FREE e-Newsletter
Important News - Hot Topics
Get them Now!


DUI Checkpoint Confrontation In Tenn.


A driver questions a Rutherford County (Tenn.) Sheriff's deputy at a DUI checkpoint on July 4 during a confrontation the driver posted to YouTube. Read the full story here.

July 09, 2013
3502 views


Comments (30)

Displaying 1 - 30 of 30

Bob@Az. @ 7/9/2013 1:40 PM

Well, it's obvious that this little wuss was planning a confrontation from the get go. What the hell are we raising in this country? And I'll bet he's a college educated libral with no sense of his own, merely believing his tutors. Sad. Blues, Stay Safe.

Dean @ 7/9/2013 4:24 PM

Bad police work makes us all look bad! This cops deserves a kick in the ass!

Evan G. Elko @ 7/9/2013 4:24 PM

The driver did the right thing and stepped up to the plate when he saw the way the sheriffs were acting. Citizens have rights against situations like this. We as Citizens have to let the Law enforcement Community KNOW ITS TIME TO WAKE AND UP HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE TO ALL PARTS OF THE OATH ,THEY TOOK WHEN THEY ASSUMED THEIR POSITIONS!! If MORE CITIZENS WOULD STAND UP AND NOT BE AFRAID OF "THEM" JUST CAUSE, MAYBE THEY WILL START GETTING THE MESSAGE!! AND STRAIGHTEN THEIR ACT UP!!

colin @ 7/9/2013 4:47 PM

Amazing how a little constitutional challenge brings such attitude from the officers. I bet he didn't even apologize. I can tell you right now the civil suit I would bring if someone told the dog to scratch his paws on my vehicle for no reason. The dog has a perfectly good nose way better than his and needs no direction on his handlers part to sniff and alert around the vehicle. I've seen them in training and they do just fine on their own. This officer needs an attitude adjustment from a citizen who needs to file against his agency about his handling of this matter.

LuvMyLEO @ 7/9/2013 5:18 PM

The young man choose to create problems by behaving like a child. If he had simply put down his window, as instructed by the Officer, all of the hassle could have been avoided.

Someone not rolling their window down makes it appear as if they trying to hide the smell of alcohol or drugs.

Not following a simple instruction also makes the person appear to either be too impaired to follow directions or like he is trying to hide something illegal.

Not to mention, as far as Officer safety goes, someone who won't roll down a window and acts "slippery" like this young man, it would put me on a higher level of alert regarding safety.

I don't agree with how the Officer allowed the poor attitude of the young man to change the Officer's attitude...

Again, all of the hassle could have been avoided by rolling down his window (following a simple instruction). And when the Officer asks to view his driver's license (which all drivers are required to provide when instructed and the Officers will ask to see), provide the driver's license with no added commentary...

Its really that simple. This young man acted like a spoiled child. Pathetic. Sad and pathetic.

LT @ 7/9/2013 6:33 PM

All of you cop haters out there need to be reminded that driving is a priviledge, NOT A RIGHT! That priviledge can be taken away at any time.

Julie @ 7/9/2013 7:32 PM

It seems there's a pretty simple way to avoid all this type of trouble. Just act like a normal cooperative polite adult. This secret magic tip has saved me lots of grief in life. Maybe more people should try it.

Julie @ 7/9/2013 7:32 PM

It seems there's a pretty simple way to avoid all this type of trouble. Just act like a normal cooperative polite adult. This secret magic tip has saved me lots of grief in life. Maybe more people should try it.

Joe @ 7/9/2013 7:35 PM

To the idiot who wrote that driving is a priviledge, not a right.....umm,, it's actuall a right.

Evan @ 7/9/2013 7:38 PM

There is so much I want to say but won't, because people like this make me so mad. All they do is make our jobs harder and prevent us from actually protecting other peoples rights. And yes, you can lose some rights for the safety of the public, thus making sure 9-1-11 doesn't happen again, unless he would rather it did. And he deserved way more than that for disobeying a direct order from a police officer.

