# DUI checkpoint video



## 2slick (Dec 5, 2008)

Interesting to say the least. Friend posted this on Facebook. What ya think? I know it ain't in Texas, but it well could be.


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

But hey, it's for the greater good guys!!! They'll be along shortly to tell ya' he asked for it with his attitude.


----------



## 47741 (Jan 5, 2010)

All they are missing is brown shirts.

Checkpoints are disgusting
Gotta love that what he said before they found the camera.

Where is teeroy to defend the idiocy of checkpoints?


----------



## saltwatersensations (Aug 30, 2004)

Great video. I disagree with checkpoints also.


----------



## Gilbert (May 25, 2004)

I don't need that kind of guy on the roadways. He probably drives in the left lane below speed limit.


----------



## prokat (Jul 17, 2010)

That would have been a cavity search around brazoria. easy


----------



## teeroy (Oct 1, 2009)

Thankfully a dog wasn't in the car. Definitely would have been shot.


----------



## Bocephus (May 30, 2008)

Looks to me like he had it planned....to find a DUI checkpoint and antagonize the LEO's.

Another douchbag Liberal with an agenda.


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

teeroy said:


> Thankfully a dog wasn't in the car. Definitely would have been shot.


The dog or the driver?


----------



## Wedge (Apr 29, 2005)

*I could not agree more*



Bocephus said:


> Looks to me like he had it planned....to find a DUI checkpoint and antagonize the LEO's.
> 
> Another douchbag Liberal with an agenda.


But, if we are to beat them we have to be smarter than them. This is not a good example of smart. In the end, the knuckle dragging neanderthals will not prevail.


----------



## okmajek (May 29, 2012)

Why is it always sum guy that looks 
like he would make one of these videos ? 
Either way i'm glad he does I think any checkpoint
is BS!


----------



## dparkerh (Jun 24, 2011)

Saw this on FB. Love it. ******* cops scare me.


----------



## dparkerh (Jun 24, 2011)

Bocephus said:


> Looks to me like he had it planned....to find a DUI checkpoint and antagonize the LEO's.
> 
> Another douchbag Liberal with an agenda.


I would think twice before calling this guy a libtard. He may very well be one, but someone that knows their constitutional rights and is AGAINST big government and will stand up for their rights sounds like a conservative to me.


----------



## saltwatersensations (Aug 30, 2004)

dparkerh said:


> I would think twice before calling this guy a libtard. He may very well be one, but someone that knows their constitutional rights and is AGAINST big government and will stand up for their rights sounds like a conservative to me.


X2. He seemed to have proved his point effortlessly.


----------



## indaskinny (May 25, 2009)

I spent last new years in Indiana. I had to go through a check point. Check point was on a bridge very close to Illinois border. I firmly believe the trooper acted the way he did in my check because I was from Texas. This trooper acted the same as the one in the video, for no reason. I did not express my constitutional rights as the guy did in the video. I was respectful, curtious, and completed every trick he asked me to do. 

I myself, hate anything that is unconstitutional. And checking a law abiding citizen, with no probable cause is unconstitutional.


----------



## goatchze (Aug 1, 2006)

Bocephus said:


> Looks to me like he had it planned....to find a DUI checkpoint and antagonize the LEO's.
> 
> Another *douchbag Liberal* with an agenda.


I could see a libertarian making this video all the same.

To be honest, I've yet to understand how DUI checkpoints don't violate the Fourth Amendment.


----------



## chumy (Jul 13, 2012)

dparkerh said:


> I would think twice before calling this guy a libtard. He may very well be one, but someone that knows their constitutional rights and is AGAINST big government and will stand up for their rights sounds like a conservative to me.


X2


----------



## Bocephus (May 30, 2008)

My above post is just my opinion for whatever that's worth (not much !)

But, if I happen upon a checkpoint you can bet your butt I'm gonna be respectful, courteous, and follow all instructions as they are given.

I figure that's always the best way to handle it. My Dad once told me "the side of the road is not a courtroom in which to argue your point".....I always figured that was good advice.


----------



## kjstephe (Dec 20, 2012)

Bocephus said:


> Looks to me like he had it planned....to find a DUI checkpoint and antagonize the LEO's.
> 
> Another douchbag Liberal with an agenda.


I agree, just let him check and you would have been on your way.


----------



## On The Hook (Feb 24, 2009)

The holier than thou attitude has no place in law enforcement. The cop was a jerk on a power trip. Funny how they got real quiet when the found the camera, then turned it so they could not be seen. What did they have to hide?

I wonder if the cops wife and kids would be proud of how good ole dad acted at work?


----------



## 2slick (Dec 5, 2008)

kjstephe said:


> I agree, just let him check and you would have been on your way.


So just give up your rights and go meekly on your way?


----------



## Laguna Freak (Nov 15, 2006)

*Seriously Bocephus?!?*



Bocephus said:


> Looks to me like he had it planned....to find a DUI checkpoint and antagonize the LEO's.
> 
> Another douchbag Liberal with an agenda.


That's the best you got in response to a couple of under-educated over-authorized idiots with guns and badges who obviously disrespected not only the law but the rights and property of a law abiding citizen? Just my opinion, but you should be ashamed to call yourself an American. You got no way of knowing the American whose rights were trampled is a liberal. I would bet he is not. He acts very much the conservative or libertarian to me. Doesn't matter if he is a lib or not. But libs tend to be the butt-kissers of authoritarianism these days.

One more thing, you might want to think about changing your handle, your attitude about out of control cops, caught on video no less, gives the real Bocephus a bad name.

:flag:


----------



## Bocephus (May 30, 2008)

laguna freak said:


> that's the best you got in response to a couple of under-educated over-authorized idiots with guns and badges who obviously disrespected not only the law but the rights and property of a law abiding citizen? Just my opinion, but you should be ashamed to call yourself an american. You got no way of knowing the american whose rights were trampled is a liberal. I would bet he is not. He acts very much teh conservative or libertarian to me. Doesn't matter if he is a lib or not. But libs tend to be the butt-kissers of authoritarianism these days.
> 
> One more thing, you might want to think about changing your handle, your attitude about out of control cops, caught on video no less, gives the real bocephus a bad name.
> 
> :flag:


lmao !!!!!!


----------



## mstrelectricman (Jul 10, 2009)

Count me in with the sensible crowd that hates having my rights trampled on. I've experienced these tactics right here in Harris and Fort Bend Counties back in my younger days and that is why I distrust the PO-LICE!


----------



## mastercylinder60 (Dec 18, 2005)

It's important that John Q. Public lets Johnny Law know that we have rights and that we are willing to fight to protect them. If you give Big Brother an inch, eventually he will take a mile. In my opinion, checkpoints are a clear violation of unreasonable search and seizure.

I find it odd that so many conservatives are practically calling for a revolution over the idea of stricter background checks on gun purchases, but the same people don't get too worked up over blatant bludgeonings of some of our other fundamental rights guaranteed us by our Constitution.


----------



## hippyfisher (Mar 24, 2009)

So what happens if you just drive off?


----------



## dparkerh (Jun 24, 2011)

Ever seen the YouTube video showing various border check refusals? It is great. I keep telling myself if i ever get asked to pull over for a random search at a border check on Hwy 77 I am going to refuse. I doubt I do it - but I'd like to.


----------



## boom! (Jul 10, 2004)

hippyfisher said:


> So what happens if you just drive off?


You get shot. lol


----------



## BigNate523 (May 19, 2010)

mstrelectricman said:


> Count me in with the sensible crowd that hates having my rights trampled on. I've experienced these tactics right here in Harris and Fort Bend Counties back in my younger days and that is why I distrust the PO-LICE!


X2

Respect works both ways


----------



## deano77511 (Feb 2, 2005)

boom! said:


> You get shot. lol


lmao!!!


