Police Break Car Window At DUI Checkpoint (Video)

 

After repeatedly ordering a man to lower his window at a DUI checkpoint in California, police broke the window and arrested the car’s two occupants for resisting arrest.

The incident was caught on video by the passenger, which was released last week even though the arrest took place in February.

The men have pleaded not guilty and the video will become a key piece of evidence in their trial.

At issue is whether or not the men had the right not to refuse to show police their identifications at the checkpoint if they displayed no other signs of alcohol impairment.

The men, Angel Navarrete and Daniel Alfaro, were deliberately testing the system when they drove through the checkpoint in Escondido in San Diego County with the camera rolling.

They are part of an organization that oppose checkpoints and immigration raids, according to the North County Times.

Here is an excerpt from the conversation between the driver and the officer.

Navarrete: "How are you doing?"

Officer: "Can you roll down your window?"

Navarrete: "I can hear you just fine."

Officer: "I want you to roll the window down."

Navarrete: "Why is that, sir?"

Officer: "Because I'm going to break it if you don't open it."

Navarrete: "Go ahead."

Officer "I'm sorry?"

Navarrete: "Go ahead."

Officer: "Go ahead and break it?"

Navarrete: "It's up to you.

Am I being detained or am I free to go?"

Officer: "You are not free to go."

Navarrete: "So am I being detained?"

Officer: "You are being detained."

Police confiscated the video as evidence, even though it was not used in the commission of a crime, which is a crime in itself.

Various lawyers interviewed by Photography is Not a Crime over the years have stated that police need a subpoena to confiscate a camera it was not used in the commission of a crime, such as upskirting or child pornography.

Comments

Saying "go ahead" is like saying "come on in even though you have no warrant to enter the premises".

They will lose.

Of course they will lose. Not because of what you mention, though. Probable cause, reasonable suspicion, fourth amendment -- these are all outdated, archaic ideas that do not apply in any way, shape, or form to police departments today.

ANY order given by a policeman today is to be obeyed, or you will be beaten and or jailed. There are no exceptions. There is NO order given that can be disobeyed without punishment, without exception.

Even if the charges get dropped, these two guys are still out a window, have still been arrested and deprived of their liberty. They've already lost. And even if they were to file a lawsuit and get a million dollars -- the individual police will suffer no punishment at all and will have no reason to stop their actions.

This is a police state and if you don't believe that, you're just living in denial.

?, local p d will go fed, what about the Sheriff's compliment?

Tim

If these guys do a little research they will find the appellate court in california made it illegal for the police to break in, especially in this case. It came from a ruling and is now law. They can't break your window and they are committing a crime if they do. Although he shouldn't have egged him on. The officer by law should be arrested for vandalism at the minimum. My father was one of the appellate justices that wrote this law.

KOOL! Yet should of shape shifted by being proactive and driver getting out of auto and taking field test. Then see what collusion stop was truly about.

Which case are you siting? I have not seen this anywhere.

Which case are you siting? I have not seen this anywhere.

I don't think these guys have a leg to stand on... I'm opposed to checkpoints as well, but that is one area that police hold a trump card. Unfortunately, driving is a privilege, not a right.

Judges have also said that when you are asked to submit to a dui test, you really don't have any rights. Sure, you can refuse, but even if you are sober, the police WILL still take you to jail and suspend your drivers license. Sounds stupid as Hell, but it happens all the time.

There are a number of "No refuse" dui checkpoints opening up around the country too. In Texas (Houston and San Antonio that I know of), judges are physically at the checkpoint. If you refuse to take the test, the judge signs a warrant on you right there on the spot. There is NO choice when it comes to DUI checkpoints.

I was driving on a little highway through South Carolina once, and I was pulled over by the Highway Patrol, along with about 15 other cars. I barely rolled my window down to ask what was going on, and the Trooper just asked for my license and registration. It wasn't even a DUI checkpoint, it was just a checkpoint to see if I was a licensed driver! What kind of asinine bullshit is that?

We need new laws against these unconstitutional actions, and we need them soon. Fuck all the special interest groups (MADD) that had these checkpoints imposed in the first place.

I hadn't yet watched the video when I made my first comment. Listen closely at 5:13, where the officer states that if the driver shows his ID, they will be free to go. The initial stop was to check the sobriety of the driver, yet the officer backpedaled and only requested the ID of the driver.

Since California doesn't have a stop and identify statute anymore, would that not make the arrest unlawful - thereby nullifying the resisting arrest charge?

