You don't have to blow for the cops on a sidewalk anymore

pO157.

Posted to Legal on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 12:44:20 PM EST (promoted by port1080). RSS.

A US District judge ruled yesterday that a Michigan law requiring pedestrians under 21 to submit to breath testing without a warrant "is unconstitutional on its face because it is repugnant to the Fourth Amendment."

The law was passed in 1998 to give a tool to police agencies hoping to combat underage drinking. It is part of the toughest underage drinking law in the country, making it a misdemeanor criminal offense for a person under 21 to drink. The law requires minors to submit to the testing or pay an automatic $100 civil fine.

The suit for this case stems from two incidents. In the first, occurring in 2003, Ashley Berden of Saginaw county was at a high school graduation party which the police subsequently raided after she had left. At the raid Thomas Township police found a purse she had left at the party and then showed up at her house at 4am, waking everybody up. They informed her she had to take a breath test on the spot, and refusal would be illegal. Results were negative for alcohol.

A second incident included Ms. Berden and another woman, Katie Platte. In 2004 when both were 19 Thomas Township police raided a party held for a classmate of theirs who was a Marine and would soon be deployed to Iraq. Both were then required to take breath tests outside on a sidewalk, and again, both results were negative.

The ACLU soon took their case to court, and sued a variety of agencies. Other plaintiffs were originally included as the Thomas Township police were part of a larger inter-agency "Party Patrol". However, these plaintiffs settled their cases for $10,000 before trial.

Michael Steinberg, legal director of the Michigan ACLU states the problem had been exacerbated by the fact that police were entering college parties and demanding anybody without ID submit to a breathalyzer test.

In early reaction to the ruling, University of Michigan spokeswoman said it would have little effect on their police as most testing of pedestrians was "for medical reasons to ensure safety" or to "check for alcohol poisoning" and that they generally asked for consent anyway before testing people.

Mr. Steinberg countered that consent is "...certainly not voluntary if threatened with $100 fine."

< Scroogled: What If Google Was Evil?

Shooting Monks In Burma >

Tags: edited by Port1080, written by pO157, alcohol, underage drinking, police (all tags)

Add this story to:

This story: 20 comments (2 from subqueue)

Post a Comment

1	Re: You don't have to blow for the cops on a sidew port1080. Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 12:49:27 PM EST none

And police wander why no one respects them...it's this jackboot thug crap, dumbasses. Also, let us not forget the sense of entitlement that we should all bow and scrape to the boys in blue. Has anyone else seen this website? It's a forum where whiney-ass cops can go to bitch when one of their "brothers" gives them a speeding ticket (apparently it's "professional courtesy" to let one's "brothers" due 70mph in a 35mph zone). Some of the comments and stories are absolutely unreal. I can't believe they expect to get away with this shit... I don't know what the answer is...higher standards? Better pay? Weaken the police unions? Something's gotta happen.

2 1	Re: You don't have to blow for the cops on a sidew port1080. Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 12:50:26 PM EST none

due = do

oops

3 1	You be trippin' Lou. Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 01:10:10 PM EST none

Great link...I liked the part about how the officer gave a break to the guy doing 150mph...while on LSD!? I wonder how much on that site is true or there really are idiot cops out there that would give a pass to someone tripping on acid and speeding.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

5 3	Re: You be trippin' port1080. Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 01:26:37 PM EST none

I wonder how much on that site is true

Sadly, I think it's probably mostly true. A friend of mine who was a parole officer for a number of years retired out of the force due to some job-related injuries (he got smacked around a few too many times by people he was trying to bring in for parole violations). Because of these injuries he had chronic pain, so he was taking large doses of methadone, plus he was diabetic and not very good at managing his insulin levels. Most of the day he walked around in a mild-to-moderate haze. Nonetheless, he loved old cars and had an old Firebird, an old Porsche, and a '67 Chevy Impala. He'd go drive them around town, doing 80mph or more in 40mph zones. He'd occasionally get pulled over, doped up on drugs, clearly incapable of driving, and EVERY TIME the cops left him off with a warning, because he was a "brother". He eventually totaled two cars with his shenanigans, but fortunately didn't hurt anyone (or himself). Sadly, he passed away a few years ago due to complications from his diabetes. It really pissed me off, though, that none of his "friends" in the force ever called him on his reckless behavior. It's only pure luck that someone didn't get killed, and if that had happened it would have been completely preventable.