----------



## chumy (Jul 13, 2012)

SlickWillie said:


> So just give up your rights and go meekly on your way?


I'm one of those meekly sheeple people at checkpoints. I hate saying that.


----------



## chumy (Jul 13, 2012)

mastercylinder said:


> It's important that John Q. Public lets Johnny Law know that we have rights and that we are willing to fight to protect them. If you give Big Brother an inch, eventually he will take a mile. In my opinion, checkpoints are a clear violation of unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> I find it odd that so many conservatives are practically calling for a revolution over the idea of stricter background checks on gun purchases, but the same people don't get too worked up over blatant bludgeonings of some of our other fundamental rights guaranteed us by our Constitution.


Nomination for quote of the year MC. I doubt anybody would disagree. hahahahah


----------



## aquafowlr (May 21, 2004)

First thing that came to my mind. Next time they might just say get on the train. When do you say that's far enough?


----------



## dparkerh (Jun 24, 2011)

This guy seems pretty douchey, but his points are valid:


----------



## Fish&Chips (Jan 27, 2012)

Smile. You're on camera...


----------



## Fish&Chips (Jan 27, 2012)

dparkerh said:


> I would think twice before calling this guy a libtard. He may very well be one, but someone that knows their constitutional rights and is AGAINST big government and will stand up for their rights sounds like a conservative to me.


x100


----------



## 6.5 shooter dude (Jan 8, 2008)

Just comply and be on your way like a good little sheep.


----------



## davis300 (Jun 27, 2006)

Seems like a douchebag LEO to me...picking on a young man for not bowing down.

Before you slam me I have the utmost respect for most LEO's who put their life on the line daily. This guy seems like the power has gone to his head.


----------



## JFolm (Apr 22, 2012)

Some of these "conservatives" on here are amazing me.


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

mastercylinder said:


> It's important that John Q. Public lets Johnny Law know that we have rights and that we are willing to fight to protect them. If you give Big Brother an inch, eventually he will take a mile. In my opinion, checkpoints are a clear violation of unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> I find it odd that so many conservatives are practically calling for a revolution over the idea of stricter background checks on gun purchases, but the same people don't get too worked up over blatant bludgeonings of some of our other fundamental rights guaranteed us by our Constitution.





JFolm said:


> Some of these "conservatives" on here are amazing me.


What are you two talking about????? I must be missing some posts! I've seen one person say to just sit there and take it out of 37 posts!

Â©


----------



## JFolm (Apr 22, 2012)

There's only a couple! Not saying everyone!


----------



## mastercylinder60 (Dec 18, 2005)

spurgersalty said:


> What are you two talking about????? I must be missing some posts! I've seen one person say to just sit there and take it out of 37 posts!
> 
> Â©


You've never seen any similar threads like this before?

And what's up with the copyright mark? You're posting on a fishing website, not composing literature.


----------



## dparkerh (Jun 24, 2011)

^^ LOL


----------



## ShadMan (May 21, 2004)

All of the officers in the video should be fired, including the dog. I hope this guy gets a nice settlement from the state over this. This police state BS is getting out of control, and it's time we put an end to it.

FYI, in the comments the poster says that he is a Libertarian.


----------



## 3192 (Dec 30, 2004)

Not going to win the Officer Friendly Award!


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

mastercylinder said:


> You've never seen any similar threads like this before?
> 
> And what's up with the copyright mark? You're posting on a fishing website, not composing literature.


I think you're confusing this with "no refusal weekends" MC.
If you don't like my Â©, please, by all means, put me on ignore.
Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©Â©


----------



## Fish&Chips (Jan 27, 2012)

Sad to say that we live in the days where you need a camera/video when dealing with LEO's. For without video the officer's word is golden.


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

Fish&Chips said:


> Sad to say that we live in the days where you need a camera/video when dealing with LEO's. For without video the officer's word is golden.


Give it time and they'll make it illegal for us to video our interactions with law enforcement. Our legislators are idiots.


----------



## dbarham (Aug 13, 2005)

ShadMan said:


> All of the officers in the video should be fired, including the dog. I hope this guy gets a nice settlement from the state over this. This police state BS is getting out of control, and it's time we put an end to it.
> 
> FYI, in the comments the poster says that he is a Libertarian.


I agree!:flag:


----------



## blaze 'em (Jun 4, 2012)

Better watch out how you talk about law enforcement on here. Lots of ex leo's who are quick on the reddie trigger if you don't see it their way. I guess it would be the same group that the cops in the video fall in...


----------



## Gottagofishin (Dec 17, 2005)

I got stopped at a DUI checkpoint a few months back, and was cooperative and polite until the officer (looked like he was still in high school) asked me to step out of the car. At that point I asked to speak to the supervising officer. He didn't like that, but got him anyway.

I explained that I knew my rights, and without probable cause they had no right to ask me to step out of the car or search me. He asked the other officer, what the probable cause was.. Wait for it....

I was chewing gum and he thought I might have been drinking. He let me go and as I was pulling away the offending officer was getting a good dressing down. Some of them get it. Actually in my experience, the vast majority of LEOs are professional and courteous.

The example in the Youtube though is indefensible, as was the bikini search one recently.


----------



## Riley & Sons (Aug 7, 2008)

Am I the only one on here that thinks the smart *** kid is the one that started the whole issue here??? The only thing the officer asked him to do was roll his window down. I will gladly stop and cooperate with the LEO if it will keep a drunk driver from killing one of my loved ones. Obviously those of you who see these checkpoints as a bad thing, have never lost a loved one to a drunk driver!! I don't agree with an officer with an attitude, but i think most of that can be avoided by the driver's attitude. One of the things that really gets under my skin is when they think they can draw blood from a citizen during a "no refusal" period at on of these checkpoints.


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

Riley & Sons said:


> Am I the only one on here that thinks the smart *** kid is the one that started the whole issue here??? The only thing the officer asked him to do was roll his window down. I will gladly stop and cooperate with the LEO if it will keep a drunk driver from killing one of my loved ones. Obviously those of you who see these checkpoints as a bad thing, have never lost a loved one to a drunk driver!! I don't agree with an officer with an attitude, but i think most of that can be avoided by the driver's attitude. One of the things that really gets under my skin is when they think they can draw blood from a citizen during a "no refusal" period at on of these checkpoints.


There it is, you would give up freedoms (driving legally, unmolested by law enforcement) for a bit of temporary safety.
How do you feel about hi cap magazine bans? Military style weapons? You think it would be a good idea to register our guns so the government know who to check on?
I'm sorry for your loss, but that is not the right reason to go touting for laws lest you open the door to even greater government intrusion in your life. 
You can't let your emotions control your decisions. Words I've come to live by every day of my life.


----------



## ShadMan (May 21, 2004)

Riley & Sons said:


> Obviously those of you who see these checkpoints as a bad thing, have never lost a loved one to a drunk driver!!


Wrong, we are the ones who love our country and the principles on which it was founded. Move to Europe if you don't appreciate, and are not willing to stand up for, your freedoms. I have great respect for law enforcement, but violation of Constitutional rights cannot be accepted under any circumstances, or you will have forfeited those rights permanently.



Riley & Sons said:


> Am I the only one on here that thinks the smart *** kid is the one that started the whole issue here???


Yes. The ones who started the whole issue were the police officers violating everyone's Constitutional rights by illegally detaining (a traffic stop is considered being detained) every motorist on the road without probable cause. They were doing this before the kid refused to fully roll down his window.

Not trying to pick on you, as you are only echoing the sentiments of many others, but if we don't stand up for our rights now, there won't be any to stand up for in the not too distant future.


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

I wouldn't fire the dog. He was just taking orders.


----------



## ShadMan (May 21, 2004)

Ernest said:


> I wouldn't fire the dog. He was just taking orders.


Correct, but he has been trained to falsely alert.  I was kidding with the dog comment, but his handler should definitely be fired.