Something else that raised a "WTF flag" for me in the video, was the response from the first officer threatening to break the window so fast. The officer did not identify himself, nor did he tell the driver what the stop was all about before threatening to destroy the driver's personal property.

After watching the video, and listening to the way things went down, I now think the driver has a very good chance in court.

"The officer did not identify himself"

Seriously? He was in full uniform at a freaking checkpoint with other officers and marked patrol units. There can be no doubt that he was a police officer.

The driver has zero chance in court. The officers gave him multiple chances to provide his ID. If CA has laws that allow for checkpoints, then these guys are boned.

Slk

Typical fail there sadist, did you actually watch the video or spout off BS as usual. The officer DIDN'T ASK for id until after he arrested this kid for reasons unknown as there was no crime committed or evidence of resisting arrest. Well I take that back the officer did destroy private property so there is that act of criminality on tape.

This case has nothing to do with asking for ID or the legality of DUI checkpoints. It's the same tired anger management deficient, instant jump to violence actions of a bad police officer. I'm sure your just upset that he only bashed a car window and not someones skull. They can't all live up to you perverted standards sadist.

Apparently you didn't watch the video. The officers told him that they wanted him to do multiple times. They confirmed that he was detained several times. They told him that they would break his window if he didn't open it.

When they did finally break it (after 6 minutes of this clown asking the same questions over and over)they warned the driver to turn his head away so glass wouldn't get in his eyes. Then after breaking it, they didn't pull him out. They simply unlocked and opened the door.

There was no anger involved and it was not an "instant jump to violence". It was obvious these guys were not going to comply with the checkpoint so the officers did what they needed to do and they did it in a professional manner.

Johnny Law,
Can you explain how the passenger violated the law?

Simply "wearing" a uniform is I'Ding yourself? I need to see my seamstress ASAP. No, IDing yourself is name and badge number and the auspices under which you are acting.
"Yes sir, I'm officer JoeBlow of the Denver Police Dept., badge 34369. We are stopping you pursuant to statute #CD8627 which authorized our dept. to have a checkpoint."
Maybe our new form of gestapos are intellectual-challenged and not able to verbalize the above...god, I hope not.

When I am part of their corporation, I will then recognize their codes as applying to Me as well as to them. Their uniforms are registered and trademarked and if dawned by someone outside of their organization, sanctions will result. Incorporation is a privelege extended by the people.
A "person" is an artificial entity. As natural men and women, we are the sovereigns, under God, but over them.
Driving is a commercial term anyway. We travel, which is not a privlege, it is a right. To drive commercially is a privlege because more than a normal fair share of the road use is used up, and extra maintenance results.

Get a CLUE! The cops were doing the NAZI monster mash.

He may indeed have no chance, and then again he may. What's clear here is that the driver and passenger are, like the people posting here, concerned with the question of the legality and propriety of what they were being asked to do, and went into the situation with full knowledge and intent to make a legal test of the situation. They are activists, not just kids bucking for a confrontation with the cops. They deserve some respect for having the cahones to do what they did.

I'm an ex-Houstonian, and I believe what you say. Houston has always had a very bad reputation with rogue cops.
Policemen/women are not supposed to have "thin skins". That's why they supposedly have psychological testing before being commissioned. I work a cash register at a large retail store, and I witness a tremendous amount of rude behavior from very rude (and sometimes abusive) customers.
It takes everything within my power to 'hold my tongue', but I do. I recognize the fact that a cashier is a very different job than that of a cop...but that DOES NOT matter! If you have sworn to uphold the law, the corralary to that is that you won't BREAK the law. Emotions run high as a patrolman/woman, but that's not the point. You, as a cop, hold a, IMO, sacred TRUST. If you can't garner your emotions, yes, even under fire, then you as a cop need to pick another career...but fast.

No, driving is a _right_, not a privilege. It is the obligation of the state to regulate the exercise of that right in such a fashion as to preserve the public well being. A drivers' license can't legally be revoked for reasons having nothing to do with the exercise of one's right to drive, although one does read about cases of people's licenses being revoked for things such as not paying child support and the like. The idea that driving is a privilege, not a right, is one more facet of the fascist mindset that seems to be engulfing this nation. The bottom line is that, whatever happens in the real world, the government and their agents work for the people, and if they don't, or behave as if they don't, then the people have both a right and obligation to fix the problem.

sorry mods.. double post

"I'm opposed to checkpoints as well, but that is one area that police hold a trump card. Unfortunately, driving is a privilege, not a right. "

I beg to differ

‎"The right of the citizen to travel upon the
public highways and to transport his property thereon,
either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere
privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will,
but a common law right which he has under the right to
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson
v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

They can take me to court if they like but I'll site case law on them 'till I'm blue in the face. I may loose in the end but I'm happy to be a martyer :)

I believe the driver was totally within his rights to not roll down the window as requested.