4 1	Re: You don't have to blow for the cops on a sidew pO157. Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 01:19:47 PM EST none

Several suggestions, most of which are borrowed from my own law enforcement rantings on previous threads:

End the militarism. Officer Friendly needs to come back, we don't need some buzz cut paramilitary force thinking every call requires a no knock search warrant (Unless its in regards to the crackheads next to my house. Then it does).
Somehow promote law enforcement as an honorable profession, up there with the law, or medicine, or teaching. It is not uncommon for everybody in one family to be a cop or something. Nothing wrong with that, we just need to hire different people. More thinkers, more college educated types.
You know how there is a National guard for the army? They should have one in each city for law enforcement. Get random interested adults to volunteer for one or two days a month helping out. Not only would this serve as a deterrent by putting more boots on the ground (and free boots, none the less) but by pairing up cop with citizen you'd have an advocate for the everyday guy on patrol more often. Plus teams of two keep abuse to a minimum.
If a drunk cop is speeding down the road in his girlfriend's Mercedes and almost hits a cop car on the wrong side of the road, don't wait several days to suspend him and then wait a month to charge him.

6 4	Re: You don't have to blow for the cops on a sidew zyxwvutsr. Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 01:54:13 PM EST 2.00 (informative)

...we just need to hire different people. More thinkers, more college educated types...If a drunk cop is speeding down the road in his girlfriend's Mercedes...

It was a BMW, college boy.

9 6	Re: You don't have to blow for the cops on a sidew pO157. Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 02:59:35 PM EST none

Man I misread it. Perhaps I was wishing his girlfriend was a Hispanic woman named Mercedes. Then it would be Mercedes' BMW.

7 4	2 out of 3 Lou. Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 02:34:54 PM EST none

The first two points? Right on. Especially number 1.

There may be some issues with point three, however. Witness this article about a fatal shooting just down the road from me. And of course, there are characters like this to watch out for. Maybe if made them unarmed?

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

10 7	Re: 2 out of 3 pO157. Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:13:11 PM EST none

Man that guy looks 'special.' Isn't he on a TV program or something?

Ehh, shit will happen no matter what. With the proper supervision I think things would be fine. Some rural areas that can't make budget train volunteers to do patrolling with the same powers as a full time person*. Hell, major cities have no problem implementing programs above and beyond what I am advocating and they seem to not have that many problems. Unless those are the guys commenting extensively on port1080's website.

I just think it would be better if there was more civilianisation of the police force and I think this would be a good way to go about it. You're less likely to get rowdy cops if they are partnered with a volunteer from the community as backup. That and the police would then have a real incentive to clean up neighborhoods in a polite way because it would be their own areas they'd be working on.

*I think this is the worst website ever, but its the first one google pulled up so it will have to do.

12 7	Re: 2 out of 3 zyxwvutsr. Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:47:59 PM EST none

You live in Vassalboro? That would explain a lot. (You know...people in Sindey make fun of you guys.)

12

Re: 2 out of 3

Lou.

Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 05:26:15 PM EST

5.00 (funny)

Wrong 'boro. Read the article again.

And anyway, who cares what a bunch of sheep boinkers in Sidney think? You know how they practice safe sex in Sidney, don't you? They mark the sheep that kick.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

13

Re: 2 out of 3

pO157.

Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 05:38:54 PM EST

none

Jesus, you guys really make the great state of Maine sound like something I should be sad I'm missing out on. Haven't been since I was a teenager.

13

Re: 2 out of 3

zyxwvutsr.

Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 06:11:42 PM EST

none

Wrong 'boro

Ah, Waldoboro is it? That's actually worse because it's the people in friggin' Damariscotta who look down their noses at you. Them and the folks from away who make a wrong turn from Route 1 and, after passing the two or three "quaint" houses in the center of town, finally make it out to where reality sets in, when they start making jokes about Deliverance, imitating the twanging of "Dueling Banjos" as they drive by your house.

Well, at least it's a short drive to Pemaquid to watch the sunrise. (Which is, by the way, something everyone should try to do at least once in their lives. Really. It's breathtaking. Take some deet spray along if you do it in June, though.)

8 4	Re: You don't have to blow for the cops on a sidew wetkarma. Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 02:55:26 PM EST none

Interestingly here in London they have idea 3 implemented. Citizens can volunteer to act as special constable, solicitations for volunteers are plastered (as ads) in all the train stations. No idea if many people volunteer, but I do say that the london approach to not having cops wear guns DO make the cops seem less threatening when they walk around.

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

11 8	Re: You don't have to blow for the cops on a sidew pO157. Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:15:14 PM EST none

So the benefit they are using as the selling point is free bus and subway rides?

Uhhh... I don't know how the mass transit system is in the UK but if it is anything like American Inner cities that would be a big negative for me. And this is coming from somebody who takes the bus and train every day.

