@@amishparadise1924 then his license get suspended for 6 months in addition to any other charges and penalties you get for being drunk.

Why not just say “no” to the drinking question? That’s not illegal

@@DustyLambert how about not drinking and driving?

In the words of the lawyer named Fletcher.... STOP BREAKING THE LAW ASSHOLE!!!! 🤨

+Blue Drums hahahah! It just might work! XD

I laughed so hard...my stomach hurts...😂

Just looking at a cop car is reason to be shot nowadays, I'd be careful trying that one.

😂😂😂

Legend Says that that that that he ran away

this is what america has come to. we have given up so many of our rights........because politicians believe we need to be protected from everything and everybody!!!!!

We keep having these checkpoints because Mother's Against Drunk Driving (MADD) has been lobbying for this right violating and totally ineffective method of catching drunk drivers. Over 99% of all drunk drivers caught are from traffic stops. A slight increase in traffic stops during peak drunk driving hours will catch more drunk drivers than any checkpoints will and yet MADD want more checkpoints. Checkpoints are a waste of resources and the ones in the know know that.

well if ya ant ben drinking rool down the window and say can i help you officer cop asks have you ben drinking and if you havent ben drinking you say no cop will know if you have because its easy to spot and you are on your way

Well first of all, good for you for NOT drinking just prior to getting stopped at checkpoint. Thing to do would be to calmly and simply answer the cops question with a "NO" answer,,, and presumably he won't waste anymore of your time and well let you go on your way.

It "COULD" Be This Hyped Up Imagined Thing With Their Weight Upon It..Encountering Having To Go Under Something That We Sure Can't Trust and/or "Believe" (That) 'Could Result In Any Safe Encounter With!..follow the constitutional overthrow plans..the 4th..the 6th! 'we got a call..suspicion..SAFE Within Our Homes..WHO said what and to face an accuser in Court! TRACE (Nuremburg) Laws! Seizing Our Children and Placing Us Under Arrest? It "IS" This Hyped Up Inflated Thing With Much The Unlawful Weight Upon it! Rock n Roll.

You can thank these "Mothers against drunk drivers" !! Stop women's sufferage, ! Stop women's sufferage, ! Stop women's sufferage, ! Stop women's sufferage, ! Stop women's sufferage, ! Stop women's sufferage, ! Stop women's sufferage,.

+Thomas Horne That's some really stupid advice and a way to cost yourself a lot of money for nothing.

@@scoremxcom if i had to sacrifice my life to repeal the right for women to vote i would gladly do it.

+R Kurtz LOL , Answer the cop by saying " My layer has advised me to be taken down to the station to have my blood drawn " But If you haven't been drinking then ask the probable cause for the stop, and (am I under arrest ?)Am I free to go repeatedly . if you're drunk do the blow the bretalizer , then challenge it latter, just depends if you drank that evening as to your course of action.

+rod sims 8 y 2

+R Kurtz He's not an attorney. No lawyer would post advice on KZfaq without somehow gaining some financial recourse. I think it's a sobered-up Foster Brooks..."urrrrrrrp!"

+R Kurtz Boy you arent kidding. This guy's adviceis horrible and will get you convicted

Yeah, but if your drunk your drunk...

Public safety is paramount in some states vs intrusion. Ask the innocent victims injured or killed by a DUI driver. Ask the victims what their Constitutional rights were.? So please, don't tell me about your constitutional rights when victims are being maimed or killed.. Rights are one thing. But when behind the wheel. Your responsibility is another.part of Driving.

@@jeffreydonaldson7003 Should cop be able to search homes for weapons because of "public safety" then?

@@jeffreydonaldson7003 Sorry dude, but '' victims '' of drunk drivers do not change the constitution. I don't in any way automatically give up my rights when I drive unless I and only I have violated the law.

@@jeffreydonaldson7003 people who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. and the one size fits all "blood alcohol content" is a ridiculous joke. i was arrested for dui and lost my license years ago because i had "glassy eyes" after having been up for a very long time with little sleep. i hadn't been drinking. and because of the young punk cop drunk with power and my financial state at the time, i was railroaded. and because i had just gotten out of the military, i was driving on a license from my home state. so once the state that i was in got done with me, my home state suspended my license for another year. so i lost my "privilege" to drive for 2 years (2 different years) all because i was sleepy when a punk cop pulled me over for a headlight being out.

@@jeffreydonaldson7003 so cops should show up at your house at random and you should let them search for drugs...guns...run your license in case you been speeding or running stop signs. Because who needs rights?

+CHIXTERS' CHANNEL True Most of the time like at New years it will be advertised most of the time on the news. Be safe, Call some friends have a couple kegs and have a party at someone's house. Then puke your guts out on your friends couch. They will be out during the Holidays Also they always say when roads are down for construction and all the rest as far as road updates.