However, while I don't know exactly what the law in California says, I am under the impression that in most jurisdictions, if you operate a motor vehicle, you do have to produce a driver's license when requested, regardless of the reason for the traffic stop. If you don't then you open yourself up to charges.

Like it or not, driving is a privilege, not a right. It's licensed and regulated, and a driver is required to produce his or her license on demand. Refusal to do so is a crime.

The guy in the video refused to produce his license. Had he simply refused to roll down the window all the way, while producing his license and registration for the officer, that would be one thing. But the officer broke the window in the course of making a legitimate arrest, after being told by the idiot that that was the only way to proceed, and the idiot will lose in court. After all, he gave the officer explicit permission to do so.

That being said, any passengers in the car are not subject to the license check. California did have a stop & identify statute, but it was repealed in 2008, and even before then, it would only apply to a pedestrian, a passenger in a car wouldn't be subject to it. While a police officer can certainly ask for a passenger to provide identification, the passenger probably isn't obligated to do so, and even if the repealed stop & identify statute were to be applied to a passenger, simply stating their name verbally would satisfy the statute.

Being a cop is a privilge...not a right! Are cops incapable of utlizing their glottises to answer a simple question..."Why are you pulling me over and requesting to see my ID (my papers!!!!!!!)? If they are not capable of articulating a proper answer....they should go back to school and hopefully learn how to communicate.

If driving is a privilege and not a right, then the state has the authority to revoke it for any reason whatsoever, whether or not it's related to one's activity in driving a motor vehicle. I don't believe this would hold water in court. See http://educate-yourself.org/cn/drivingisrightnotprivledge07apr05.shtml . The driver's license issued by the states is merely a certification by the state that the recipient of the license has demonstrated such competence as can be measured by the state in the skills and knowledges needed to operate a vehicle without undue danger to others.

To consider this license as a permission slip is to assert that the state has some amorphous reservoir of "privileges" that it may dole out to the deserving or to the favored few. I do not acknowledge the existence of such a pot of goodies.

Thanks Lindsay, I'll check out the link.

Actually, the last couple of sentences aren't mine, but the poster on another forum who wrote them said it so well that I picked it up and used it. These words may not be mine, but the sentiments certainly are.

He should have slipped his license through the window when asked for his license. They should have a lawyer on retainer before doing this. Lucky for these guys, these cops didn't overreact. These guys are going to lose.

Pastor Steven Anderson beat these charges.
(Check out his video of having the
window broken and being tased and ensuing
trial videos where his lawyer rips the cops apart.)

Pulling up to a checkpoint is not probable
cause, not rolling down the window is not
probable cause. Demanding Officer badge number is not
either. Throw in the pugnacious cop and you most likely have a not guilty verdict coming.
Also the cop report will be lies and the video will
show that.

“All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void” (Marbury vs. Madison. 5 US (2 Cranch) 137,174,176, (1803)

“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” (Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p.491.)

“An Unconstitutional Act is not law; it confers no rights: it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” (Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p.442)

That sounds like a fun place to live, JL. I wish I could live in a place where those rules applied to everyone, even people with fancy clothes and badges.

Well quoted...kudos to you.

To my knowledge, every state requires the driver to present a drivers license upon being stopped. Unfortunately, most states are not enlightened enough to have declared checkpoints violations of drivers' 4th amendment rights as not even requiring a reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop a motorist. (My state has, though - yay!) JL is right - the driver is required to present identification, and will probably get hosed for refusing to do so in court. If he wants to fight it, hope he has lots of money to pay for appellate lawyers, transcripts and filing fees-it's going to be expensive because states that currently have sobriety checkpoints have a long history of court decisions allowing them, and I highly doubt these gentlemen have any new arguments against their stop and detention that the courts haven't already heard before and ruled against.

However, no state requires a driver to fully roll down their window to talk or pass identification. Note that the driver's window was partially down. The driver could have simply passed his I.D. (plus registration and proof of insurance) through the partially-open window and refused any request to roll it down further. The only reasons law enforcement want the window open is to better observe the driver (and car interior) for signs and smells of intoxication or contraband, to make it easier to send in a blast of OC spray, to make it easier to drag out the driver if necessary, or prevent possible bullet deflection from an angled shot if things go rodeo.

