope you catch something. Something which HAS been declared unconstitutional. IF theyre doing road blocks like this they need to have a well documented plan as to who they question, who they search and why (like every 4th car) not a “random” search.

      If youre so okay with “random” searches lets just go ahead and randomly search your house. We dont really suspect you of committing a crime seeing you through your window but you COULD be hiding something…like that receipt for stuff you purchased off Amazon.com last year that you didnt claim on your taxes? Well, now we just got you for felony tax evasion.

      • jasonunos

        good point but how do you know that wsn’t the case. maybe he was the fourth car (using your example) and as far as well documented the DUI checkpoint was publicized (yes i looked it up) I would be willing to guess the kid knew this and that is why he was recording. My biggest problem is that he started with the window. this video would lend much more creedence if he had rolled the window down and then if the officer asked for I.D. or his age etc. then throw up a roadblock. but at a DUI checkpoint someone refusing to roll down their window is a red flag that they are trying to hide their breathe. what ensued afterwards I agree the police went too far in some areas but the kid started things by throwing up a Giant red flag.

        • Tybay

          If you’ve been drinking the size of the gap in the window makes little difference to a trained officer.

          • Heis

            if your driving in america and theres a roadblock you dont have to answer a damn thing or roll down your window all the way, bottomline, your not suspected of a crime and not being detained, the cop knew this, why do you think he didnt answer him any of the times the kid asked? why are you people who are saying the kid is disrespectful nitpicking the cop for not answer if he was being deatined about 32423432 times? I think thats more important than “how old are you?”……

    • http://www.facebook.com William Bailey

      It is unconstitutional to pull people over randomly or for any kind of check point in my opinion. We are being conditioned to accept martiaL law! This is their plan! If the Constitution does not apply on a raNDOM road on the 4th of July it doesn’t apply anywhere.

    • “No respect”

      I hope you are not saying that I too have to be “respectful” because I am not going to pretend that “respect” is required. I recall that in SERE training I was rewarded for paying respects, and punished when I did not. But that was when I stripped naked, sprayed with water, and handcuffed by those playing the role of the captors. I don’t pay respects for anyone in my own country.

    • Joseph Slabaugh

      So, its a DUI checkpoint, and you are talking about 15 year olds? Nope, you fail. A 15 year old COULD have a valid license too. And no, he did not look that young. And yes, you can refuse to talk to the police, at any point, it does not make you guilty.

      • Jeffrey Lamb

        Yes Joseph, it’s called the 5th Amendment !

        • Joseph Slabaugh

          No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    • Jeffrey Lamb

      You need to re-read the Constitution Dee. Your wrong on many points.

    • Hal

      This was DUI check point gray area man . Either the man was drinking or he wasn’t period ?

      If that’s not the case, then call it by what it IS and uphold your oath at least !

    • Wehms2

      I can see both sides……the cop WAS being abusive and the guy was intentionally pushing the cops buttons………..sadly, I’ve had waaayy too many negative experiences with cops dating back to when I was about 12 years old and my bike was stolen by a kid that had actually STABBED ME at school a few months before!!! The cop told me if I knew the guy that took it, I should just go over to his house and get it back…..(I may not be the brightest bulb in the lamp….but I am smart enough to NOT walk into the lions den!!!)

      Actually, it was a few years before that, my brother was thrown down a flight of stairs by a drunk that refused to pay my brother for the newspapers he’d delivered the previous month…..the Police suggested that my mother go over and talk to the drunk/guy!!! (What the Hell is HE paid for?)

      The first time I was pulled over for speeding…age 16, doing 58 in a 55 Zone on the Interstate…..with my mom in the car….the State Trooper had me sit in his car while he searched mine…..HE had been smoking hash (yes, I was “experienced” enough to recognize the aroma over regular weed) and he didn’t even bother to remove the pipe from his ashtray!!!

      At age 19, I was arrested in Corpus Christi, Texas for “Public Intoxication” when I was DRIVING…….(I had not had even one drink in the previous few DAYS) te cop told me for a DUI they are “required” to do a breath test…..but NOT for just a Public Intox……of course, the “real” reason I was arrested was having long hair……early 70′s, ya know?

