The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights > Legal and Political

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old July 11, 2001, 09:18 PM   #1
USP45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 22, 2000
Location: Peoples Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Posts: 1,562
Cop Repellant

The title of this article is alittle absurd.



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,29314,00.html

Verbal Repellants Irk Cops in DUI Pullovers

Wednesday, July 11, 2001
By Jeff Goldblatt

Chicago — Police officers pulling over suspected drunk drivers have a new enemy on the road these days.


It's a wallet-sized booklet that with a push of a button makes a 10-second announcement that acts as a kind of verbal cop repellant.

"Please understand that I will only exit the vehicle for your safety or if under arrest," the recorded voice says. "Please read the enclosed for additional information."

It is called Ramsell's Roadside Rights, named after DUI defense attorney Don Ramsell, who himself has been twice arrested on charges of driving under the influence of alcohol — and twice acquitted.

The device is supposed to keep police away from your window so they can't look in your eyes or smell your breath. Drivers also hand police a card indicating they refuse to take a Breathalyzer or answer any questions without a lawyer present.

"It really levels the playing field so that people aren’t pushed around on the side of the road as often as they otherwise might," Ramsell said.

But Betsy Carlson, who was hit head-on by a drunk driver and has had 31 surgeries, thinks more drunken people will drive because of this kit.

"I think the only people that are going to buy them are repeat offenders," she said. "The officers are going to know."

Ramsell said he knows of only one court case involving a driver who used his kit, in Illinois five months ago. The driver got off, but the prosecutor said it had nothing to do with the acquittal. Instead, he said, the jury found contradictions in the police report.

And many prosecutors say the Roadside Rights kit would never hold up in court successfully anyway, and doesn't guarantee protection from the law. Some also say it’s outright wrong.

"It is an outright lie to tell people that they have a right to refuse an order of a police officer during a traffic stop to get out of his vehicle," DuPage County State’s Attorney Joe Birkett said. "That is false."

Ramsell stands behind his device.

"This is simply to let people know what their rights are," he said. "It will not benefit the drunk driver."

But the kit does benefit Don Ramsell. He's charging nearly $100 a pop for one – attorney fees not included.
__________________
~USP

"[Even if there would be] few tears shed if and when the Second Amendment is held to guarantee nothing more than the state National Guard, this would simply show that the Founders were right when they feared that some future generation might wish to abandon liberties that they considered essential, and so sought to protect those liberties in a Bill of Rights. We may tolerate the abridgement of property rights and the elimination of a right to bear arms; but we should not pretend that these are not reductions of rights." -- Justice Scalia 1998

Last edited by USP45; July 11, 2001 at 11:13 PM.
USP45 is offline  
Old July 11, 2001, 10:49 PM   #2
Hellfire.45
Member
 
Join Date: July 4, 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 20
How stupid, If you havn't been drinking, why pretend like you have something to hide? Open the window and politely answer the officer's questions. He will know you havn't been drinking and send you on your way. this seems to be just another tool to help criminals think they are victims. Can anyone say "obstruction of justice?"
Hellfire.45 is offline  
Old July 11, 2001, 11:33 PM   #3
PreserveFreedom
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Furthermore, many states make you agree that by signing your license, you will submit to any DUI test requested by a state official. I know for sure that that is the case in both New Mexico and Indiana. I am sure there are many inbetween that are the same. Also, if you swerve, get stopped, and use this, I am sure you will get a ticket for improper lane usage. Last I heard, a citation was a form of arrest. I am all for people having their rights and being free of abuse, but I wouldn't spend my money on such a device. Fortunately, people do have the freedom to use such a device.
 
Old July 11, 2001, 11:54 PM   #4
deanf
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 5, 1999
Location: N47º 12’ x W122º 10'
Posts: 1,599
I like it. Police shouldn't be harassing people for committing victimless crimes, which DUI is, until someone gets hurt. Once someone is hurt, the state should harass all they want.

