Only one thing to add, which may not even be an issue in CA, here if you do not file a plea (or some similar thing) within the first week you lose the ability to get a 'to work and back' driving permit after it is over. Make sure he asks someone there if he needs to take some action in order to avoid losing some available options according to CA statutes.
My brother got a DUI. I need advice from those with "experience"...
- Thread starter bigbeergeek
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:
steelbadgers89
Member
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2013
- Messages
- 9
- Reaction score
- 1
1. Get a lawyer. Court-appointed or otherwise. A decent lawyer will work with the DA to reduce your brother's sentencing. There's no reason not to have one. The total expenses may be higher, but the risk is substantially lowered.
2. Stop advertising his guilt.
3. Don't plead guilty. Cops overreach all the time on charges, hoping that they will be uncontested.
4. Respect the judge. Dress nicely for court, try as hard as possible to not look like the rest of the rabble in the courtroom. Look like you don't belong.
5. Tell him to STOP drinking and driving. ****'s unsafe.
2. Stop advertising his guilt.
3. Don't plead guilty. Cops overreach all the time on charges, hoping that they will be uncontested.
4. Respect the judge. Dress nicely for court, try as hard as possible to not look like the rest of the rabble in the courtroom. Look like you don't belong.
5. Tell him to STOP drinking and driving. ****'s unsafe.
Haven't read the entire thread yet, but want to comment on this one.
There is such a thing as "Implied Consent", meaning they don't have to ask you - in essence, if you choose to drive, you consent to being tested for impairment. (Iowa has the same law in place for hunting & fishing: By the simple act of participating in a hunting/fishing activity, you are legally required to show your license and/or catch to any conservation officer, for any reason) If you refuse to blow, you are automatically arrested and taken to jail where they WILL do a blood test on you. You don't help yourself out at all, and when it gets put on paper, it looks like you were uncooperative from the word go.
If you refuse to blow, you are automatically arrested and taken to jail where they WILL do a blood test on you. You don't help yourself out at all, and when it gets put on paper, it looks like you were uncooperative from the word go.[/QUOTE]
I got a DUI in PA 12 years ago when I was 19. I got a lawyer and it was a great help. She got me something called ARD ( can't remember what they stands for at this point). Basically I lost my license for a month, went to 6 classes, and paid a grand in fines. She was only 2K so it wasn't as bad as it could have been.
So if you do not consent to the breathalyzer they can still charge you with DUI but they have to prove it which is very hard. They cannot make you take a blood test. You have a 4th amendment to thank on that. However, at least in PA, if you refuse the breathalyzer you are going to lose your license for a year. So the question is do you want a DUI on your record and no license for a month or two, or no license for a year?
I got a DUI in PA 12 years ago when I was 19. I got a lawyer and it was a great help. She got me something called ARD ( can't remember what they stands for at this point). Basically I lost my license for a month, went to 6 classes, and paid a grand in fines. She was only 2K so it wasn't as bad as it could have been.
So if you do not consent to the breathalyzer they can still charge you with DUI but they have to prove it which is very hard. They cannot make you take a blood test. You have a 4th amendment to thank on that. However, at least in PA, if you refuse the breathalyzer you are going to lose your license for a year. So the question is do you want a DUI on your record and no license for a month or two, or no license for a year?
This has nothing to do with the 4th amendment.
You are legally compelled to submit to blood or breath testing if you are arrested under the suspicion of a DUI, if you refuse you are in violation of the law (a violation in addition to your DUI arrest). The reason why there is a blood test is to test people that are physically incapacitated or otherwise can't perform the breath test, it isn't to forcibly test people that refuse to blow (except in the cases of vehicular homicide).
The laws on refusal vary from state to state, but refusing to submit doesn't wipe out a DUI charge, it's admissible evidence against you if they choose to prosecute. They can still charge you without any breathalizer test at all, it just strengthens their case against you and removes almost any possible doubt in the eyes of the court. The arresting officer's testimony is enough to convict in a lot of cases.
It's important to note that DUI is a STATE law, not a national one and advice or experiences in one state will not always translate to the laws of another state.