Bear @ 7/9/2013 9:00 PM

To the idiot joe...no where in the constitution does it say you have the right to drive..it is a privilege..that is why you have to pass a test and get issued a licence..but as a cop the 21 year-old was correct in not having to roll down his window..if there is enough space to hear and pass documents back and forth thats ok...but if the dui check point is legal then the young man needs and has to follow lawful police commands..the k9 search was bs and the young man should check to see if his civil rights were violated. ..most dui check points have been found to be unconstitutional do to no real probable cause or PC in police terms.

R. Hillsman, M.D. @ 7/10/2013 3:52 AM

Officer allowed the kid to get under his skin right from the start and the first lesson in the academy is and shall always remain: "I am in control of my emotions and how i will react to others, THEY will not determine for ME how i will conduct myself in ANY situation. Unfortunate admission from K-9 Officer re. what a weak signal the dog gave (just b-4 he notices the camera running) gives this kid some pretty strong evidence of an inappropriate & lengthy waste of everyone's time. How many DKs' got thru while all the officers were drawn into this waste of time. These 'officer tests' are more common and are seen frequently w/ checkpoints and open carry stops. Kid did remain polite in all responses and since he had committed no driving offense, demand of license is borderline as well. BOTH sides need to do better but BLUES BE SAFE & KNOW EVERYONE W/ A PHONE CAN RECORD YOU AT ANY TIME> POOR RXN TO SAME CAN COST A CAREER.....Dr. R. Hillsman, M.D. (retired LEO)

Mike @ 7/10/2013 5:34 AM

The officer in the case in no way violated any rights. This case, like so many others being posted on YouTube, where a subject confronts law enforcement, with a camera “in Hand”, and then purposely acts in a way to incite a reaction from the police are ridiculous. Police are trained to look and react to things outside the ordinary. So when a person purposely acts outside the norm, don’t be surprised if you are treated differently. As most officers are aware, if a person only cracks his window on a traffic stop or check point, that person is usually attempting to keep an officer from detecting an odor from within the vehicle. Officers know this and so did this kid. That’s why he did it. He wanted a reaction (I would be willing to bet that out of a 100 cars that rolled through that check point, he was the only one that night who rolled up with his window cracked). Then when these “actors” get the reaction from the police they are looking for, they want to cry that their rights have been violated. The truth of the matter is that people that act this way have a fascination with police work. They want to be involved so badly they will go to great lengths to get attention from LEO. For example, you can be covertly watching a group of kids on a corner where you have received complaints of drug dealing. The group appears quiet and behaved, but as soon as a police vehicle drives by, they start acting like fools. Why, because they crave that interaction with the police. This fascination is what makes police shows on TV so popular.

Mike @ 7/10/2013 5:35 AM

. Most can’t do the work of a police officer so therefore must act this way towards an officer for the purpose of being involved and getting there “high”. I have watched many similar videos like this one. Most of these people know exactly how to get an officer’s attention and how far to push it to avoid getting locked up. The point of the “game” isn’t to get arrested. It’s just to get the attention from law enforcement. They want their 15 minutes of fame so they can make their own cool reality police show for the internet. To all the police officers out there, don’t let it bother you and don’t play into this misconceived reality they have that they are doing the “right thing”. All they want is to do is drag you into their 10 minutes of fame and the more you lose control, the better the movie becomes. To the young man in the video, if you need attention that bad, buy a puppy or get a girlfriend. Law enforcement has enough to do without having to fulfill your personal desires.

Mike @ 7/10/2013 5:35 AM

. Most can’t do the work of a police officer so therefore must act this way towards an officer for the purpose of being involved and getting there “high”. I have watched many similar videos like this one. Most of these people know exactly how to get an officer’s attention and how far to push it to avoid getting locked up. The point of the “game” isn’t to get arrested. It’s just to get the attention from law enforcement. They want their 15 minutes of fame so they can make their own cool reality police show for the internet. To all the police officers out there, don’t let it bother you and don’t play into this misconceived reality they have that they are doing the “right thing”. All they want is to do is drag you into their 10 minutes of fame and the more you lose control, the better the movie becomes. To the young man in the video, if you need attention that bad, buy a puppy or get a girlfriend. Law enforcement has enough to do without having to fulfill your personal desires.