If I was drunk, and driving, and was pulled over, would you expect me to do everything in my power to make the state's investigation more convienient, thus endangering my future freedom? I would hope not. I think this kit just serves to make people more aware of their rights, and may help make the state's investigation a little less convienient, which I support. It should be hard for the state to convict people of crimes, no matter what the crime is. I think that's the way the founders intended it.
__________________
I'm a constitutional fetishist.
Airplane Pictures
deanf is offline  
Old July 12, 2001, 12:55 AM   #5
bruels
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 1998
Location: Hayden, ID, USA
Posts: 1,102
deanf wrote: "I like it. Police shouldn't be harassing people for committing victimless crimes, which DUI is, until someone gets hurt. Once someone is hurt, the state should harass all they want."

If you were willing to drive down the highway with a lighted sign on your car saying, "Drunk Driver," I would agree with you. That would give all other unsuspecting sober drivers a fair chance at avoiding you.

I never asked drivers to get out of their cars unless I already had a good suspicion they were driving under the influence. I didn't have to get up close to smell the breath. It usually flowed out the window into my face. Also, a driver's slurred speech while answering my questions was another indication of DUI. It doesn't take much booze to interfere with speech, a fine motor skill. And finally, a goodly number of DUI drivers I stopped couldn't find their drivers license in their wallet even when it was the first thing they looked at.

A traffic stop in California is a detention. If I developed reasonable suspicion a driver had been drinking, I was empowered to have the driver leave his vehicle and be subjected to field sobriety tests to determine the degree of intoxication. During a detention, the detained person is not free to leave and the officer can within reason move the detained person to a place where further investigation can be safely conducted and controlled. A detained person who does not cooperate can be handcuffed.

If a driver refuses to perform the field sobriety tests, the officer can also surmise from that the driver is DUI. Based on all of his observations, the officer may arrest the driver for DUI if he reasonably suspects the has been driving while intoxicated.

After the driver is arrested, the officer may search his vehicle for further evidence of drinking while driving, such as opened alcoholic beverage containers.

In California, if you drive, you have already agreed to submit to chemical testing of your blood if arrested for DUI. You are not entitled to have an attorney present during chemical testing. If you refuse to submit to chemical testing, the jury will be instructed they can use that refusal as evidence of DUI.

Finally, the courts in California have ruled that if the arrested driver was involved in traffic accident where other persons were injured or killed, an officer can forcibly have blood drawn by medical personnel in a medically approved manner to prevent evidence from being destroyed.

I think if a driver is going to pay $100 for this little card, he or she is a dedicated DUI driver and the advice will do little to help him or her. It's $100 wasted.
__________________
Bruce Stanton
CDR, USN/1310-Ret.
Sgt., Kings Co. Sheriff - Ret.
bruels is offline  
Old July 12, 2001, 01:27 AM   #6
LawDog
Staff Emeritus
 
Join Date: September 15, 1999
Location: Where am I going? Why am I in this handbasket?
Posts: 4,194
Quote:
"Please understand that I will only exit the vehicle for your safety or if under arrest,"
Fine. You're under arrest for Failure to Maintain a Single Lane of Traffic/Fail to Dim Headlights/Fail To Yield Right-of-Way/Unsafe Speed-Less than Posted Limit/Littering/anything else I can find -- get out of the car.

LawDog
__________________
"The Father wove the skein of your life a long time ago. Go and hide in a hole if you wish, but you won't live one instant longer."
--The 13th Warrior

Bona na Croin

The LawDog Files
LawDog is offline  
Old July 12, 2001, 02:18 AM   #7
PreserveFreedom
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
As much as I hate to argue here, driving under the influence is not victimless. Would you expect to not be hassled for firing your pistol in the air in a crowded school's playground? There are no victims unless the bullets fall on someone. I believe either can be classified as reckless endangerment. When someone gets killed, it becomes reckless homocide and nothing in the world can bring the victim back.
 
Old July 12, 2001, 02:41 AM   #8
deanf
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 5, 1999
Location: N47º 12’ x W122º 10'
Posts: 1,599
Quote:
Would you expect to not be hassled for firing your pistol in the air in a crowded school's playground?
I would expect to be hassled. Would the hassling be appropriate? In my opinion? No.

He, I've got some pretty extreme (some would say bizzare) views when it comes to victimless crimes. I tend to see things black and white - no gray.