There is so much bad advice on this thread, it's staggering.
kombat
Well-Known Member
In my jurisdiction (Ontario, Canada), the penalty for "refusing to provide a breath sample" is the same as blowing over 0.08%.
They'll arrest you anyway, then draw a blood sample at the station/hospital.
These people who keep saying they can force you to give blood in a simple DUI case is crazy! If probable cause exists yes the officer can get a warrant to take your blood by force. They will not get a warrant unless theres a accident or injury involved. Now yes refusal to blow your license will be suspended upon refusal witch is a catch 22 cause your license is suspended soon as your in handcuffs for DUI. Refusal is just an auto 1 year suspension compared to maybe 6months. Yes that seems worse then just blowing. But if you care about a charge on your criminal record witch is priceless to most people. Then the only chance you have to beat DUI is to not blow. The law can't just run around making people give breath and blood test with no probable cause just because there gut tells them your drunk. Why do you think they don't test everybody at the DUI check points because its not legal. when injury is involved its a whole diff ball game there are laws in place to protect me and you from getting screwed by a drunk driver. But going around making people give blood after you pulled them over because your a cop and you feel this person is drunk is preposterous.
If you blow, then there's proof. Never ever blow if you want a chance to defend the charge. Refusal is automatic suspension,but a lawyer at least has something to work with to try to get wreckless operation or other lesser charge, which would overturn or lessen the suspension. In response to the OP, your brother needs a lawyer! Yeah it's expensive, but so are the costs associated with a DUI (fines, impoundment, paying to get license back, special license plates, alcohol classes, etc). Not to mention the ancillary effects caused by a DUI on your record.
Varmintman
Well-Known Member
I read about half the thread and am truly disappointed with the state of humanity. During the 70's I believe there was a show where they said "If you cant do the time don't do the crime". Honestly where has the world got off thinking that the OP's brother should get ANY kind of leniency. The guy was rip roaring drunk and driving on the roads endangering the lives of innocent people.
If he was a man and manned up and accepted the consequences of his actions and changed them so he does not kill anyone anytime soon I would at least have a little respect for him. I have no respect for anyone though who breaks the law knowing that what they are doing is wrong and then trying to get off easy.
If he was a man and manned up and accepted the consequences of his actions and changed them so he does not kill anyone anytime soon I would at least have a little respect for him. I have no respect for anyone though who breaks the law knowing that what they are doing is wrong and then trying to get off easy.
If you DON'T blow, you'll be arrested under suspicion of DUI, and by the time you get to the jail, they will have a search warrant to force you to submit a sample - either by breath or blood (or both). And when you show up in court, they have another thing to use against you -- and in some states, charge you with.
iaefebs
Well-Known Member
Theme song for Baretta staring Robert Blake. What did Blake do when his wife was shot?
Last edited by a moderator:
Remember that each state has different laws, but your assumptions are largely wrong and your advice is not going to be helpful in a lot of cases. In my state, anyone who operates a motor vehicle on the public streets has implicitly consented to provide blood or breath samples when under suspicion of intoxication. That is the law. Period. Probable cause begins at the traffic stop and no additional effort is needed to establish cause beyond an officer's observations.
In states that require a warrant for a blood test, typically the warrant can be issued as soon as you arrive at the police station based on officer testimony alone. The supreme court is hearing a case now to determine if a blood test even requires a warrant, so your assumptions about the current laws are inaccurate.
Now the issue of refusal is where you're really getting into dangerous territory for me. In Virginia if you refuse a breathalizer test, you're charged with two crimes - a DUI and an unreasonable refusal. So even if you refuse you can still be tried and found guilty of a DUI. A BAC record is NOT required to obtain a conviction of DUI. In many jurisdictions you do not even have the choice of a jury trial, you are getting a lower court judge and they see DUI cases all day long.
If there's limited evidence to back up suspicion of a DUI, the prosecutor may choose to not pursue the case (I wouldn't count on it), but the refusal is automatically charged based on your arrest and you're out of a license for a year. The refusal doesn't go on your criminal record but the suspension will go on your driving record and could impact future/current employment.
Now here's the tricky part. If you wind up in the same situation and refuse a second time within 10 years of your first refusal, it's a Class 2 misdemeanor with a 3 year suspension of license, fine up to $1,500 and up to 6 months in jail. Third refusal doubles the penalties.