From what's on the video, I don't think the LEO's have anything that can stick on the passenger - in most states, unless there is an odd quirk in their "stop and identify" statutes, passengers in stopped vehicles are not required to present their identification. However, they usually succumb to the gruff demand to do so anyway. Accordingly, the passenger should be AOK, but where this is CA, all bets are off. You can bet the police brass will be pressuring the prosecutor to try to make something stick, though, because they don't want to let there be a precedent set that anyone can stand up to LEO's.

Not a criticism of LEO's - just a commentary on the process. Law enforcement will use any and all tools and tactics available to them, and until the legislatures or courts take away those tools, expect them to be used.

Why should he provide his ID. That sounds like "let me see your papers" in Europe. That's NOT American. There is no "probable cause". Checkpoints definitely are overreaching and violating the principle of innocent until proven guilty. They assume you may be guilty to begin with in this type of action.
Fascism in practice...plain and simple!

"That's NOT American. There is no probable cause."

Apparently the courts disagree with you.

The courts are part of the control system. The courts do not exist to protect, serve, or decide what is constitutional. The constitution would limit the gov if it were enforced, so the gov, acting through the courts, ignores the law of the land. The law enforcers believe they are above the law. The law is for the ruled, not the rulers. It's like that in every country and people support it. There is no "land of the free and home of the brave". That is a myth (lie) that people tell themselves to keep from facing the truth: they live in a fascist police state.

Courts have been wrong many times before. That's why decisions get appealed.

They can't find something better to do on their spare time?

Standing up for the freedom that makes this country great isn't good enough for you?

Yeah this is really a great country. The rich are getting tax breaks while the middle class is taking a beating. Governors across this great country are trying to break the unions, taking money away from the working people and giving it to corporations. We are building schools in Iraq and closing schools here. I think there are a lot bigger problems in this country than DUI checkpoints.

Of course, you're wrong. Every right we have is sacred. Bush/Cheney/Obama have made collosal blunders and all have threatened our liberties via the Patriot Act, the TSA and their rogue cops, illegal, unConstitutional invasions of other nations non-stop. These are the 'elephants' we must stop...but the 'mosquitos' are just as important. They're all 'big' issues and they feed off of each other.
If the powers-that-be can see a transformation occurring on a lower level, they might 'get it' that times are changing all the way up to the top.

Be careful what you ask for, you might get it.
The two morons in this car got what they asked for and they screwed themselves.

If these are morons...good for them. I praise them. Civil disobedience in defiance of unlawful actions is correct. Just ask the old 'Great Britain' what finally stopped their global expansion. It wasn't an answer, "Well, I know the sun never sets on your empire, sir(s), so I'll just get down on my knees and ask for your gracious forgiveness for questioning your authority."

What did they ask for? They asked for respect. They got abuse. They got proof of lawless thugs where they should have found protectors. They risked their well being to enlighten us. We owe them.

If standing up for yourself and exposing corruption is "screwing yourself" then the whole country needs to "get screwed". You and your kind, Inspector, will cry and bet for mercy from the "morons" like us if that happens.

In California, there is no law for police to order driver to roll down windows.

Read more here:
http://www.dui-california.com/arrestedfordui.html

In California there is no law for police, period. The LEO has become a thug with only his conscience as a limit. Who will protect us from our protectors?

Many see the clouds but not the approaching rain. Consider this: Are DUI check points and the obvious increase in police brutality in recent years, as well as the challenge to our first and fourth amendment rights strictly for drinking drivers, or, is this a mind conditioning prelude to requiring a national passport ID for any and all interstate travel (using the deliberate imigration problem) as a pretext right here in the good old US of A once the NAU (North Americian Union has been fully implemented (soon) in alignment with the NWO/UN regional set up of what we now know as Mexico, the United States, and Canada, bringing them all in compliance with the world view (NWO)? Sadly, much like our modern military, these poor dumb cops don't know how they are really being used by the powers that be to meet the goals of the rich. Fortunately some are waking up. The enemy always has us looking at the right hand (meaningless Oprah Winfry, American Idol, US Black Flag distractions) insuring that our fear level remains elevated as desired, while he slays us with his left (rapid Presidential socialist/fascist health care, divide the wealth style changes). Thesis, anti-thesis, synthisis. We Americans seem to be majoring in minors today, thanks to a socialist compliant news media. 9/11 was designed to destroy our constitution and speed up the implementation of the NWO, this has gone above and beyond all expactations. The elitist must be dancing with joy at their accomploshments since 9/11. Remember the Reichstag (our modern day call of "Remember The Alamo)!"!