18 4	RE: #3 thefadd. Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 08:28:16 PM EST none

What, like the Hitler youth? One of the guys in my office signed up for that after 9-11. He gets to call himself deputy so it's super easy when his assistant is trying to make reservations for him around town. Everyone in the office makes fun of him for it, though of course.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

18

Re: RE: #3

pO157.

Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 10:14:05 PM EST

none

Imagine all those volunteer firefighters and EMS personnel playing at dress up. We should make fun of them, too, because obviously they just do those things to compensate for something they are lacking.

I know that is a bit sarcastic, but what is the problem with allowing trained volunteers to help the police out? We need to demilitarize the police and I think this is a good way to do so. Sure there will be bad eggs, but there are already bad full time cops as it is.

16	Here's another good one... port1080. Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 06:10:50 PM EST none

Chicago Cop Scandal

CHICAGO - Videotapes of angry officers savagely beating civilians and charges that a murder plot was hatched within an elite special operations unit have Chicago's troubled police department reeling again....

In July, three off-duty officers pleaded not guilty to charges that they beat four businessmen in a bar in a videotaped confrontation.

In another videotaped confrontation, off-duty officer Anthony Abbate was seen apparently beating a 115-pound female bartender because she would not serve him another drink. Abbate has pleaded not guilty to a felony charge of aggravated battery.

The quagmire is deepened by five federal lawsuits accusing police and city officials of covering up the torture of murder suspects at the Area 2 detective headquarters under violent crimes Lt. Jon Burge in the 1980s. Burge was fired in 1993 after a suspect in the murder of two officers allegedly was abused while in his custody.

A four-year study by two special prosecutors appointed by a Cook County judge, released in July 2006, found that Chicago police beat, kicked and shocked scores of black suspects in the 1970s and 1980s to get confessions. The report said it was impossible to file charges because the incidents were so old that the statute of limitations had long since run out....

The biggest shock came Wednesday when federal prosecutors charged special operations officer Jerome Finnigan with planning the murder of another member of the unit to keep him from talking to the government.

"This kind of stuff on Page One is just horrible," and reinforces a misleading stereotype of police, said Roosevelt University political scientist Paul Green, who taught at the police academy for four years.

"The overwhelming 99.9 percent do their job professionally," he said.

My question for someone like Green, who wants to defend the police, is - if 99% do their job professionally, how do the other 1% get away with such blatant bullshit? It's because the other 99% are covering for them. We should fire them all and start over...this culture of acting with impunity has to end.

16

Fear?

pO157.

Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 08:46:23 AM EST

none

Could it be that police officers do not want to come forward against one of their own out of fear? The same reason inner city residents don't step up and turn in one of their neighbors for crime, yet the police deride them for their silence?

Stupid.

17

Re: Fear?

thefadd.

Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 09:02:43 PM EST

5.00 (astute)

The more laws and order are made prominent, the more thieves and robbers there will be. -Lao Tzu

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

This story: 20 comments (2 from subqueue)

Post a Comment

pO157.

Posted to Legal on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 12:44:20 PM EST (promoted by port1080). RSS.

Re: You don't have to blow for the cops on a sidew

port1080.

Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 12:49:27 PM EST

1

Re: You don't have to blow for the cops on a sidew

port1080.

Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 12:50:26 PM EST

1

You be trippin'

Lou.

Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 01:10:10 PM EST

3

Re: You be trippin'

port1080.

Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 01:26:37 PM EST

1

Re: You don't have to blow for the cops on a sidew

pO157.

Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 01:19:47 PM EST

4

Re: You don't have to blow for the cops on a sidew

zyxwvutsr.

Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 01:54:13 PM EST

2.00 (informative)

6

Re: You don't have to blow for the cops on a sidew

pO157.

Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 02:59:35 PM EST

4

2 out of 3

Lou.

Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 02:34:54 PM EST

7

Re: 2 out of 3

pO157.

Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:13:11 PM EST

7

Re: 2 out of 3

zyxwvutsr.

Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:47:59 PM EST

12

Re: 2 out of 3

Lou.

Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 05:26:15 PM EST

5.00 (funny)

13

Re: 2 out of 3

pO157.

Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 05:38:54 PM EST

13

Re: 2 out of 3

zyxwvutsr.

Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 06:11:42 PM EST

4

Re: You don't have to blow for the cops on a sidew

wetkarma.

Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 02:55:26 PM EST

8

Re: You don't have to blow for the cops on a sidew

pO157.

Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:15:14 PM EST

4

RE: #3

thefadd.

Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 08:28:16 PM EST

18

Re: RE: #3

pO157.

Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 10:14:05 PM EST

Here's another good one...

port1080.

Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 06:10:50 PM EST

16

Fear?

pO157.

Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 08:46:23 AM EST

17

Re: Fear?