Telling people to just refuse to blow is just not good advice. The only way to beat a DUI is to not drink. There's tons of legal tactics and techniques that might work in a blue moon, but the best advice is to just not drink.
broadbill
Well-Known Member
Let take this idea from another tack: How many people have personally (or that you know of) someone who has beat a DUI charge?
So far this thread has seen 1 guy but that was a pretty lucky situation..far from the norm.
ALL the other stories on here...each and every one of them....the drunk guy was pinched for DUI.
So, to the question on to blow/not to blow is moot...blow =DUI, don't blow =still get DUI.
The larger issue is the LEO has multiple ways they can prove guilt, any one of which is sufficient. Don't blow?, then its field sobriety, decline field sobriety? then is blood test. decline blood test? then you are still arrested and its going to come down to the visual indicators the LEO observed at the time of arrest (swerving lanes, slurred speech, smell of alcohol in the car, etc....most of which can be documented by in-car cameras).
In many states, that right there is enough for conviction.
So you guys can sit around and argue all day on if you are incriminating yourself by submitting to blow test...the reality is that you are already convicted because drunk people act drunk. A blow test is just a good way to confirm what the LEO already knows.
So far this thread has seen 1 guy but that was a pretty lucky situation..far from the norm.
ALL the other stories on here...each and every one of them....the drunk guy was pinched for DUI.
So, to the question on to blow/not to blow is moot...blow =DUI, don't blow =still get DUI.
The larger issue is the LEO has multiple ways they can prove guilt, any one of which is sufficient. Don't blow?, then its field sobriety, decline field sobriety? then is blood test. decline blood test? then you are still arrested and its going to come down to the visual indicators the LEO observed at the time of arrest (swerving lanes, slurred speech, smell of alcohol in the car, etc....most of which can be documented by in-car cameras).
In many states, that right there is enough for conviction.
So you guys can sit around and argue all day on if you are incriminating yourself by submitting to blow test...the reality is that you are already convicted because drunk people act drunk. A blow test is just a good way to confirm what the LEO already knows.
dkwolf said:
Sure you will be arrested for suspicion. In my experience (never had a DUI my self but unfortunately far too many friends) have never had a blood test forced by warrant. All lawyered up, through advice from a lawyer friend, and all had cases dropped to wreckless op. I'm not saying its right or wrong. My point is that IF you blow, you limit your options, period.
Varmintman
Well-Known Member
If I remember he lawyered up. So does this mean that you believe two wrongs make a right.
Yup that was the show.
I know that there are times that you need a lawyer and I have used them in the past for divorce and property deals. If you are innocent then by all means get a lawyer. But come on the guy was rip roaring drunk and needs to accept the consequences for his actions. He did not accidentally get into the car and drive after drinking that much. He willingly and recklessly broke the law endangering every body else on the road.
I have no mercy for people like him and most assuredly no respect for him or anyone who defends actions like his.
Probable cause begins with a traffic stop. So thats why 1000s of people are beating drug cases in court for a officer illegally searching a motor vehicle. Under your laws once a cop pulls you over he has the right to do what ever he wants. He can search your vehicle, force you to give blood so he pretty much has free rains to do whatever he wants because he pulled you over. So if a cop says you were swerving your 4th Amendment means nothing anymore? I have never heard that a cop can forcefully make you give blood unless there is a accident or injury involved. Yes you can get a separate charge for refusal 2 blow. But the whole point was the only way you could beat a DUI is to not blow. Conviction of DUI brings your insurance sky high what is the penalty for refusal 2 blow some fines. The OP was any advice and my original advice was don't waste your money on a lawyer. Seeing that you blew your chances of winning are slim 2 none. And that DUI cases are pretty much open and shut for the prosecutor. This country makes millions off convicting people of DUI every day. Thats why it is a charge there least lenient on. And beating any DUI is extremely difficult weather you blow or not. So basically my advice 2 the original post was take your punishment like a man. And don't bother wasting your money on a lawyer. Thats just gonna tell you the evidence they have against you is pretty heavy. The money your gonna have 2 pay in court cost, license reinstatement fees, and insurance rates are already gonna be astronomical. And lawyer fees will just put you further in the poor house. The bottom line is its not worth it 2 drive even after one drink no matter what the laws are.
aiptasia
Well-Known Member
I have. I had to recuse myself from a trial of an acquaintance I knew back in college. I served jury duty for a week and we were required to sit in attendance in the main courtroom while trial after trial proceeded before us, whether we were called for duty on a jury or not. It sucked.