Yeah right. Checkpoints in Kentucky aren't advertised so there goes consent right out the window. You can't say "I didn't have any drinks" to the officer even if that is true because he will ALWAYS say "I smell alcohol". The best thing to do is politely give them your license, insurance, and registration, plead the fifth, and politely refuse all roadside tests. You can't talk your way out of an arrest but you can be polite and hope that officer you're dealing with doesn't feel like arresting a sober driver that knows their rights. Remember, you can't lie to an officer, but you don't have to answer their questions, except the questions where the answers are on the stuff you gave them.

ABSOLUTE GENIUS....

Then, you should not be driving. Case closed.

I have had a wheelchair since 21966 that a drunk driver put me in!!

Oops it was 1966, when incident happened. The drunk driver did not have the right to destroy my entire life!

If you take the test after an unlawful arrest the test will be thrown out. But that's something a judge will determine in court. If you've been arrested, illegally or not, and you refuse to take the test then you will immediately lose driving privileges and will have to wait until you are before a judge, and possibly the second or third time you are before a judge, before the legality of the arrest will be determined. So just take the test once you've been arrested and contact an attorney immediately.

Cesar Martinez He never said to answer their questions.

Kit Ingoldby I'm busy right now, can I ignore you some other time?

Kit Ingoldby Just watch me.....

right on!

Ron Pearlmann okay then submit to the police

How could that be? I see cops in front of taverns all the time with binoculars to see how much you drink see it all the time

Colonialpara Bravo to you !!!

Wow that really happened?

Altoids or hold breath?

No matter what state you're in the constitution is still valid and holds precedence over all state and federal laws.

***** Amen. If you drink and drive you have bigger issues. Mine was that I didn't have Jesus. Now I do and I don't even want to drink anymore. Jesus saves. Satan steals. Satan wants everyone to drink and drive.

Don't breath.

"because frankly many are more concerned about themselves and their own matters of convenience" Some of us are concerned about making sure that our rights, rights guaranteed by the US Constitution are not abused by the state. It would be much easier to just roll over and let the state have its way with you.

Do what ever you want, enjoy your time fighting that fight in a jail cell too. I don't care. I do care about my rights, of course. But unlike a lot of you, I know the proper place and time to argue them. But you go right ahead and don't be tough, you stand up to police!! Fight the fight!!

You have a misguided logic for thinking it's ok for police to stop everyone. At what point is it not ok with you? If they come to your house to see if you have drugs, (they are going door to door to make sure everyone is clean) you'll just let them in? How about every woman gets frisked in a park because the police want to see if they have bombs under their bras? See where this is going? They have no right to stop anyone without a reason. You either embrace our Constitutional rights or you don't. If you don't, move to Cuba.

Where did I say it's ok for police to stop everyone? You need to answer that first.

What else can be done to protect people from drunk drivers, beside unconstitutional and terribly wasteful police methods? How about this: Rather than the government lying to the Public with "legal limit" BS, the law should tell people the Truth, that there is NO amount of alcohol that may be safely consumed before driving. The "legal limit" BS is bound to result in drunk driving, because it is based on asking people who have been drinking to exercise the JUDGMENT (impaired by alcohol) as to whether they have had "too much." Of course people are gognt o make the wrong decision -- you know it, i know it and, most importantly, the legal system knows it. As a society we don't go to a common sense "don't drink before" rule (which, BTW, IS the rule for pilots and a lot of other people) because: 1. Alcohol makers and merchants make donations to politicians to protect their income from selling alcohol to people they know or should know will be driving after drinking. 2. Governments and lawyers make a TON of money on DUI cases. 3. Because of #1 and #2, our legal system considers the relatively few people who do die from DUI to be "a small price to pay" for lying to the Public with "legal limit" BS that generates a LOT of cash for a lot of people. If you are truly pissed off at drunk driving then go after the people who profit from it, not the poor shmucks who are too stupid to realize that they have been duped into being someone else's meal ticket with the "legal limit" BS (which is simply a clever tax on stupidity).

You also know that checkpoints are a waste of resources as far as finding drunk drivers, but Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and local governments love them.

smoke weed..................lol

Right right But if they want you to field sobriety tests. Then what ? Why would you do them if you sober ?

You are just an idiot and totally wrong!!

If you ask an officer what crime you committed, and he says, "Driving under the influence" then he is inexperienced in participating in a DUI/Driver license checkpoint. What he should be telling you is that they are conducting a legal checkpoint to promote public safety, educate the public, and serve as a deterrent. And if they do see someone driving while intoxicated or without a license, then they will take appropriate action. They should be saying something along these lines. If you are in California, you need to read vehicle code section 2814.2(a). This section states, "A driver of a motor vehicle shall stop and submit to a sobriety checkpoint inspection conducted by a law enforcement agency when signs and displays are posted requiring that stop." So at a checkpoint, you should never tell an officer it is an illegal checkpoint, because you will look like an idiot. You should also read "William Ingersoll et al., Petitioners, v. Alfred Palmer, as Chief of Police, etc, et al, Respondents" This is a Supreme Court Case that sets the guidelines that the police must follow when setting up a checkpoint. Some of the requirements are a neutral formula. this means they cannot pick and choose which cars they want to stop and question the driver. It could be whatever formula they want. every 3rd car, every 5th car, etc. They can change the formula depending on traffic congestion. They just need to document when and why the formula was changed. They also have to have signs posted advising drivers that there is a checkpoint ahead. It is sometimes referred to as the "Ingersoll 8" meaning the eight requirements. Read this case law. You should never ask the officer what the neutral formula is or the other requirements. They don't have to tell you and it backs up the cars waiting. Your best recourse is to contact an attorney if you believe the checkpoint does not meet the criteria. It is the attorney's job to challenge the validity of each checkpoint. Keep in mind, the purpose of the checkpoint is to promote public safety, serve as a deterrent, and educate the public of the dangers of drinking and driving. Hope this helps