And I can live with the criticism that comes my way because of my views.
deanf is offline  
Old July 12, 2001, 03:00 AM   #9
PreserveFreedom
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
I can live with the criticism that comes my way because of my views.
Good, because I post to debate at times, not to offend.

There is one thing that bothers me about "victimless crimes". Did you know that auto theft is considered victimless because insurance companies (supposedly) pay for replacement of the vehicle? Who pays the deductible? What if I can't afford theft insurance? Would we even need theft insurance if auto thieves were jailed a decent amount of time?
 
Old July 12, 2001, 03:17 AM   #10
deanf
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 5, 1999
Location: N47º 12’ x W122º 10'
Posts: 1,599
Quote:
Did you know that auto theft is considered victimless because insurance companies (supposedly) pay for replacement of the vehicle?
Who told you that? You saw that on TV, didn't you?

You make some good arguments why auto theft should not be considered a victimless crime. Would the courts agree that auto theft is a crime with no victim because the victim has a contract with some private party for reimbursement for damages sustained because of the theft? I don't think so. One has no bearing on the other, and what relevance would the presence of an insurance policy have during a criminal trial for auto theft? None, I would think. Not it my court, anyway.

And furthermore, people are rarely charged with "auto theft." They are more often charged with "possession of stolen property." They are charged with PSP because, unless they're dumb enough to make a confession, there's no evidence that they stole the car they were caught in. So, technically, the crime of "auto theft" is rarely solved.

(God, I went way overboard explaining this.)
deanf is offline  
Old July 12, 2001, 03:23 AM   #11
PreserveFreedom
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
hehehe...I am glad you did. And yes, I saw that on TV, but I was at a young and impressionable age so it stuck. I just know that the thought of a court taking a person's loss lightly hit home real hard.
 
Old July 12, 2001, 04:26 AM   #12
Alaska Roy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 29, 1999
Posts: 281
Lawdog, Under arrest for Littering?

Welcome to the new police state! Perhaps you could have worded your post slightly differently to include your suspicion of a drunk?
DUI is a tough call, different folks handle their booze different ways. Some better than others ya know Lawdog? Most cities have a favored LEO bar, but then again we're not equals with LEOs are we? Hmmmm, what to do about a DUI LEO? Anyone here dumb enuff to call the cops on a carload of drunk cops leaving their favorite watering hole or the local nudie bar? Thought not, Roy
Alaska Roy is offline  
Old July 12, 2001, 05:49 AM   #13
Hal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 8,563
:barf:
This thing is just plain idiotic! I'm sorry, but If I were stupid enough to drop $100 bucks on this thing, to a twice convicted drunk driving LAWYER no less, I would't feel one iota bad about a cop imposing felony stupid on me with EXTREME prejudice if I stuck this contraption out of the window.

Sheesh! and we wonder why cops don't trust US!?!

For chisssake whadda we got now DUI Ninja?!?! Or Secret Agent drunk?!
Hal is offline  
Old July 12, 2001, 06:01 AM   #14
Hal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 8,563
I dunno, Maybe these things might not be so bad after all since the people that would buy them are the people that should buy them. I imagine I'm a cop. I see some drunk weaving on the road. I pull him over. Out pops his drunken hand with this this giving it's speech. being as drunk as he is, he drops it on the ground, opens the door and starts to crawl around looking for it. All the while, this thing keeps playing "I'm not getting out of the car, yada yada yada." Sounds like a laugh a min to me.
Hal is offline  
Old July 12, 2001, 06:44 AM   #15
DAVID NANCARROW
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 5, 2000
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 1,761
Gotta have one! Gonna put it right next to the whistle device on my grille which keeps the deer away!!! I have a big problem with the state demanding I give up my rights the moment I sign a drivers license or anything else for that matter. Depending upon the situation, such as an abusive LEO (thank GOD there's less of them on the road than drunks!), I will call my attorney and take my chances, but me thinks I'm not going to pass instant lawyer cards out of the window just to further inflame the situation. I don't drink, but thats beside the point.
DAVID NANCARROW is offline  
Old July 12, 2001, 07:24 AM   #16
Don Gwinn
Staff Emeritus
 
Join Date: March 9, 2000
Location: Virden, IL
Posts: 5,917
Sigh.