So there I am, next DUI trial comes up and it's a second offender. I recognized the guy and when they were determining a jury pool through questioning, I admitted to knowing him and recused myself. He had a skilled DUI attorney though and it was fun watching the trial. I knew him, but I didn't say I was exactly a friend of his. I also knew he was a drunk and probably guilty, so I just sat back and watched the trial.
The attorney argued several points regarding his arrest. First and foremost, the video recording equipment was turned off so there was no video evidence (for what reasons, no idea). The attorney had a field day with that because the guy apparently admitted guilt but it turned into a "he said, she said" because there was no taped or signed confession.
The second issue centered around the breathalyzer unit, which uses a sensitive calibration knob. Accurate breathalyzers of that day and age required frequent calibration and the attorney was able to argue the point that the officers had no idea when the last calibration of that unit was. He argued that anyone could have accidentally (or on purpose) adjusted the calibration knob and it would've given a false reading.
Then, the attorney was able to prove a long standing family bias between the police department and this man's Father, whom died in jail for (you guessed it), a DUI arrest. The judge allowed it.
So yeah, this guy walked. I didn't keep up with him after that but he was one of those hardcore party guys that weighs 110 lbs. soaking wet and wants to fight anyone that looks at him crosswise. Hopefully, he's not dead by now (or killed anyone else) but I wouldn't be surprised if he was.
CreamyGoodness
Well-Known Member
If I have never called you a troll to your face before I am doing it now. You are a troll, and an annoying one at that. Cut it out.
kombat
Well-Known Member
False.
I'm not a lawyer, but I *have* watched almost every episode of "COPS".
In order to search your vehicle, an LEO needs one of two things: Probable cause or consent. They are meticulous about this, because if they screw it up, then they blow their whole case. Probable cause is not merely pulling you over for a traffic violation. Probable cause means they saw you shifting around suspiciously, or the car smells of weed/booze.
Virtually every time the officer suspects something and wants to search the car, you'll hear them ask a key question: "You don't mind if I search the vehicle, do you?" That's them asking for consent. Take careful note of it, they're even trained to use that exact wording. They don't ask, "Can I search your vehicle?" They'll always ask it casually, in a way that makes it sound like it would be rude to decline.
If you happen to be on the ball and know your rights and decline consent, they don't just search your car anyway. They call for a drug-sniffing dog to come to the scene and sniff the outside of your car. If the dog "alerts" (usually they'll bark, or sit, or indicate in some other way), then that counts as probable cause for the officer to go inside the vehicle and start searching.
If you decline consent, and have not given probable cause, and the drug-sniffing dog doesn't alert, then they cannot and will not search your vehicle. Strictly speaking, they could impound the vehicle and get a warrant to search it, but in order to do that, they'd still have to demonstrate probable cause to a judge. It's usually not worth their while. If the dog didn't smell it, then there's probably not enough in there to warrant spending the rest of their shift neck-deep in paperwork for a little dime bag anyway.
This. I spent some time prosecuting DUIs. A good DUI attorney will likely know the prosecutors and have a regular working relationship with them. And a good DUI attorney is likely to have a good relationship with the judges.
iaefebs
Well-Known Member
I just got back from my Son's case. He plead guilty to drunk driving. He then had to go to the probation department and answer a 90 question multiple choice questionnaire. In 3 weeks he will return to the court and meet with a presentence counselor. They will decide what sentence to recommend to the Judge. Two weeks later he will appear before the Judge for sentencing. This is in Michigan.
Definitely get a lawyer or have the court appoint one. Do not plead guilty unless a lawyer tells you its the best move. The police could have screwed up on the procedure for booking him at some point and he could get off on a technicality. You won't know till a lawyer looks at the case.