----------



## Gottagofishin (Dec 17, 2005)

It might have been a setup, but if the officers had behaved in a professional manner within the bounds of the law, there would be nothing to discuss. That's the issue. Smart alec kids have been around since Cain and Abel. Police officers are trained to handle them professionally.

I realize it's a tough job, but we don't need people who can't keep their cool carrying a badge and gun, and interacting with the public.


----------



## Riley & Sons (Aug 7, 2008)

I sure hope you don't ever need their help. This doesn't have anything to do with weapons ban. He was trying to do his job and the kid had an attitude. What if the officer got shot because he did not follow protocol, what would your answer be then hero.
How are you going to defend yourself in a head on collision with a drunk?


----------



## Won Hunglo (Apr 24, 2007)




----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

Riley & Sons said:


> I sure hope you don't ever need their help. This doesn't have anything to do with weapons ban. He was trying to do his job and the kid had an attitude. What if the officer got shot because he did not follow protocol, what would your answer be then hero.
> How are you going to defend yourself in a head on collision with a drunk?


Airbags....Hero

Are you walking around in a bubble or covered in bubble wrap? I can get an attitude too Hero. 
Just how far do you want our government to go to protect you and your loved ones?????? Why can't you do it?
Until they come out with programmable auto pilot car, there's always going to be accidents. For multiple reasons that you nor I will ever have control over.
So again, take some advice from a guy that learned Act. Dont react!it a little quicker than you,* don't let your emotions control your decisions.*


----------



## Riley & Sons (Aug 7, 2008)

I will never agree with the rights we are losing on a daily basis under our current administration. That was not my point. The officer was doing his job. Could he have handled it differently? Absolutely!!! I just think the 21 year old kid doesn't need to provoke the police like he did on a holiday, at a DUI checkpoint.


----------



## Goags (May 28, 2004)

Riley & Sons said:


> I sure hope you don't ever need their help. This doesn't have anything to do with weapons ban. He was trying to do his job and the kid had an attitude. What if the officer got shot because he did not follow protocol, what would your answer be then hero.
> How are you going to defend yourself in a head on collision with a drunk?


I don't think anyone has a problem w/ stopping drunk drivers, illegal aliens, drugruuners, etc. It's the blanket roadblocks where everyone is infringed upon that is causing the rub. To take it further, would you have a problem going thru a roadblock EVERYDAY on the way to work?


----------



## Riley & Sons (Aug 7, 2008)

Spurgsalty,
I am not trying to start a fight with you. I have plenty of ways to protect my family and I will die on my doorstep to keep that right. I don't live in a bubble. I will take care of myself just fine, you won't have to worry about me. I agree with you on most of your points, but I do have an issue with some of today's youth and their lack of respect for anybody that is not part of their group. (Parents, bosses, LEO etc...)


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

Riley & Sons said:


> Spurgsalty,
> I am not trying to start a fight with you. I have plenty of ways to protect my family and I will die on my doorstep to keep that right. I don't live in a bubble. I will take care of myself just fine, you won't have to worry about me. I agree with you on most of your points, but I do have an issue with some of today's youth and their lack of respect for anybody that is not part of their group. (Parents, bosses, LEO etc...)


I don't disagree with those points. But, the officer overreacted in a big way and knew it when he saw the camera. 
I've calmed down now
And when it comes to my quote above about emotions controlling decisions, the cops should be the first to learn this. They deal with it day in, and day out. If they can't, it will get their job one day.
BTW, I apologize if I came off rude in my initial post to you......Hero
Â©


----------



## Riley & Sons (Aug 7, 2008)

I would take a group of 2Coolers any day of the week, including you spurgersalty!!(I spelled it right that time) I apologize as well. I probably would have been the first one to tell that officer to GTH if I had done nothing to provoke his attitude. Your right a LEO needs to handle himself better in that situation. For those of you that don't believe me with what I said about our current administration, ask my wife. I almost destroyed the big screen when he got re-elected. Spurgersalty are we still friends?


----------



## boom! (Jul 10, 2004)

Riley & Sons said:


> I just think the 21 year old kid doesn't need to provoke the police like he did on a holiday, at a DUI checkpoint.


I don't think that someone that can be provoked by a kid should be carrying a gun and protecting the public. The cop should have realized that the kid was sober and laughed and told him to get his punk arse home.


----------



## 6.5 shooter dude (Jan 8, 2008)

boom! said:


> I don't think that someone that can be provoked by a kid should be carrying a gun and protecting the public. The cop should have realized that the kid was sober and laughed and told him to get his punk arse home.


I think the cop should have tazered the kid in the nutz.


----------



## boom! (Jul 10, 2004)

Jay Baker said:


> I think the cop should have tazered the kid in the nutz.


That's what I would have done.


----------



## Goags (May 28, 2004)

Jay Baker said:


> I think the cop should have tazered the kid in the nutz.


I (cough) respect your right to your opinion.


----------



## Laguna Freak (Nov 15, 2006)

Jay Baker said:


> I think the cop should have tazered the kid in the nutz.


That's just WRONG! LOLOLOL!!!!! :slimer:


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

Riley & Sons said:


> I would take a group of 2Coolers any day of the week, including you spurgersalty!!(I spelled it right that time) I apologize as well. I probably would have been the first one to tell that officer to GTH if I had done nothing to provoke his attitude. Your right a LEO needs to handle himself better in that situation. For those of you that don't believe me with what I said about our current administration, ask my wife. I almost destroyed the big screen when he got re-elected. Spurgersalty are we still friends?


We're good. What would we be if we couldn't disagree on a certain subject without hurt feelings? Answer: juveniles.
I just get a bit worked up when it comes to individual rights. Just ask my LEO buddies. I give them hell
Â©


----------



## Seeker (Jul 6, 2009)

LOL!! That way he could have asked the officer if deez got over to see him this past weekend.. lol..


----------



## jamisjockey (Jul 30, 2009)

Remind me again how free we are?


----------



## Hardwired (Jun 12, 2012)

I just want to know if, at age 28, if I am grouped in the "youth" and "kids" that everyone seems to repeatedly be subjugated here. 

What exactly is the cutoff age? 

Did you parents not say the same thing about your generation?

Do the much older member differentiate the young punks, and the really young punks, or at your age do you just group them all together as idiots?

Just a reminder that you raised the dang punks, or your dang punks raised the idiots. Should have done a better job, because I will agree there are some idiots out there...of all ages, as proved by replies on this thread. 

Back to thread.


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

Hardwired said:


> I just want to know if, at age 28, if I am grouped in the "youth" and "kids" that everyone seems to repeatedly be subjugated here.
> 
> What exactly is the cutoff age?
> 
> ...


Ejemplo, por favor?


----------



## Hardwired (Jun 12, 2012)

Bocephus said:


> Looks to me like he had it planned....to find a DUI checkpoint and antagonize the LEO's.
> 
> Another douchbag Liberal with an agenda.


Example


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

Hardwired said:


> Example


Oh, I thought I dropped the 2 gray hairs the wife was happy to discoverhwell:


----------



## Kenner21 (Aug 25, 2005)

Maybe the kid was out looking for this type of response from Police, that doesn't mean he should have been able to find it. The cop says it all towards the end of the video where he says " He's perfectly right, he's totally innocent. He knows his rights. He knows what the constitution says" Wonder how many of us know don't know our rights and have them abused by the police on a regular basis.


----------



## JFolm (Apr 22, 2012)

Hardwired said:


> I just want to know if, at age 28, if I am grouped in the "youth" and "kids" that everyone seems to repeatedly be subjugated here.
> 
> What exactly is the cutoff age?
> 
> ...


Amen buddy.

J,

Maybe we can submit a suggestion to the DOT? Have the check points include vehicle safety inspections, vision tests, monitor every cell phone for their last outgoing text message (and 2cool post), hearing test...