There is no "right" to drive while drunk. It is not a victimless crime, nor is firing a pistol into the air on a playground a victimless crime. You have the right to drink alcohol, and you have the right to drive (though whether you have a "right" to drive on public roadways is a point up for debate) but you do NOT have a right to combine the two and endanger others. Finally, you do NOT have the right not to get out of your car when you've been stopped because an officer has reasonable suspicion of DUI, at least not in Illinois, and that's proper. What's next? A "right" not to leave your house after shooting your wife?

Someone, please, explain to me how a right to drive on public roads while drunk can be derived. Where did that come from? And how exactly does an activity that carries a high statistical chance of killing innocent people get a label like "victimless?" That would seem to be the exact opposite to me.

OTOH, if there's a really good thing about this thread it's the way you have all maintained the high road. Cease fire. Pat yourselves on the back. Draw and continue.
Don Gwinn is offline  
Old July 12, 2001, 07:48 AM   #17
Coronach
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 25, 1999
Posts: 3,147
Well, ignoring the idea that DWI/DUI is a victimless crime...

"I will not exit the vehicle unless under arrest or for your safety."

Pennsylvania v Mimms

Maryland v Wilson

On implied consent:

You waive no rights when you sign the implied consent form. You don't have to do anything if you don't want to when you get pulled over. Just be advised that the state bureau of motor vehicles will yank your license for a period of time- this is NOT a criminal procedure. Your liberty is not in jeopardy, just your priv to operate a motor vehicle in that state.

Mike
__________________
The axe bites into the door, ripping a hole in one panel. The maniac puts his face into the hole, cackling gleefully, "Here's Johnny...erk."
"And here's Smith and Wesson," murmurs Coronach, Mozambiquing six rounds of .357 into the critter at a range of three feet. -Lawdog

"True pacifism is the finest form of manliness. But if a man comes up to you and cuts your hand off, you don't just offer him the other one. Not if you want to go on playing the piano, you don't." -Sam Peckinpah

"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." -Robert Heinlein
Coronach is offline  
Old July 12, 2001, 09:26 AM   #18
WYO
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 21, 2001
Posts: 365
I have no problem with people asserting their rights. If paying $100 for a gadget makes them feel better, fine. The problem arises if their understanding, or the gadget's understanding, of those rights is incorrect. When someone stands pat on rights they do not have, they exacerbate their problem. As noted by Coronach, there are situations under which the police may order people from their vehicles. Also, if a person will not identify themselves to the police who stop them for a traffic violation (most DUI stops involve a predicate traffic violation), the police have no way of being assured that the violator will go to court to answer for the citation, resulting in a custodial arrest rather than a citation for the predicate violation. (Hence LawDog's arrest for failure to maintain lane.)

Also bear in mind that, while failure to participate in a DUI investigation may help in defending the DUI (but not the license revocation), stonewalling is more likely to result in a custodial arrest, which is stupid if the person would have been cleared because s/he is not drunk.

Also remember that the police officer has to think of DUI in terms of their own conscience and what could happen if the behavior is allowed to continue unabated. While I can understand the argument that there is no harm, no foul in an intoxicated driver who causes no personal injury or property damage, at the moment of the stop the officer has to be concerned with what will happen in the future if the driver is permitted to continue.
WYO is offline  
Old July 12, 2001, 10:03 AM   #19
USP45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 22, 2000
Location: Peoples Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Posts: 1,562
I have to say, using such a device would not be what i would consider polite. LEOs shouldn't be harasing people, but even if you've had a 'couple' you can still talk to the LEO if pulled over.

If these little items became wide spread, we'll think our "Us vs. Them" problems in the past didn't exist.

~USP

(edited because i didn't really want it to sound like it did)

Last edited by USP45; July 12, 2001 at 10:43 AM.
USP45 is offline  
Old July 12, 2001, 10:10 AM   #20
buzz_knox
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 1999
Location: Knoxville, in the Free State of Tennesse
Posts: 4,190
I thought cop repellent was an empty doughnut box.
buzz_knox is offline  
Old July 12, 2001, 10:40 AM   #21
griz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 31, 2000
Location: Middle Peninsula, VA
Posts: 1,588
Deanf, Just out of curiosity, if somebody approached you and said "I’m gonna kill you" and started shooting at you, would the crime be victimless as long as he missed? I realize he announced his intentions, but maybe he was joking about that part and we should not jump to conclusions. I am not trying to give you a hard time. Although I disagree about the victimless aspect of DUI I admire your consistency and am just trying to understand your position.
griz is offline  
Old July 12, 2001, 10:48 AM   #22
Jhp147
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 27, 1999
Location: Texas
Posts: 597
Did I miss something?