Think about it. What we think we see isn't always the big picture. Conspiracy paranoia? We'll all know soon enough. Most are asleep. "There will be a New World Order" George H. Bush. And the arrogancy is, whether we want it or not! Watch for law enforcement to become even more corporate and military aggresive and brutal to civilians in the days ahead, with a possible future Martial Law declared. Watch the "Cops" or Las Vegas Cops TV series, nothing less than a means to create a national fear for police activities and authority (thank God for the few who try to remain in tried and true police parameters, we do appreciate their service).
Why slam a suspects face and head into the pavement by four of five big cops if they aren't resisting, or turn vicious dogs loose on suspects already surrounded? What happened to innocent UNTIL proven guilty?? It creates respect and fear, it says "we no longer serve, we rule and don't resist us!" Our kids now fear cops, they have no trust in them. Why do we as adults seem to cringe in our vehicles even though we have committed no crime when we hear that frightening sound of a police car sirene? It's induced fear folks, plain and simply, the end result of years of conditioning. I can even sense the standard "cop like attitude" in the cops views in some of the above articles, like " The Clown," not "this citizen's," and other demeaning aspersions. Who gives this cop the right to set himself on a higher plain than these citizens? Automatic judgments like; "Dirt Bag," "Clown," Bad guy," during arrest. Is this not pre-judging the citizen BEFORE he/she is adjudicated by law? A type of vigilante law? Also, many women have been pulled over and assaulted by rapist in cops uniforms and using "Blue Lights," why does this cop find asking for proper ID so unwarranted just because he is in uniform? It's a double edged sword. We're screwed before we ever get to court. Why are we to believe that cops don't lie, especially when they have quotas to fill? The Bill Of Rights is a joke to them today. Bush GW called the Constitution "Just a G-D piece of paper!" A paper of laws and rules of freedom established by the shed blood of millions of Americans over two hundred plus yeas. Our Presidents won't defend it as sworn, and our Congress is too cowardly to defend it (might lose perks or hurt some foreignrs feelings). Your rights? You have the right to shut up and behave and "show us your papers please." Men of God are already being arrested for exercising their "right to free speech" in the public arena. All things permitted today...except Christian's and God! Friends, the problem(s) are much greater than simply having a confrontation with over zealous bullying cops at a road side check point.It's spelled T-O-T-A-L C-O-N-T-R-O-L from the cradel to the grave.

Alrighty then...
One of the recurring them I see on this site and similar ones is the assertion that police are now running out of control and things are getting worst.

While it makes for good rhetoric and since the majority agrees, it is clearly so, I am wondering if this is truly the case.

Has a study been done on police tactics and brutality?

I personally only have anecdotal evidence. Thinking about the 70s in any large city, it seems that the police force was routinely more... forceful.

Interesting article on the subject: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/633125/historical_causes_behind...

So...are things really getting worse or is it that there is more coverage of incidents due to the rise of personal video and the internet?

Note that none of this implies we shouldn't be watchful and highlight the shortcomings of the system and individuals.

Maybe the chant should change from "Things are worst, they're ushering in a new police state, disregarding the constitution, etc..." to "Nail the abusers, highlight the specific problems and work the system to usher in changes"

Of course, that's rather short on revolutionary fervor.

You've hit the proverbial nail on the head. We ARE being conditioned...gradualism dulls the senses and the intellect, but many, including some here, just can't see that. It makes me so grateful, when I think back to our Minutemen and citizen soldiers in our original colonies, what they were able to recognize (tyranny)current events and what liberties they were losing. It's call persipaciousness..the ability to see through events to the underlying principles involved. Sadly, we have an electorate now (thanx primarily to our sinking public screwl sytem) that is incapable of seeing past their computer games, cell phone texting, sports events, et al.
These cops were being "put to the test" and they failed miserably, both professionally and as individuals. Being "thin-skinned" is no excuse for their behavior.

Post new comment

Pixiq on Facebook

Join the 10192 Pixiq fans on Facebook

Share

  • Share

Subscribe

Get weekly updates from Pixiq. Short, sweet, and always interesting.