Anyone else have any input to add?


----------



## TexasVines (Jan 5, 2012)

Riley & Sons said:


> Am I the only one on here that thinks the smart *** kid is the one that started the whole issue here??? The only thing the officer asked him to do was roll his window down. I will gladly stop and cooperate with the LEO if it will keep a drunk driver from killing one of my loved ones. Obviously those of you who see these checkpoints as a bad thing, have never lost a loved one to a drunk driver!! I don't agree with an officer with an attitude, but i think most of that can be avoided by the driver's attitude. One of the things that really gets under my skin is when they think they can draw blood from a citizen during a "no refusal" period at on of these checkpoints.


perhaps you have never had a loved one killed by a member of a particular ethnic group that shows a much higher than average propensity for violence against their own ethnic group and other ethnic groups especially when compared to their % of the total population

surely if you had you would be in favor of the police stopping members of that ethnic group randomly to check them for weapons or to see if they are drunk or high....or perhaps you would just limit it to the ones wearing a particular color of clothing or athletic jerseys or some other "identifier"

I mean after all if they are not doing anything wrong why would they really care just get patted down and frisk answer the questions and they can be on their way.....pretty simple if they just go along with that right!!!!

oh wait what is that you say you can't do that because you can't just assume that members of a particular group are or could be guilty of a crime just based on a factor like their ethnicity......but wait you do say it is ok to assume guilt for another group of people......just based on the fact that they are committing the perfectly legal act of driving in a car

if you can find "probable cause" for one group of people based on their participation in a LEGAL activity like driving down the road in a car then surely you can find probable cause for any other group of people doing other perfectly legal things if you can show there is some % of those people that might be violating some other law while they do their legal activity as well


----------



## chumy (Jul 13, 2012)

Hardwired said:


> I just want to know if, at age 28, if I am grouped in the "youth" and "kids" that everyone seems to repeatedly be subjugated here.
> 
> What exactly is the cutoff age?
> 
> ...


The idiot cutoff age is when one realizes that hanging balls on the back of ones truck hitch is kind of stupid. I can give other examples if need be.


----------



## vdrivenman (Aug 20, 2010)

don't like the way the laws that are written or enforced! don't start at the bottom with those tasked with the orders.start at the top with the azzholes that let these/vote these type laws/orders into place. vote them out and put those in office that will ensure your rights and not sellout to the $$$$$$$$$$$.


----------



## capt4fish (Dec 4, 2004)

And yet another jack booted thug.


----------



## capt4fish (Dec 4, 2004)

*You are....*



Riley & Sons said:


> Am I the only one on here that thinks the smart *** kid is the one that started the whole issue here??? The only thing the officer asked him to do was roll his window down. I will gladly stop and cooperate with the LEO if it will keep a drunk driver from killing one of my loved ones. Obviously those of you who see these checkpoints as a bad thing, have never lost a loved one to a drunk driver!! I don't agree with an officer with an attitude, but i think most of that can be avoided by the driver's attitude. One of the things that really gets under my skin is when they think they can draw blood from a citizen during a "no refusal" period at on of these checkpoints.


and people that share your view are the reason we have a police state now. 
The drivers "attitude" of excercising constitutional rights is not the problem here.

Who was it that said "those that sacrifice freedom for security will have neither"? True words, especially today.


----------



## tbone2374 (Feb 27, 2010)

Our gubment is here to hep us!


----------



## kjstephe (Dec 20, 2012)

SlickWillie said:


> So just give up your rights and go meekly on your way?


The cop was not doing anything illegal, just asked him to roll his window down. They have enough to worry about. Drunk drivers do kill people and I am for these stops if it gets just one off the road. It might be your son, daughter, wife, mother that the drunks hits. 
It is also just a matter of time, he is wasting the cops time, his time. Just give your information and go.
One of greatest pieces of information I was ever taught was to pick your battles, if you fight everything you are nothing but a trouble maker.


----------



## capt4fish (Dec 4, 2004)

kjstephe said:


> The cop was not doing anything illegal, just asked him to roll his window down. They have enough to worry about. Drunk drivers do kill people and I am for these stops if it gets just one off the road. It might be your son, daughter, wife, mother that the drunks hits.
> It is also just a matter of time, he is wasting the cops time, his time. Just give your information and go.
> One of greatest pieces of information I was ever taught was to pick your battles, if you fight everything you are nothing but a trouble maker.


Was pretty obvious if you watched the video that this kid was not intoxicated. So why didn't the cop just wave him on? Power trip is the answer.

Giving up your rights is stupid....end of story.


----------



## Fish&Chips (Jan 27, 2012)

Seems like the young guy wanted to prove a point. Then the officer got upset and decided he was going to teach this young guy a lesson - maybe so he wouldn't try this again. It also looks that he got even more upset because the guy knew his constitutional rights. Either way, LEO's need to keep their cool and be professionals especially when they know there is no immediate danger.


----------



## TheSamarai (Jan 20, 2005)

Driving is a privilege. Around here stops like this are announced days beforehand and its usually on a friday or saturday. So if you dont want to chance getting stopped stay out of the areas on that day. Getting stopped is also just an inconvenience, if u did nothing wrong then u have nothing to be worried about. Just like any other inspection. ie boat.


----------



## douglasgilbert (Feb 22, 2008)

Jack booted police thugs who think they can do whatever they feel like. They need to tied to a tree and whipped with a pair of plow lines.


----------



## mastercylinder60 (Dec 18, 2005)

TheSamarai said:


> Driving is a privilege. Around here stops like this are announced days beforehand and its usually on a friday or saturday. So if you dont want to chance getting stopped stay out of the areas on that day. Getting stopped is also just an inconvenience, if u did nothing wrong then u have nothing to be worried about. Just like any other inspection. ie boat.


Getting stopped without probable cause is NOT just an "inconvenience." It's a gross violation of my rights. If I come into your house and take your guns away, I'll just justify it by calling it an "inconvenience."

The cops aren't really trying to make our roads safer; they're trying to create a police state. They get high on the power.


----------



## Fish&Chips (Jan 27, 2012)

In this video the cop honors & protects the people's constitutional rights.


----------



## FIDO (Jun 14, 2011)

mastercylinder said:


> Getting stopped without probable cause is NOT just an "inconvenience." It's a gross violation of my rights. If I come into your house and take your guns away, I'll just justify it by calling it an "inconvenience."
> 
> The cops aren't really trying to make our roads safer; they're trying to create a police state. They get high on the power.


I agree 100%!

Started under Bush. Being perfected under Obama.

The digital world we live in almost guarantees the new age death of earned liberty. The temptation is too great by those who can but shouldn't. With no check in place, we can't stop it. The only progress which will be made is that which is in the direction we are already heading. Meanwhile, the people cheer in the streets for their beautiful leader.


----------



## dparkerh (Jun 24, 2011)

Jay Baker said:


> I think the cop should have tazered the kid in the nutz.


They did it in The Hangover. Classic.


----------



## Fish&Chips (Jan 27, 2012)

FIDO said:


> Started under Bush. Being perfected under Obama.


Bingo!


----------



## chumy (Jul 13, 2012)

TheSamarai said:


> Driving is a privilege. Around here stops like this are announced days beforehand and its usually on a friday or saturday. So if you dont want to chance getting stopped stay out of the areas on that day. Getting stopped is also just an inconvenience, if u did nothing wrong then u have nothing to be worried about. Just like any other inspection. ie boat.


 If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.


----------



## Tortuga (May 21, 2004)

No particular dog in this fight, but where do my 'Constitutional Rights' come in when the Game Warden...or the Coasties...hail me in the middle of East Bay and tell me to stop my boat for 'inspection' ???

Just curious....