      But the really bad things that happened was due (thanks?) to my Ex who slept with a Sheriff and an Investigator (these she bragged to me about) and I think….a DA in her efforts to have me locked up for false allegations…….sadly, I found out the epitome of hypocrisy in the “Justice System” when I found out I had to “cop a plea” as the Judge was LITERALLY in bed with the DA…….just Google Judge Verla Sue Holland and the DA was Tom O’Connell….talk about “Too Close for Comfort”

      Even despie what she did…..she was standing before that Couurt a couple of years later and I was set to “testify” BUT, when the Prosecutor heard that I was going to say there wass NO POSSIBLE WAY that she could have been drunk (it was a DUI thing) he told me my testimony would not be required…….I think that’s called “suppression of evidence(?)” and I believe that’s even ILLEGAL(?)…..sadly, her “new guy” doesn’t allow her any contact with me so he wouldn’t even let me help her to try and reverse that……”railroading”

      More recently, my house was broken into and the burglar left a beautiful fingerprint that a third grader could’ve lifted with a piece of Scotch Tape………I guess the cop had an appointment at the Dunkin Donuts because he managed to (intentionally?) “destroy the evidence!!!”

      Been meaning to write a book…….I’m thinking the Title could be: “My Life Was Ruined by Andy Griffith” Growing up with Opie……I came to think that the Police are all, or at least mostly “good guys” and that the World generally makes some sort of sense with a prevalence towards fairness & morality…….and I do know that life is not always fair…..BUT, for the modst psart it should be…….I think the “Play” is called “Ann” about Ann Richards…..former Governor of Texas……where she’s quoted as saying: “Life’s not fair…..but Government MUST BE!!!” Well….I guess we can see how well they’re doing with THAT……right NOW……..”fairness” should not include even the possibility of defaulting on our debt………….

      Peace

  • Cole

    Dee, you’re an idiot. The young man was respectful, and the cops were WAY out of line. You can refuse to speak to the police…and the police were not doing their job, they were acting like Nazi Gestapo.

  • rogerfgay

    Have to agree with Cole, Dee. What you’re saying is that everybody should be “respectful” enough to automatically waive all their Constitutional rights. That’s not the right balance of respect.

  • Shore Bud Mike

    I thought it VERY interesting that at 5:18 into the video, a second officer standing outside the car said to the officer searching the car, “It wasn’t a very good alert.” Meaning, he had doubts as to the validity of the search.

    • Wehms2

      That same guy also alerted the searcher to the camera….which was then covered up!

  • Tom B

    America would never had become a nation with the people on this thread.They would still be loyal to the crown in England.

  • Dan

    Use the Check Point Wingman app while driving and the Tor Project browser while using the internet and soon these unconstitutional attacks on our civil liberties will rendered useless.

    • Jeffrey Lamb

      Can’t get it to download on my I phone. Sends me to another app.

  • Tom B

    The courts have made it very clear who was correct in this assault on liberty.This LEO will be sued and may face civil charges and may be removed for his conduct as a LEO.The case is moving forward.

    • DukeNukem

      you are WRONG. The case is NOT “moving forward”. The Sheriff already cleared this guy butthole.

  • kevin777

    A video on the effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of checkpoints would be interesting.

  • patriot007

    This takes the random stop even further and exposes not only the violation of our rights but outright theft everyone has been indoctrinated into believing I would like to see a full disclosure segment on this “What The Government Doesn’t Want You To Know About Your Drivers License”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9kVCQ0y5Ec

  • Charles Forry

    Revenuers not police officers. Police officers don’t do this. Revenuers do this and should be FINED for doing so at minimum and FIRED for breaking the laws they manipulate to their end.

  • Jim Mulder

    The patriot act must be recinder. It violates our constitutional rights under the guise of protecting us from terrorists. Our government is trying to eleminate the constitution and the cops are to stupid to see this.