FiT PT I only read the first sentence of your babbling, incoherent post and have bad news, Bubba: I keep a copy of The Constitution/Bill of Rights on my desk here and checked it out. In the Fourth Amendment, there's not a God-damned thing about DUI checkpoints being "complete and total violation" of anything! Further deep research (I'm known for my dedicated research) shows that motor vehicles were not even invented until about 120 years AFTER the Bill of Rights was penned! Imagine that! I think it was 1886, and in Germany, when the first motor vehicle (internal combustion) hit the road and you know how those Germans (me included) love their beer! Now, additional research indicated that DUI check points didn't come to be until about 90 years AFTER citizens of The United States started drinking and driving! So, Barrister, how can you sit there and type "All DUI check points...are a complete and total violation of the 4th amendment" if DUI check points didn't come to be until 190 years later? Don't respond with another Irving Kanarek"yawn-inducing rampage. I would like a simple, one sentence answer. (hint: "research, research, research!") You should have known.

libertynjustice What also amazes me is [that] you idiots who refer to ME as an "idiot"! Then, "You're totally wrong"? "Totally"? Welcome to 1977! Next you'll be telling me I'm "Radical" and "Boss" and other stupid & passé names. I'm flattered and shit that you DO come to me for advice and direction but try to do it in a mature way. That lends you more of what's called "credibility". Now, go listen to your Go-Go's 8 tracks. You should have known.

Yamaha SR650 Sorry about the length of the post but these are very important issues and as a researcher this should be nothing for you - seriously. Universal Unalienable Rights never change, They are in fact immortal (as a researcher I think you know this already yes) - The fourth Amendment was the codified protection for the ETERNAL & TIMELESS Natural Right of peace and privacy - What part of person, papers, and effects is perplexing? I know that you must be aware this includes 1) you 2) your DL and 3) your motor vehicle. Peace and privacy (also unfettered free travel) are the Natural Rights then, now, and always. I know with all your research regarding Locke - Montesquieu - Jefferson - Madison and other liberty pioneers - you do not believe that these universal unalienable rights evaporate in the presence of new technology or in the presence of inconvenience or even in the face of the staple dangers of ordinary living. James Madison traveled the roads (which they had back then). He traveled on his effect (horse). He also knew that he had the right to ride his horse (even though horses occasionally run out of control resulting in harm and injury to innocent people - way back then) and he had the right to do so without showing papers ( I am sure that Madison would joyously concede that a person riding his horse in a threatening dangerous manner thus subjected himself to some form of inspection or intervention). Madison also valued his privacy and knew that he (like all of us) was entitled to a presumption of innocence (also protected by the Bill of Rights). Driving under the influence (over the limit) is not a crime but a violation of a man made rule - driving in a dangerous manner (dangerous to others not yourself) is a violation of Natural Law = a crime. Once their is probable cause that a person is a true danger - drinking and driving is an exacerbating compounder - but in the absence of such probable cause the right to Travel Unfettered to Personal Peace and Privacy and the Presumption of Innocence are the superseding law from Nature and the superseding law from the highest of codified law from the Bill of Rights. These Rights and laws supersede the dangers from drunk driving and the DUI law illegally enacted to ameliorate such danger (so its claimed). The effect of DUI law with respect to Natural Rights I see as an easy call - but I can comprehend the confusion (people have a near obsessive need for safety, even delusional safety - and do not realize that sacrificing Natural Rights - never = safety - I can expound in a subsequent post) However, the Bill of Rights is clear and SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. This is not debatable between reasoned educated people. Only fools or the despot that recruit them can in argument obscure the true meaning of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. If you really like research (please forgive the hubris) I can be a true asset. For example, if you like - I can explain the dire vital reasons for a Constitution and consequent codification of original principles - and need for Constitutional protection of Natural Law and the sub components of Natural Law. I can also explain the danger of progressive degradation to such an important document (much more also). written but not read sorry for typos

I've been to many bars like that if you are the designated driver with a group of people. Inform the bartender or server and you would get soft drinks free. Sometimes i get bar food for free with in reason . Most of the time my friends paid for that lol.

Police can be helpful and I do respect them when they are. Many, many police officers are in it to help people. Many police officers are in it to earn a honest living as well, much like the rest of us. A very few are there to exercise an ego power trip. It is unfortunate we have to guard ourselves against these few who would do things wrong but that's the way things are.

If I have absolutely NOT been drinking, is it OK to firmly state that?

You got that right.