Stephen @ 7/11/2013 9:26 AM

The young man did not “create problems by behaving like a child”. The young man had every right to ask if he was being detained and what the nature of the Police Contact was. You do not need to present ID to a LEO unless you are suspected in a crime or under arrest. He asked if he was being detained BECAUSE it tells us what we must do. If I am under arrest, I must identify myself and then invoke my rights (4th and 5th Amendments to start), ask for legal representation and then not answer any questions. This is why he asked if he was being detained. Not to irritate the Officer, but to merely ascertain what his legal status and duties were.
You need not roll down your window any further than for you and the Officer” to communicate and pass paperwork to each other.
The comment of, “If he had simply put down his window, as instructed by the Officer, all of the hassle could have been avoided” was naive at best, dangerous at worst. Blindly”following orders” as an excuse for committing crimes is what the Nazis tried during the Nuremburg Trials. It didn’t work then it sure isn’t going to work now. Officers and Agents, remember this fact when you are asked to violate someone’s rights.
There were 40 million Jews, Catholics, Gays, Political Dissidents and others that the Nazis, Soviets, Maoists, and others were able to kill because the just “went along, to get along”. Are you the type of person that ran into the pits, bodies all around, took your hat off, bowed to your executioner, only to be promptly shot in the head? Maybe you’ll stand in line (like you were told to) so that up to 8 of you can be shot with a single 8mm Mauser bullet. We must save on bullets!! Maybe you’re a Romans 13 person (sorry Thought Crime, I referred to The Bible)? We only break GODs Law if we obey BAD Government. What did Yeshua (Jesus to you Greeks) do? He over turned the Money Changers tables and drove them out of The Temple, did HE break a law in doing that? Did Moshie (Moses, I’m getting my Heb

Stephen @ 7/11/2013 9:26 AM

The young man did not “create problems by behaving like a child”. The young man had every right to ask if he was being detained and what the nature of the Police Contact was. You do not need to present ID to a LEO unless you are suspected in a crime or under arrest. He asked if he was being detained BECAUSE it tells us what we must do. If I am under arrest, I must identify myself and then invoke my rights (4th and 5th Amendments to start), ask for legal representation and then not answer any questions. This is why he asked if he was being detained. Not to irritate the Officer, but to merely ascertain what his legal status and duties were.
You need not roll down your window any further than for you and the Officer” to communicate and pass paperwork to each other.
The comment of, “If he had simply put down his window, as instructed by the Officer, all of the hassle could have been avoided” was naive at best, dangerous at worst. Blindly”following orders” as an excuse for committing crimes is what the Nazis tried during the Nuremburg Trials. It didn’t work then it sure isn’t going to work now. Officers and Agents, remember this fact when you are asked to violate someone’s rights.
There were 40 million Jews, Catholics, Gays, Political Dissidents and others that the Nazis, Soviets, Maoists, and others were able to kill because the just “went along, to get along”. Are you the type of person that ran into the pits, bodies all around, took your hat off, bowed to your executioner, only to be promptly shot in the head? Maybe you’ll stand in line (like you were told to) so that up to 8 of you can be shot with a single 8mm Mauser bullet. We must save on bullets!! Maybe you’re a Romans 13 person (sorry Thought Crime, I referred to The Bible)? We only break GODs Law if we obey BAD Government. What did Yeshua (Jesus to you Greeks) do? He over turned the Money Changers tables and drove them out of The Temple, did HE break a law in doing that? Did Moshie (Moses, I’m getting my Heb

Stephen @ 7/11/2013 9:28 AM

my Hebrew On) break Pharos law? Did our Founding Fathers break any laws? I’m in fine, honourable company for Politically Dissenting.
The English found out quickly during WW2 that pacification does NOT WORK. You have rights, stand up for them (non violently and lawfully). I refuse to walk onto a train and into a gas chamber (shower). Is that an extreme statement? YES, it is. This is called INCREMENTALISM. Get a dictionary, and find out what that means.
“Someone not rolling their window down makes it appear as if they trying to hide the smell of alcohol or drugs”. This in theory is true. However, it is actually safer for the Officer. Bullets and knives are not as effective as a weapon if they are utilized through a barrier….like safety glass.
Correct, driving is a privilege. COMMERCIAL DRIVING is a privilege. TRAVELING is a right. As long as you are not engaged in COMMERCIAL DRIVING, you are TRAVELING in a PERSONAL CONVEYANCE. Look it up in your States Traffic Laws. The Traffic Codes don’t apply to non commercial (you) drivers. We (the tax payers) paid for the roads that we utilize. Check out “Rule of Law Radio”, it’s on ITunes, it’s free, listen and learn.
“And he deserved way more than that for disobeying a direct order from a police officer”. ?! Wait, what are you saying? Someone needs to be beaten up or worse for irritating an Officer? You are a scary person, please get fitted for your SS Uniform, you’ll fit right in. You’ll be such a good Nazi. An ORDER must be a LAWFUL ORDER. What lawful order did the young man break? Will you give the “lawful order” to fire on civilians, fire bomb a house full of children (Waco) or shoot an unarmed mother in the head…in front of her children….while holding a baby all for the crime of looking out a window (Ruby Ridge)?

