- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: NOPD: Checkpoint tomorrow night (4/17)
Posted on 4/16/14 at 3:35 pm to PhiTiger1764
Posted on 4/16/14 at 3:35 pm to PhiTiger1764
United States v. Fischel, 467 F.3d 857, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
U.S. v. Brigham, 382 F.3d 500, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
quote:
There is no question that the officer may examine the driver's license and vehicle registration during a traffic stop and run a computer check on both.
U.S. v. Brigham, 382 F.3d 500, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
quote:
Like other circuits**, this court has found no constitutional impediment to a law enforcement officer's request to examine a driver's license and vehicle registration or rental papers during a traffic stop and to run a computer check on both.
quote:
**See, e.g., United States v. Givan, 320 F.3d 452, 459 (3rd Cir.2003) (noting that “questions relating to a driver's travel plans ordinarily fall within the scope of a traffic stop”); United States v. Linkous, 285 F.3d 716, 719 (8th Cir.2002) (“An officer does not violate the Fourth Amendment by asking the driver his destination and purpose, checking the license and registration, or requesting that the driver step over to the patrol car.”); United States v. Holt, 264 F.3d 1215, 1221 (10th Cir.2001) (en banc) (noting that questions relating to a motorist's travel plans are ordinarily related to the reason for the stop); United States v. Hill, 195 F.3d 258, 268 (6th Cir.1999) (holding that an officer's questioning of the defendant “as to his moving plans at the outset of the stop was reasonable in that the questions related to [the defendant's] purpose for traveling”). United States v. Sowers, 136 F.3d 24, 27–28 (1st Cir.1998); United States v. Hardy, 855 F.2d 753, 757 (11th Cir.1988).
This post was edited on 4/16/14 at 3:47 pm
1
Posted on 4/16/14 at 3:50 pm to BottomlandBrew
quote:
Not in Louisiana [State v. Carr, 761 So.2d 1271 (2000)]. I could get a public intox if I was blasted and swerving across the road or if I was buzzed and the cop wanted to be a dick, but not a DWI.
Interesting.
FWIW I have been chased down on my bike and given a field sobriety test. The cops obviously thought they could get me for some type of impairment while on my bicycle.
Posted on 4/16/14 at 3:54 pm to wheelr
quote:
Interesting.
FWIW I have been chased down on my bike and given a field sobriety test. The cops obviously thought they could get me for some type of impairment while on my bicycle.
his is the state statute on OUI:
LINK
I have never heard of anyone getting a DWI while riding a bike but perhaps it is possible. I would certainly never charge someone with it. Perhaps they were simply looking to charge you with drunk in public.
Posted on 4/16/14 at 3:55 pm to PhiTiger1764
Posted on 4/16/14 at 3:58 pm to DanTiger
quote:
the state statute on OUI
The key words in there are "or other means of conveyance." State supreme court ruled this was vague and that bicycles didn't fall within other means of conveyance. The did say that they should, but since the law isn't written that way, you're good to go. The legislature never bothered to update the law after the decision.
This post was edited on 4/16/14 at 3:59 pm
Posted on 4/16/14 at 4:31 pm to wheelr
quote:
FWIW I have been chased down on my bike and given a field sobriety test. The cops obviously thought they could get me for some type of
Most people around my hood have cup holders on their bikes.
Posted on 4/16/14 at 5:38 pm to AnonymousTiger
Yea man. Good try. Everything you cited pertains to an individual traffic stop where the defendant was pulled over for committing a traffic violation.. not a checkpoint. I am fully aware if I commit a traffic violation that I must produce identification.
^^^ This is what you cited. Here is the info you chose to leave out:
^^^ This is what you cited. Here is the info you chose to leave out:
Things are different at a checkpoint. There is no reason to have been pulled over in the first place. You are not required by law to produce identification.
Source: 4th Amendment
quote:
United States v. Fischel, 467 F.3d 857, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
^^^ This is what you cited. Here is the info you chose to leave out:
quote:
While working on Interstate 20 in Ouachita Parish, Louisiana, Officer James Purvis observed a vehicle weaving between lanes, its occupant talking on a cell phone and driving 20 miles per hour under the speed limit. Purvis activated his emergency lights, stopped the vehicle, and informed the driver, Michael Fishel, of the reason for the stop. Fishel gave Purvis his driver license, but appeared extremely nervous with a tremor in his voice. Purvis asked Fishel to exit the vehicle and stand at the rear of the vehicle. Fishel complied, and Purvis informed Fishel that he would issue Fishel a citation for improper lane usage.
quote:
U.S. v. Brigham, 382 F.3d 500, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
^^^ This is what you cited. Here is the info you chose to leave out:
quote:
FACTS At 4:13 P.M., a Texas state trooper stopped a car because the driver, Brigham, was following another car too closely
quote:
DISCUSSION Although Brigham acknowledged that the trooper had grounds to make the traffic stop, he contended the stop became unlawful when the trooper started asking questions that did not pertain to the traffic violation.
Things are different at a checkpoint. There is no reason to have been pulled over in the first place. You are not required by law to produce identification.
Source: 4th Amendment
Posted on 4/16/14 at 6:14 pm to PhiTiger1764
quote:
Things are different at a checkpoint. There is no reason to have been pulled over in the first place. You are not required by law to produce identification
Yeah, keep telling yourself that.
Posted on 4/16/14 at 6:16 pm to PhiTiger1764
It's called implied consent genius. Try googling it. It's not just for chemical sobriety tests.
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News