----------



## saltwatersensations (Aug 30, 2004)

Tortuga said:


> No particular dog in this fight, but where do my 'Constitutional Rights' come in when the Game Warden...or the Coasties...hail me in the middle of East Bay and tell me to stop my boat for 'inspection' ???
> 
> Just curious....


Good point.


----------



## dparkerh (Jun 24, 2011)

Tortuga said:


> No particular dog in this fight, but where do my 'Constitutional Rights' come in when the Game Warden...or the Coasties...hail me in the middle of East Bay and tell me to stop my boat for 'inspection' ???
> 
> Just curious....


I would guess that if you are seen actively fishing, or appear to be in pursuit of fish or game (rods on board, tackle, etc..) then that is probable cause that you MAY have broken the law, therefore they could search??


----------



## On The Hook (Feb 24, 2009)

Fish&Chips said:


> In this video the cop honors & protects the people's constitutional rights.


That's a good cop right there. He knows the law, is respectful of all parties, and does not give into the power hungry jack thugs and their power grabbing tactics.

We need more, reasonable, officers like him serving the public. Good job sir.


----------



## revag12 (Jul 5, 2005)

At the 5:10 in the video, the one officer says to the other _"He is perfectly innocent and he knows his constitutional rights"_. The other officer replies _"He knows what is in the constitution"._ This makes it perfectly clear the officers knew full well they were participating in an illegal search and seizure. If this was the exception it would be one thing, but I think it is more the norm today. It is scary to me to see how quickly people are willing to give up the very rights that our fathers and forefathers fought and died for.


----------



## Fish&Chips (Jan 27, 2012)

On The Hook said:


> That's a good cop right there. He knows the law, is respectful of all parties, and does not give into the power hungry jack thugs and their power grabbing tactics.
> 
> We need more, reasonable, officers like him serving the public. Good job sir.


Yes there are still good cops out there. It's just that we need to know our rights & the law and having a camera handy wouldn't hurt either.


----------



## Tortuga (May 21, 2004)

*"I would guess that if you are seen actively fishing, or appear to be in pursuit of fish or game (rods on board, tackle, etc..) then that is probable cause that you MAY have broken the law, therefore they could search?? "

*
I don't believe "May Have" will hold water as 'probably cause'..If that were the case then EVERY boat on the water "MAY HAVE" been up to no good.....

When Mont's coming in from a day on the bay..he 'MAY HAVE' 50 snapper on board..or he 'MAY HAVE' a couple of hunnert pounds of cocaine in the cabin of the Flatline...or he "MAY HAVE" a dozen illegals in the cabin....but so MAY have any of the other thousands of boats out there... (bad example I know..but making a point).LOL

Just too muddy a point of law for me to figger out....

ERNESTO..git in here and 'part the waters' for us....


----------



## Laguna Freak (Nov 15, 2006)

revag12 said:


> At the 5:10 in the video, the one officer says to the other _"He is perfectly innocent and he knows his constitutional rights"_. The other officer replies _"He knows what is in the constitution"._ This makes it perfectly clear the officers knew full well they were participating in an illegal search and seizure. If this was the exception it would be one thing, but I think it is more the norm today. It is scary to me to see how quickly people are willing to give up the very rights that our fathers and forefathers fought and died for.


X 1000000000000...

A-men brotha!


----------



## Hardwired (Jun 12, 2012)

dparkerh said:


> I would guess that if you are seen actively fishing, or appear to be in pursuit of fish or game (rods on board, tackle, etc..) then that is probable cause that you MAY have broken the law, therefore they could search??


Interesting question! I would tend to disagree with the above answer.

"May" have broken the law by fishing is not probable cause for detainment. They can not stop a vehicle to see if the vehicle driver is licensed, not can they stop him because he "may" have rolled a stop sign somewhere in his travels.


----------



## Hardwired (Jun 12, 2012)

Tortuga said:


> No particular dog in this fight, but where do my 'Constitutional Rights' come in when the Game Warden...or the Coasties...hail me in the middle of East Bay and tell me to stop my boat for 'inspection' ???
> 
> Just curious....


The more I think about this, I would challenge the legality of the stop, inspection, fish check, and the original detainment without probable cause.

Would love to hear a legal viewpoint of it from a constitutional law legal advisor.


----------



## On The Hook (Feb 24, 2009)

The supremes over the years have upheld many government actions that are or rather were unconstitutional. Sad that a select few have so much power over so many.


----------



## Tortuga (May 21, 2004)

Hardwired said:


> The more I think about this, I would challenge the legality of the stop, inspection, fish check, and the original detainment without probable cause.
> 
> Would love to hear a legal viewpoint of it from a constitutional law legal advisor.


Agree with legality thang..but think probably almost all of us just accept it as part of the 'game'. Dunno what exactly would happen if we refused to stop or allow inspection..but I don't think anything good would be the result....:rotfl:

Ya gotta calculate the odds before making any decisions in life....LOL


----------



## dparkerh (Jun 24, 2011)

Tortuga said:


> *"I would guess that if you are seen actively fishing, or appear to be in pursuit of fish or game (rods on board, tackle, etc..) then that is probable cause that you MAY have broken the law, therefore they could search?? "*
> 
> I don't believe "May Have" will hold water as 'probably cause'..If that were the case then EVERY boat on the water "MAY HAVE" been up to no good.....
> 
> ...


See where it says in my OP the words: "I would guess" ??? That is another way of saying simple words like "maybe" or "I don't know"

Lighten up Frances.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Nov 4, 2011)

That sherriff had no reason to yell, the officer with the dog had no reason to make that dog jump on his car door or hood. If there were drugs in that car the dog would not need to be on the hood to smell them. If anyone thinks ANY of this is ok they are just sheep letting some douschebags on a power trip dominate them. I am all for " to serve and protect" but against anything that violates my rights. If you are defending the actions of the cops in that video I feel sorry for you! Its all our opinions and that is fine, but I don't root for pigs that act like that. Yes, the kid was expecting this to happen but how did he know it would go down like this? Probably because it happens all too often, body cavity searches, cops tearing up civilians belongings, ransacking vehicles for nothing. 
I had a cop follow me in my gate that has a gate code and all the way to my driveway after work one day and he insisted I tell him about my neighbors whereabouts. The dude he was asking about died three years ago and I told him that while I was being interrogated in my own driveway with my arms full of work clothes, lunch box, coffe mug etc. he told me not to put any of it down until he was done talking to me. He got an attitude and stormed to his car and peeled out in my driveway slinging gravel on me and my truck. For what??? Because he was a POS on a power trip. I called his *** in and then made a follow up call the next day to make sure he was confronted about this BS interrogation. He had already done several other things before and this was his third strike. Good riddance!!! 
Rant over.

http://www.fishingscout.com/scouts/SmackDaddy


----------



## koyhoward (Jan 8, 2007)

kjstephe said:


> The cop was not doing anything illegal, just asked him to roll his window down. They have enough to worry about. Drunk drivers do kill people and I am for these stops if it gets just one off the road. It might be your son, daughter, wife, mother that the drunks hits.
> It is also just a matter of time, he is wasting the cops time, his time. Just give your information and go.
> One of greatest pieces of information I was ever taught was to pick your battles, if you fight everything you are nothing but a trouble maker.


I'm assuming that you're ok with giving up all of your guns too then right? I mean, there are crazies out there that kill people with guns every day. It might be your son or daughter that is saved. If it saves just one person then it's ok right?


----------



## chumy (Jul 13, 2012)

Tortuga said:


> No particular dog in this fight, but where do my 'Constitutional Rights' come in when the Game Warden...or the Coasties...hail me in the middle of East Bay and tell me to stop my boat for 'inspection' ???
> 
> Just curious....


Open Waters Act


----------



## Hookless (Jan 18, 2013)

Seem pretty typical of the police too me.