I’m going to get a wee condescending, People, we have RIGHTS. Not privileges and these RIGHTS were born with. We do not receive them from the Government. We received them at BIRTH from the One and True GOD. The

Stephen @ 7/11/2013 9:29 AM

I’m going to get a wee condescending, People, we have RIGHTS. Not privileges and these RIGHTS were born with. We do not receive them from the Government. We received them at BIRTH from the One and True GOD. The Government (and it’s Agents) is there to secure our rights. We have the RIGHT to travel freely, going about our business without being stopped at illegal “sobriety check points”, questioned, I.D.’d and our persons, property and effects searched. I will quote Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither, Liberty or Safety”.
I’ll throw a G Gordon Liddy quote at you too: “You tell me what street corner to be on and I’ll be there. But, don’t come to my house; don’t EVER come to my house”.
Mors omnibus tyrannis.

Chief Thomas @ 7/11/2013 11:54 AM

I am both a Police Chief, in two villages and a libertarian member of the CSPOA, you should look them up they provide education for Peace Officers on the Constitution, because 95% of LEOs never learned the constitution to begin with. It is not entirely your fault that you do not know the parameters of your duties to uphold the constitution because you where never taught, however it is you responsibility to uphold it none the less, so educate yourself.
This stop was a clear and blatant violation, primarily because there was no PC, and all in all virtually everything that could have been done wrong was.
Learn from this and stay safe out there. Also visit the CSPOA.

Ray @ 7/12/2013 8:32 AM

To Evan and Colin, You two hide behind the protections of the Constitution, yet you really dont understand the law. When you are driving a vehicle and you are stopped by police YOU MUST (not may) produce your drivers license when requested to do so by a law enforcement officer. PERIOD. There is no wiggle room on this. The officer is under no duty to answer your questions until you first comply with the law. You also can check a US Supreme Court case precedent known as Pennsylvania v Mimms 434 U.S. 106, 98 S Ct, 330 (1977) which gives law enforcement officers that ABSOLUTE RIGHT to order the driver out of his/her vehicle. Again this is absolute PERIOD. Before you want to hide behind freedoms granted to you by the Constitution, you might want to study a bit more so that you know what you are talking about instead of looking foolish to everyone on the internet. There is an old saying, " it is better to remain quiet so that no one knows you're a fool than to open to your mouth and remove all doubt!) Also while you are reading the law book and Stephen( 7/11/13/9:29AM)you should pick up a book while we are at it, read Michigan State Police v Sitz. That is also a court case which grants absolute authority for police to conduct roadside sobriety checks. I hope you all learned something today

Ray @ 7/12/2013 8:40 AM

Chief Thomas, Are you really a police chief? You may also want to pick up a law book so that you are informed. For you to say that this stop was a blatant violation is simply just not correct. If you are really a police chief and have experience conducting investigations I feel sorry for your officers and the communitie(s) you serve. How can you possibly make that statement based on a video produced by an obviously uninformed person being stopped at a legal roadside sobriety checkpoint. Again I will refer to the case of Michigan State Police v Sitz which makes this checkpoint legal. Can you name the communities that you serve as police chief?

Mike @ 7/12/2013 1:05 PM

Wow, Stephen I didn't know you got that much computer time at the mental facility. Take it easy brother there are no Nazis coming after you.