Cheaper than a lawyer's advice, and guaranteed to work:
DO NOT drink then drive. Hire a cab. Have a designated driver if you are the designated drunk. Thanks to Don the Moderator for keeping this in line, my guts were 'bout boiling. If anyone thinks that the little card will convince a cop to just drive off and leave you alone when handed to them, abandoning the investigation, I will sell you one that works JUST AS WELL, and for only 25 bucks! I will then donate the 25 to the pro2A group you designate.
You will be leaving your car at the point you hand out the card, I promise. How you leave is indeed your right to decide.
__________________
Sometimes...days are just something you get through.
Jhp147 is offline  
Old July 12, 2001, 12:13 PM   #23
LawDog
Staff Emeritus
 
Join Date: September 15, 1999
Location: Where am I going? Why am I in this handbasket?
Posts: 4,194
Quote:
Lawdog, Under arrest for Littering?
Welcome to the new police state! Perhaps you could have worded your post slightly differently to include your suspicion of a drunk?
Of course you are under arrest for littering. What do you think a ticket is?

I'm pretty sure that you and I have gone over this territory before, but I'll post the facts one more time:
  • A ticket is an arrest.
  • The ticket is the complaint in your criminal case.
  • When you sign the ticket, you are signing a bond/making bail.

So, yes, when I ticket you for littering, you are
Quote:
Under arrest for Littering?
Why should I "word my post differently to include my suspicion of a drunk" when my post clearly indicates Reasonable Suspicion for Driving While Intoxicated?

This is one of the reasons why I suggest that everyone take some type of Criminal Justice classes, whether Police Academy, Citizens Police Academy or college courses -- way too many people rely on Urban Myths or SWAGs* when it comes to the facts of the law.

LawDog
*Scientific Wild-***ed Guesses
__________________
"The Father wove the skein of your life a long time ago. Go and hide in a hole if you wish, but you won't live one instant longer."
--The 13th Warrior

Bona na Croin

The LawDog Files
LawDog is offline  
Old July 12, 2001, 12:48 PM   #24
jimpeel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: Longmont, CO, USA
Posts: 4,530
There are four tenets for suspicion of drunkenness: slurred speech, redness of the eyes, odor on the breath, and gaited walk. If you refuse to speak, pop 10 tic-tacs, wear dark glasses, and refuse to exit the car, the PC is moot. They usually try to get you out of the car with a ruse such as "I'd like to test the brake pedal" at which time you simply slide over into the passenger seat.

My thoughts? No. The thoughts of a reserve Orange County Sherrif's Deputy in CA I talked to a few years ago.
__________________
Gun Control: The premise that a woman found in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to allowing that same woman to defend her life with a firearm.

"Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare

"Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed"
-- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey
jimpeel is offline  
Old July 12, 2001, 12:52 PM   #25
Rich Lucibella
Staff
 
Join Date: October 6, 1998
Location: South Florida
Posts: 10,229
Drunk drivers shouldn't be on the road. Neither should persons taking certain prescription medications, dangerous felons carrying firearms, persons transporting illegal drugs for sale, serial killers with bodies in the trunk, or kidnappers.

So how 'bout we end it all right here:
Pass a law allowing the cops to stop anyone at any time for a sobriety test, blood work, body search, vehicle search and positive identification of all passengers.

The Constitution is not about providing you complete safety from my actions...it's about providing me some safety from the government.
Rich Lucibella

"Since when is 'public safety' the root password to the Constitution?"
C. D. Tavares
__________________
S.W.A.T. Magazine
Weapons, Training and Tactics for the Real World
Join us at TFL or at AR15.com or on Facebook
Rich Lucibella is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.10964 seconds with 7 queries