----------



## Tortuga (May 21, 2004)

chumy said:


> Open Waters Act


Need a friendly hand here, Chumy.. Never heard of the Open Waters Act and google can't find it for me. Just curious... Only link I can find is where Sen. McCain has a bill introduced to cancel some part of it , I think.

Link would be appreciated..from you or anybody. :cheers:


----------



## Hardwired (Jun 12, 2012)

I assume he was referring to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Water Safety Act. 

I have yet to read anything that would allow them to detain without cause, but I have not read all 80 pages...yet.


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

From TPWD's website.

General Law

The following information addresses some of the more commonly asked questions about hunting and fishing requirements and restrictions. For additional information not included in this guide, contact your local game warden or phone the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) toll free at (800) 792-1112.

INSPECTION AUTHORITY: A game warden who observes a person engaged in an activity governed by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code or reasonably believes that a person is or has been engaged in such an activity may inspect: 

any license, permit, tag, or other document issued by the department and required by the Texas Parks and Wildife Code of a person hunting or catching wildlife resources; 

any device that may be used to hunt or catch a wildlife resource; 

any wildlife resource in the person's possession; and 

the contents of any container or receptacle that is commonly used to store or conceal a wildlife resource. 

The full text of this law may be found in the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code, Â§12.102 or call TPWD at (800) 792-1112 (press 9, then 4381).


----------



## rentfro (Apr 3, 2012)

I am upset I missed this one until now. We had this exact debate the other day on "checkpoints" on the water. It was not so lopsided as this one which I find very ironic. They are doing the same thing on our waters but people on this board justify the behavior with "keeps us safe". It is obvious the kid in the video was there to pick a fight but the real issue is that he was there at all. The attitude that we need law enforcement to keep us safe so we allow them to break the laws we have set up to protect us from them is saddening and I am scared for the America my kids are going to know. The Constitution was set up to protect the people from the Government. It should not surprise us that the ones that want to change the Constitution are the same ones that it restricts. Be very scared when the people who are elected are considered the "people in charge". The are there to serve not rule. Done ranting now.


----------



## Hardwired (Jun 12, 2012)

suBChaPter e. enForCeMent anD PenaLties
Â§ 31.121. enforcement officers
(a) In this section:
(1) â€œGame wardenâ€ means a person who is commissioned as a game
warden by the commission.
(2) â€œState military forcesâ€ has the meaning assigned by Section
431.001, Government Code.
(a-1) All peace officers of this state and game wardens must be
certified as marine safety enforcement officers by the department to enforce the provisions of this chapter by arresting and taking into custody any person who commits any act or offense prohibited by this chapter or who violates any provision of this chapter.
*(a-1) Game wardens commissioned by the commission are the primary enforcement officers responsible for enforcing the provisions of this chapter related to water safety.
(b) The commission by rule shall establish standards for training and certifying marine safety enforcement officers under this section.
(c) The commission by rule may create exemptions for peace officers from marine safety enforcement officer training and certification requirements imposed by statute.
(d) The commission by rule shall establish and collect a fee to recover the administrative costs associated with the certification of marine safety enforcement officers. The commission shall require the applicant for certification or the applicantâ€™s employer to pay the fee required under this section.
(e) State military forces may assist game wardens in the search for and rescue of victims of water-oriented accidents.
Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 1405, ch. 545, Â§ 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1975. Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1363, Â§ 8, eff. Sept. 1, 1997. Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., ch. ___, Â§ ___, eff. June 17, 2011.
* The Acts of the 82nd Legislature created two (a-1) subcategories for this section.