Chief Thomas @ 7/16/2013 5:12 PM

1st I can tell you only that I work in the state of Ohio, and that traffic stop would never pass in our state, and for that mater even the Officer himself before discovering that he was on camera admitted that he was wrong.
Secondly did you realize that Hitler never broke the law in Germany, he just changed them to fit his agenda, and no one would ever dare to say that Hitler was in the right.
I said that this was a violation, meaning a violation of the constitution, and just because a contradicting law has been made, or precedence has been set dose not make it undeniably wrong, just as Hitler was undeniably wrong.
But it dose not mater there will always be some one out there to argue with, I however have made my stand for truth, and liberty, you have been advised, your gilt will now be on your own hands, from now on.

Ray @ 7/17/2013 10:02 AM

Chief Thomas, I am still finding it difficult to believe that you are really a Chief of Police. The case I cite is a United States Supreme Court case concerning DUI checkpoints. That is a precedent setting case whether or not you agree with it. What does have Hitler have to do with our United States Supreme Court. The fact that the highest court in our nation(not some individual) says it is ok to conduct sobriety checkpoints makes it 100% legal to do so in the entire United States. But then you probably already knew that being a police chief!

Chief Thomas @ 7/18/2013 11:58 AM

State v. Steele, Ohio Supreme Court, June 18, 2013

This case establishes that an officer can be criminally prosecuted for abduction if he detains a person he does not suspect of criminal wrongdoing

Longarm9 @ 7/19/2013 3:34 AM

Can any actual police officers (read: no posers) from the USA confirm for us whether or not an office may demand to see the license and registration of a driver at a DUI check point or not? I would be shocked to hear that a driver didn't have to provide his license when asked by an officer.

In my country, the supreme court ruled long ago that police drunk driving checkpoints are 100% legal and you MUST show your license and registration if you are asked, or face arrest for obstruction. This is what we like to call "reasonable limits" on people's freedom. Driving is a privelege, not a right. Just because you have freedom to move around doesn't mean you have the right to operate a multi-thousand pound automobile to do it. Hence why you have licenses and registration, and hence why your license can be suspended or revoked for various reasons.

As for this little douche; he needs to pull his head out of his rectum and start listening to the police.

JIM @ 7/22/2013 12:11 AM

Longarm9, Ray is right. I'm not sure WHAT Chief Thomas and a couple others are talking about. Here in VA, if that were one of our checkpoints, the window deal wouldn't have been an issue....just merely piqued our interest. If he refused to provide ID/license then he would have been directed to pull over to the side of the road and detained. We would give him another chance to comply with the request for ID and at that point, if he still refused, he would be arrested for failing to provide ID/license or obstruction (some magistrates word it differently).

chris @ 7/28/2013 8:04 AM

Bob why is he a wuss?, because the cop is a fat f*&K and he is small in stature ? He did nothing wrong the cop is a total richard head ! The kid has every right to ask those questions. The cop refused to answer the kids questions so why does the kid have to respond ? I see and work with cops everyday that think there owed something ! Cop should be fired or put on desk duty

yvonne lanning @ 11/2/2013 8:02 PM

I have been watching video after video after video .......hundreds. ....of cops violating citizen's rights, abusing power, and physically abusing citizens. Why is this happening? It must stop.

Join the Discussion





POLICE Magazine does not tolerate comments that include profanity, personal attacks or antisocial behavior (such as "spamming" or "trolling"). This and other inappropriate content or material will be removed. We reserve the right to block any user who violates this, including removing all content posted by that user.

Other Recent Videos


Get Your FREE Trial Issue and Win a Gift! Subscribe Today!
Yes! Please rush me my FREE TRIAL ISSUE of POLICE magazine and FREE Officer Survival Guide with tips and tactics to help me safely get out of 10 different situations.

Just fill in the form to the right and click the button to receive your FREE Trial Issue.

If POLICE does not satisfy you, just write "cancel" on the invoice and send it back. You'll pay nothing, and the FREE issue is yours to keep. If you enjoy POLICE, pay only $25 for a full one-year subscription (12 issues in all). Enjoy a savings of over 60% off the cover price!

Offer valid in US only. Outside U.S., click here.
It's easy! Just fill in the form below and click the red button to receive your FREE Trial Issue.
First Name:
Last Name:
Rank:
Agency:
Address:
City:
State:
  
Zip Code:
 
Country:
We respect your privacy. Please let us know if the address provided is your home, as your RANK / AGENCY will not be included on the mailing label.
E-mail Address:

Police Magazine