Mikael Thalen
A young man in Murfreesboro, Tenn. attempted to uphold his constitutional rights to enraged officers this Independence Day, at a DUI checkpoint.
As the man in the video pulls up, officers immediately demand he roll down his window further, to which the man refuses, a right he is entitled to.
The officer then demands to know the man’s age, to which the driver also refuses. The officer then lies to the driver, telling him that he is required to give his age despite there being no law stating you must give an officer your date of birth if not being legally detained.
The officer then orders the driver to pull over to a secondary area for further investigation despite no concrete probable cause or reasonable suspicion.
“Am I being detained?” the driver asks.
The officer becomes enraged almost instantly, refusing to answer the man’s question, knowing full well he has to legally let the man go.
After the driver’s car is surrounded by officers, who are now attempting to intimidate the driver into complying, the driver decides to pull up to the secondary checkpoint.
The officer then orders the driver out of the car, continuing the illegal detainment.
“Are you an attorney or something? You know what the law is?” the officer asks.
The officer, knowing he can’t search the car without the driver’s permission, demands access to the vehicle, which the driver refuses.
Officers then unleash the K9 Unit, now searching for drugs at the DUI checkpoint despite no questions regarding alcohol ever being brought up to the driver.
At 3:56 in the video, the officer appears to make the dog give a “false positive,” making it seem as if the dog found drugs despite the fact that there were none in the vehicle.
As officers enter the man’s car illegally, they notice the man’s video camera on the seat and instantly become silent. The officer searching the vehicle then grabs the man’s camera and turns it the opposite direction, so the officers’ actions can not be seen.
Despite the officer’s admission that the driver is well within his rights, he continues to ignore them at every possible moment.
“He’s perfectly innocent and he knows his rights. He knows what the constitution says,” the officer says as he searches the man’s vehicle illegally.
While most everyone agrees on the importance of keeping drunk drivers off the streets, it cannot be done while defying and ignoring the Constitution.
As social media and the internet continues to educate citizens on their rights at government checkpoints, officers are now beginning to engage a growing and informed public.
Mikael Thalen’s article first appeared at Examiner.com and SecretsOfTheFed.com.
A little bit lacking from this story. The Supreme Court has already ruled on the legality of random DUI checkpoints. Driving a motor vehicle is a privilege and not a right and on request of a Police Officer in most states the driver must produce a valid license, registration and proof of insurance. Why would the Officer ask for the drivers age, when all he had to do was get this drivers license. There was never any reference in the article to a Field Sobriety Test or any follow up of the original reason for stopping the subject. Officers had no right to search the vehicle unless the driver was arrested for intoxication, or there was contraband in plain sight. For an alcohol related stop, use of a drug dog likely exceeded permissible limits by the Officers unless there ws mitigating circumstances not detailed in the article. The driver gets an “F” grade for attitude and his encounter with the Officers would likely not have gone south had he cooperated and not played the role of a “sea lawyer.”
Had he conditionally accepted the officers offer to park and get out of his car upon proof of claim he lawfully had to and stated violating his rights under “color of law” actions is a class 2 felony and carries ten years title 18-242, and that he will be liable for all damages and your time for unlawful detainer and that this is notice, request identification,when they keep repeating its a line of question assuming facts not in evidence usually, and understand it is fraud if you have not committed a crime and do not consent. Do an administrative process, you can lien the cops if you know what you’re doing.