Â§ 31.1211. jurisdiction of Municipal Peace officers
(a) Notwithstanding any other law limiting the enforcement jurisdiction of a peace officer, a peace officer of a municipality who is certified as a marine safety enforcement officer under Section 31.121 may enforce the provisions of this chapter within an area of a lake that is outside the enforcement jurisdiction of the peace officer if:
(1) any portion of the lake is contained in the corporate limits or extraterritorial jurisdiction of the municipality; and
(2) the municipality has entered into a memorandum of understanding with the governmental entity having enforcement jurisdiction in that area granting the peace officer enforcement jurisdiction in the area.
(b) The memorandum of understanding under Subsection (a)(2) must: (1) designate the jurisdiction that has the authority to conduct
any prosecution or ongoing investigation of a violation resulting from an enforcement action under this section; and
(2) be approved by the Parks and Wildlife Department.
Added by Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 975, Â§ 1, eff. June 15, 2007.
Â§ 31.122. Water safety vessels: Lights
Only the department and police water safety vessels may use rotating or flashing blue beacon lights.
Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 1405, ch. 545, Â§ 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1975. Amended by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 543, Â§ 5, eff. June 14, 1989.
*Â§ 31.123. required response to Police Water safety vessel
The operator of a vessel underway, on sighting a rotating or flashing blue beacon light, shall reduce power immediately and bring the vessel to a no-wake speed and subsequent stop until the intention of the water safety vessel is understood.*
Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 1405, ch. 545, Â§ 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1975. Amended by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 543, Â§ 6, eff. June 14, 1989.
*Â§ 31.124. inspection of vessels
(a) In order to enforce the provisions of this chapter, an enforcement officer may stop and board any vessel subject to this chapter and may inspect the boat to determine compliance with applicable provisions.
(b) An officer boarding a vessel shall first identify himself by presenting proper credentials.
(c) The operator of a vessel required by this chapter to hold a certificate of number aboard the vessel shall show the certificate to the officer on demand, and failure to do so constitutes a violation of this chapter.
(d) No person operating a boat on the water of this state may refuse to obey the directions of an enforcement officer when the officer is acting under the provisions of this chapter.*
(e) The safety of the vessel shall always be the paramount consideration of an arresting officer.
(f) If an enforcement officer determines that a vessel and its associated equipment is being used in violation of this chapter or of any regulation or standard issued thereunder so as to create an especially hazardous condition, he may direct the operator to return to mooring, and the vessel may not be used until the condition creating the violation is corrected.
Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 1405, ch. 545, Â§ 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1975.
Â§ 31.125. violations; notice to appear
(a) An enforcement officer who arrests a person for a violation of this chapter may deliver to the alleged violator a written notice to appear within
15 days after the date of the violation before the justice court having jurisdiction of the offense.
(b) The person arrested shall sign the notice to appear promising to make his appearance in accordance with the requirements set forth in the notice. After signing the notice the person may be released. Failure to appear before the court in the county having jurisdiction constitutes a violation of the chapter. A warrant for the arrest of the person failing to appear may be issued.
Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 1405, ch. 545, Â§ 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1975.
Â§ 31.126. venue
(a) Venue for an alleged violation or offense under the provisions of this chapter is in the justice court or county court having jurisdiction where the violation or offense was committed.
(b) For an offense under the provisions of this chapter, there is a presumption that the offense was committed in the justice precinct and county where the dam containing the body of water is located.
Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 1405, ch. 545, Â§ 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1975.
Â§ 31.127. Penalties
(a) A person who violates or fails to comply with any provision of this chapter, or who violates or fails to comply with a proclamation of the commission entered under this chapter or a city ordinance or order of a commissioners
court or a political subdivision of the state made or entered under this chapter, commits an offense that is a Class C Parks and Wildlife Code misdemeanor.
(b) A person who violates Section 31.043(c) or 31.096 of this code commits an offense that is a Class B Parks and Wildlife Code misdemeanor.
(c) Except as provided by Subsection (f), a person who operates a vessel in violation of Section 31.021(b) or 31.095 commits an offense punishable by a fine of not less than $100 or more than $500.
(d) The operator of a vessel who is involved in a collision, accident, or other casualty that results in death or serious bodily injury to another person and fails to comply with Section 31.104 commits an offense that is a Parks and Wildlife Code felony.
(e) ExceptasprovidedbySubsection(d),theoperatorofavesselwhois involved in a collision, accident, or other casualty and fails to comply with Section 31.104 commits an offense that is a Class A Parks and Wildlife Code misdemeanor.
34 Texas Water Safety Act
(f) A court may dismiss a charge of operating a vessel with an expired certificate of number under Section 31.021 if:
(1) thedefendantremediesthedefectnotlaterthanthe10th working day after the date of the offense and pays an administrative fee not to exceed $10; and
(2) the certificate of number has not been expired for more than
60 days.
Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 1405, ch. 545, Â§ 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1975. Amended by Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 267, art. 3, Â§ 12, eff. Sept. 1, 1985; Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 185, Â§ 2, eff. July 1, 1989; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1363, Â§ 9, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 200, Â§ 8(m), eff. Sept. 1, 2003; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1133, Â§ 13, eff. Sept. 1, 2003. Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1027, Sec. 12, eff. September 1, 2007.
Â§ 31.128. Disposition of Fines
(a) A justice of the peace, or a clerk of any court, or any other officer of this state receiving any fine imposed by a court for a violation of this chapter shall send the fine to the department within 10 days after receipt and shall note the docket number of the case, the name of the person fined, and the section or article of the law under which the conviction was secured.
(b) In justice court cases filed as the result of an arrest by a game warden, the amount to be remitted to the game, fish, and water safety account shall be 85 percent of the fine. In county court cases filed as the result of an arrest by a game warden, the amount to be remitted to the game, fish, and water safety account shall be 80 percent of the fine. All costs of the court shall be retained by the court having jurisdiction of the offense and deposited as other fees in the proper county fund.
(c) In court cases filed as the result of an arrest by a marine safety enforcement officer other than a game warden, the amount to be remitted to the game, fish, and water safety account shall be 60 percent of the fine. All costs of the court shall be retained by the court having jurisdiction of the offense and deposited as other fees in the proper county fund.
(d) Not less than 50 percent of the amount remitted to the game,
fish, and water safety account under Subsection (c) must be used for the administration and enforcement of this chapter.
Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 1405, ch. 545, Â§ 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1975. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 679, Â§ 39, eff. Sept. 1, 1993; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1363, Â§ 10, eff. Sept.1, 1997.
Â§ 31.129. violation of sewage Disposal regulations
(a) A person who violates or fails to comply with a rule of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality concerning the disposal of sewage from boats commits an offense that is a Class C Parks and Wildlife Code misdemeanor. A separate offense is committed each day a violation continues.
(b) The enforcement provisions of this subchapter apply to violations punishable by this section.
Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 1405, ch. 545, Â§ 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1975. Amended by Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 267, art. 3, Â§ 13, eff. Sept. 1, 1985; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1256, Â§ 24, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.
*** Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)***
Effective November 11, 2010, any boat with a permanently installed marine sanitation device (MSD) is required to obtain a MSD certification and display
a certification decal if the boat is operated on any waters in Texas, including coastal waters up to three nautical miles. For certification and decal information contact: www.tceq.texas.gov or (512)239-0400.
Â§ 31.130. Boater education Course Permitted in Lieu of Fine
(a) Except as provided by Section 31.131, this section applies to a person who violates for the first time a provision of this chapter relating to the operation of a vessel.
(b) A justice may defer imposition of a fine and place a defendant on probation for a period not to exceed 60 days if the defendant:
(1) pleads guilty or nolo contendere or is found guilty; and
(2) requests permission from the court to attend a boater education course.
(c) The justice shall require the defendant to successfully complete a boater education course approved by the department during the probation period.
(d) If the defendant presents satisfactory evidence that the defendant has successfully completed the boater education course, the justice shall waive imposition of a fine. If the defendant fails to successfully complete the boater education course, the justice shall impose a fine for the violation.
Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1363, Â§ 11, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.
Â§ 31.131. Boater education Course required for Certain violations
(a) A justice shall require a person who is adjudged guilty of an offense resulting from the violation of a provision of Sections 31.094â€"31.103 or 31.106 to:
(1) pay any fine imposed for the violation; and
(2) successfully complete a boater education course approved by the department not later than the 90th day after the date the person is adjudged guilty.
(b) If the person fails to successfully complete the boater education course, the person commits an offense that is a Class A Parks and Wildlife Code misdemeanor.
Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1363, Â§ 11, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.
Â§ 31.132. reporting Procedures for enforcement officers
A marine safety enforcement officer shall provide to the department
on a form prescribed by the department a report of any incident the officer investigates that involves a boating accident, water fatality, or person who allegedly operates a boat while intoxicated. The officer shall provide the report not later than the 15th day after the date the officer initially became aware of the incident.
Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1363, Â§ 11, eff. Sept. 1, 1997. Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., ch. ___, Â§ ___, eff. Sept. 1, 2011.


----------



## "The Marshall" (Jan 12, 2005)

revag12 said:


> At the 5:10 in the video, the one officer says to the other _"He is perfectly innocent and he knows his constitutional rights"_. The other officer replies _"He knows what is in the constitution"._ This makes it perfectly clear the officers knew full well they were participating in an illegal search and seizure. If this was the exception it would be one thing, but I think it is more the norm today. It is scary to me to see how quickly people are willing to give up the very rights that our fathers and forefathers fought and died for.


BINGO.. the sheep are everywhere.. just read this thread


----------



## Spirit (Nov 19, 2008)

rentfro said:


> I am upset I missed this one until now. We had this exact debate the other day on "checkpoints" on the water. It was not so lopsided as this one which I find very ironic. They are doing the same thing on our waters but people on this board justify the behavior with "keeps us safe". It is obvious the kid in the video was there to pick a fight but the real issue is that he was there at all. The attitude that we need law enforcement to keep us safe so we allow them to break the laws we have set up to protect us from them is saddening and I am scared for the America my kids are going to know. The Constitution was set up to protect the people from the Government. It should not surprise us that the ones that want to change the Constitution are the same ones that it restricts. Be very scared when the people who are elected are considered the "people in charge". The are there to serve not rule. Done ranting now.


^^^^This. Green sent.


----------



## kjstephe (Dec 20, 2012)

nosaltincentx said:


> I'm assuming that you're ok with giving up all of your guns too then right? I mean, there are crazies out there that kill people with guns every day. It might be your son or daughter that is saved. If it saves just one person then it's ok right?


I have no idea who you are and do not put words in my mouth. I commented with an opinion on a video.


----------



## Gottagofishin (Dec 17, 2005)

Good post Hardwired. It is a bit of a conflict with the rules of a checkpoint. The differences I can see are that a Game Warden can board the boat, but it stops short of saying he can enter enclosed spaces without permission. This would include cabins, hatches, coolers, etc. In other words, anything not observable from the deck.

Checkpoints themselves are not illegal. There are rules about what they can and can't do at a checkpoint.

I've been checked a couple of times on the water. In both cases the GW did not board my boat (of course it's kind of small). They also asked to see my safety equipment, and to look in my ice chest. They didn''t tell me to show them.

Of course I didn't have a problem showing them, but I bet I could have refused citing my constitutional rights. They probably would have hassled me or ticketed me just because I was being an arse. Then I'd have to go to court to have the tickets dismissed. I just wanted to get back to fishing.

It's an interesting question. I also wonder if the law cited above has ever been challenged on constitutional grounds.


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

Yes, sort of. There was a case out of California couple years back involving similar laws. Maikhio vs. California. 

US Supreme Court declined to overturn the decision of the Cali Supreme Court that permitted a warrant-less search of a car by a game warden after the car's owner was observed fishing on a fishing pier. No PC or warrant required. Conservation uber alles, including apparently the Constitution.


----------



## rentfro (Apr 3, 2012)

kjstephe said:


> I have no idea who you are and do not put words in my mouth. I commented with an opinion on a video.