  • whatsups

    Hey, the local tv did a report on the police officer AJ who was going to be fired but resigned a few years back. Also, he had an accident with his personal vehicle and didn’t have insurance. Way to go Chris, you are what this country needs in taking back our lives, liberties, and property. Everyone keep at it and push every way you can. We will win this fight against our terrorist, tyrannical government!

  • Anne Rockwell

    I think those who don’t see a problem with the way the police acted
    don’t understand the kind of life Americans should be able to secure for
    themselves, which is going along your way without having to prove your
    innocence at random. Also, the time for trusting the police is over. More than enough innocent people have been victimized by corruption that the
    profession has rightly lost its credibility. Informal, voluntary compliance is no longer a gesture of good faith but an opening for victimization. These days, you never know if you’re gonna get the good cop or the perjuring psychopath out for money and power. Please be careful. Always have a dash cam, and
    document everything.

  • Serrah

    Why dos the video now say, “This video is private” and not play?

    • Serrah

      * does

  • SomeonewhoKNOWS

    What is NOT mentioned here is that THP highway patrol filmed the whole thing.

    What is NOT being mentioned is that they DID find Marijuana “shake” in his door panel and marijuana seeds in the car.

    What is NOT being mentioned is that the THP shows 4 FULL ACTIVE HITS by the Dog. Rutherford County uses Passive dogs. What the Boy in the video shows is NOT the “hit” that he claims it is. The HIT is NOT shown on video because the dog sits and STARES when the hit is active.

    What is NOT mentioned is that this guy won’t show the REST of the video where they find the shake in the vehicle.

    Always take these things as a grain of salt UNTIL you KNOW ALL the facts.

    I have NO DOUBT that there are cops that abuse their power. This is NOT one of them.

    The deputy could have done better by not being such a redneck and speaking in tones that were lower and conversational but as far as I can tell, he did NOTHING procedurally wrong!!!!!!!

    • Lester Burnham

      I don’t understand the point of your post, “someonewhoKNOWS”. Did he commit a crime or not? ‘Shake’? Was the video edited to wrongfully depict the behavior of the cops? The dog? Where is the THP video showing how we don’t, “…KNOW ALL the facts”. Your tone suggests a radically different video is held by THP. Why haven’t they released it? You’ve seen it, obviously, why can’t we? I don’t get it. ‘TRUST ME’ (even in all caps), isn’t enough.

    • TNresident

      I saw the THP cam video too & the dog never sat and stared at the vehicle at any time. You’re lying. Neither did it show “where they find the shake in the vehicle”. It shows AJ walking up to Kalbaugh afterwards, w/ other officers standing with him, and making the CLAIM that he’d found something…but he never showed it. AJ is a known liar…proof found where he lied to an officer about having auto insurance after he’d hit a pick-up truck from behind, a few yrs earlier. And now you lie for him too, to cover-up his lies.
      What a crock!!!

    • Adam Christopher Wolfe

      Youre dumb stop tying to stand up for cops who lie! Never once in this video did a cop find “shake or seeds”

  • TraitorsViolateCivilRights!

    Don’t talk to the Police.Know your rights!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

  • TNresident

    It was infuriating to me, when the Sheriff of Rutherford co. issued a statement 6 days later, claiming pot seeds & shake were found in the car. So what happened to the alleged seeds? Did the Deputy pocket them? Cops always lie to cover their illegal tracks, it seems.

    • Adam Christopher Wolfe

      Amen cops lie 24.7 just to try and get someone in trouble

  • Adam Christopher Wolfe

    This no joke is like exactly what happend to me and my friend,”both of us 16″ we were pulled over for only a tail light. and they cop seen my friends eyes were “bloodshot” and started sceaming , at the time we were both tired “it was 10:30 pm and asked if he could search he said he doesnt consent to search so they call they dog , and we had to wait he didnt say we were detained or anything, this cop abused his job badly, Also John Harvy is the cops named . this happend in Hamblen County, TN maybe a month ago

    • Blueman

      Adam, you should file a complaint with the police department, and pay more attention in your English classes.