He was actually asking a question. Your comment led him (and me) to believe you were ok with more forms of privacy invasion for the greater good (or at least that is how it is sold). The police in the first video did several things that were illegal and trampled all over the Constitution. The kid, whom I agree was setting them up, was 100% within his legal rights and obeyed the law. It is not illegal to be a smart arse and the officers should have handled themselves better. A better way to ask the question might be were do you think it should stop? When are we allowed to tell the government they are infringing upon our right? What is the appropriate way? Don't get your feelings hurt this is a debate about something that is very important to all of us.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Nov 4, 2011)

How dare any of you question authority?!? They are right, we are wrong. They are supreme, we are weak...sound familiar? Tyrants act this way, no control over their power and they let it go to their head and start abusing it. It is human nature I suppose, but that does not make it ok. Weed out the POS authority figures and keep it that way. 
Back in my hippie days Three times I and two of my other friends on seperate occasions got stopped and searched because the cops smelled something (and it wasn't fear) and got released and had at least some of our pot taken without a single word spoken about it. What were we supposed to do? Call the police department and tell them their cops were jacking our stash? They get off in the evidence bags too, don't think it doesnt happen. Lots of crooked LEO's out there and yeah, some that are legit and do their job without acting like they own people. A badge is not a free pass to be that way.

http://www.fishingscout.com/scouts/SmackDaddy


----------



## 47741 (Jan 5, 2010)

rentfro said:


> The kid, whom I agree was setting them up, was 100% within his legal rights and obeyed the law.


How did he set them up?

Isn't it the same thing as you speeding down the highway and you were LIDARed doing 95? The cops were doing their thing and got busted by a camera

You weren't "set up" by the LIDAR any more than the camera and passenger "set up" the cops to act terribly.

(I don't agree with speed traps...nor do I agree that the kid set anyone up.)


----------



## rentfro (Apr 3, 2012)

SaltyTX said:


> How did he set them up?
> 
> Isn't it the same thing as you speeding down the highway and you were LIDARed doing 95? The cops were doing their thing and got busted by a camera
> 
> ...


I am all for the kid doing what he did. Don't have a problem with it at all. I was merely commenting on the fact that this was his desired result. He wanted it to go down this way. He set up a camera with the hopes of that. I like what he did and have defended him the entire time.


----------



## TrueblueTexican (Aug 29, 2005)

*I travel a lot*

I do land research for Enterprise in Houston ---In the last three years the Texas Highway Patrol and Sheriffs departments are now stopping WITHOUT CAUSE - motorists with out of state plates - My home office is in Oklahoma and the vehicle I drive is plated there - I am ROUTINELY stopped with MADE UP EXCUSES for being pulled over - especially on _I_-40 and I-10 Corridors. I have been asked to step out of my vehicle almost every time when stopped and accompany the officer to his patrol car while the SECOND HPD or Sheriffs vehicle which arrives on scene does a visual exterior search of my car - I call out a supervisor EACH stop now - last EXCUSE was that a dealer plate was blocking the license number - totally BOGUS, a week before that, near Amarillo I was told I hit the white line on the right lane shoulder, the goofball officer even wrote a warning ticket - TOTALLY BOGUS - I have complained by certified mail to the HPD patrol division in Austin as well as each local commander when this happens.

I do not agree with rolling roadblocks (which had been declared unreasonable search back in 1993 in Texas) nor do I like being stopped to look for illegal drugs when I am NOT speeding or breaking ANY law.

Never had any drugs or driven drunk and have a squeaky clean record .

Those of you who would just give up freedom in the name of safety or security DESERVE NEITHER

I have now mounted a dedicated camera in my vehicle and inform the officers I am recording the session -

I went thru the same scenario just a while back when I was stopped without probable cause - the officer asked me if I wanted to get the bad guys off the streets, I said no, I want you to do real police work not fish at my expense, nor usurp my rights to normal commerce - when HIS supervisor arrived at the roadside, I called his officer a LIAR - because that's what he did to get the stop

Its no WONDER LEO's have lost respect

And I grew up a cops son !!!!!


----------



## TrueblueTexican (Aug 29, 2005)

*Supremes decided this long ago*

Setting Limits on Drug War Tactics, High Court Rejects Drug Roadblocks
In an opinion written for the 6-3 majority, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said that the reasoning behind the Indianapolis roadblocks -- chiefly that the benefit to the public outweighs the inconvenience -- cannot justify the use of unconstitutional methods by the police.
"If this case were to rest on such a high level of generality, there would be little check on the authorities' ability to construct roadblocks for almost any conceivable law enforcement purpose," the opinion said.

Whats the difference? Alcohol is a drug that impairs as well? I can't find the law in Texas, but I remember it was brought to the Supreme court as well, and was due to the perpetual rolling roadblock that used to be east of Ranger Hill on I-20.

So now the law is doing end runs to stop and DETAIN those NOT BREAKING THE LAW to catch the 2% who do - something just not right about that.


----------



## Quepos1 (Jan 21, 2011)

chumy said:


> the idiot cutoff age is when one realizes that hanging balls on the back of ones truck hitch is kind of stupid. I can give other examples if need be.


x 2

lol


----------



## Whitebassfisher (May 4, 2007)

Riley & Sons said:


> .....I do have an issue with some of today's youth and their lack of respect for anybody that is not part of their group. (Parents, bosses, LEO etc...)


Are you really suggesting that a LEO that I have never met before deserves respect along the same lines as my parents that loved me, raised me, fed me, clothed me, protected me, taught me, etc?

A boss often earns respect over time due to the fact that you work with them, know them and their accomplishments and abilities.

A LEO does not deserve to be treated any different (_better or worse_) than any other stranger you meet. I try to live by The Golden Rule, and it has gotten me by so far. I expect the same from LEO's.


----------



## Whitebassfisher (May 4, 2007)

However, I will add, that since the LEO seemed friendly at first, saying 'please', and asking rather than telling or demanding, that I would have lowered my window and been friendly right back.


----------



## Chase4556 (Aug 26, 2008)

I had an incident about 2 weeks ago. DUI checkpoint leaving downtown Savannah, and the officer tried to make me step out of the car. I told him pretty much what this kid did. He got a little upset, but then I guess a superior of his walked up and asked what the issue was. 

I left without further incident, and with an apology from the higher up. I had my window all the way down though. Those of you saying he was looking for a fight, did you not hear what the officer said just before they found the camera? He KNEW the kid was right, and he was doing wrong, but decided to go about on his power trip and do it anyway. That is unacceptable.


----------



## Chuckybrown (Jan 20, 2012)

Bocephus said:


> But, if I happen upon a checkpoint you can bet your butt I'm gonna be respectful, courteous, and follow all instructions as they are given.


Yup. Just as the sheep are taught to do.

Not picking on you directly Bocephus....but shame on us as a collective.

Read tonight headlines about POTUS's directives?

tick.....tick.....tick.....


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Nov 4, 2011)

Whitebassfisher said:


> However, I will add, that since the LEO seemed friendly at first, saying 'please', and asking rather than telling or demanding, that I would have lowered my window and been friendly right back.


Please let me violate your rights? It is BS.

http://www.fishingscout.com/scouts/SmackDaddy


----------



## dbarham (Aug 13, 2005)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> Please let me violate your rights? It is BS.
> 
> http://www.fishingscout.com/scouts/SmackDaddy


:cheers: durn right dude!!:cheers:


----------



## Gottagofishin (Dec 17, 2005)

chumy said:


> The idiot cutoff age is when one realizes that hanging balls on the back of ones truck hitch is kind of stupid. I can give other examples if need be.


There are some really old idiots where I live.


----------



## koyhoward (Jan 8, 2007)

kjstephe said:


> I have no idea who you are and do not put words in my mouth. I commented with an opinion on a video.


I asked you a question, I didn't put words in your mouth. You made the comment that if it saves one life then you're all for it. That is the same logic that many were using after the Sandy Hook shooting.


----------