My niece got one in CA....I is VERY expensive in this state. Her insurance is so high she no longer drives, she has at least 3 classes she has to attend (and pay for) on their schedule...they don't care about work or school conflicts, if you're late, you pay and that class attendance doesn't count. She's young and I think it was a real eye-opener. Use an attorney!! Figure a total out-of-pocket of about $12,000 when all is said and done....you don't want a DUI in CA.
Buddy-Do you understand we have a Constitution? If one fails to avail themselves of its provisions then they are in danger of losing them. If representation can help this fellow then he ought to be required to have it as it helps protect our rights. I am not making excuses for him, but to advocate just pleading guilty to each an every charge (some of which may not even have been committed) just because he was guilty of some of them is lunacy. The Bill of Rights is there to protect us, guilty or not, and the poor guy should avail himself of his rights and hear the charges against him and have an opportunity to gain whatever relief he can legally find.
Why does anyone think a guy that can't even remember what he blew would be likely to get off? As others have said it is not just the BAC they can convict on, the in car camera, police station cameras and officer statements will all tell the story of a drunk guy.
Right now he should be looking at admitting guilt (at the correct stage of the process), and making sure that he does not get treated unjustly.
For thsoe that say he should just take his punishment, would you still say that if what he actually gets is unjustly harsh and ends up ruining his life due to lose of work, fines he can't afford, prison time that affects future work, etc?
Right now he should be looking at admitting guilt (at the correct stage of the process), and making sure that he does not get treated unjustly.
For thsoe that say he should just take his punishment, would you still say that if what he actually gets is unjustly harsh and ends up ruining his life due to lose of work, fines he can't afford, prison time that affects future work, etc?
SittingDuck
Well-Known Member
So, everyone is saying that a lawyer can't help because he blew .2, they have him dead to rights. That may be true, I don't know. I'm a civil lawyer, I don't do criminal cases, and I'm in Georgia, not California. But none of you know either, because you haven't been in this guy's shoes in this court, regardless of your other experiences.
What I DO know is that my law school buddy, who does DUI defense for a living, gets people off every day. Even when they blow. Even when there's video. How? I don't know. Calibration arguments, cops not appearing, discrediting evidence, whatever. I don't know. Point is, HE KNOWS, and people pay him for that knowledge and can get a reduced sentence or no sentence.
He also knows how to cop a plea from DUI to reckless endangerment, or some other traffic BS, so that you can avoid those "minimum sentences" and get a better deal. This is his job. He knows how to do his job. It is not the judge's job, or the prosecutor's job, to help you get a better deal or treat you easier of you plead guilty or are cooperative. Those things might help, or they might not. You might get the one that wants to throw the book at you for pleading guilty to blowing .2, and what do you do then?
Probably wish that you'd borrowed a few grand for a lawyer.
What I DO know is that my law school buddy, who does DUI defense for a living, gets people off every day. Even when they blow. Even when there's video. How? I don't know. Calibration arguments, cops not appearing, discrediting evidence, whatever. I don't know. Point is, HE KNOWS, and people pay him for that knowledge and can get a reduced sentence or no sentence.
He also knows how to cop a plea from DUI to reckless endangerment, or some other traffic BS, so that you can avoid those "minimum sentences" and get a better deal. This is his job. He knows how to do his job. It is not the judge's job, or the prosecutor's job, to help you get a better deal or treat you easier of you plead guilty or are cooperative. Those things might help, or they might not. You might get the one that wants to throw the book at you for pleading guilty to blowing .2, and what do you do then?
Probably wish that you'd borrowed a few grand for a lawyer.
Soulrebel
Well-Known Member
Don't have time to read through the thread. I got popped in Ca, blew a .15. No lawyer. Owned up in court. Did 1st time DUI program. Spent mandatory 48hrs in jail. Paid couple grand in fines restitution etc. lost license for 6months. Restricted license for 1yr. Probation for five years. Could a lawyer have helped? Don't know. Nothing to debate, I was drunk and behind the wheel. Own up, pay up and move on.
Is this the first actual expereince in this thread the comes close to relating to OP's brother? How long ago was that?
dstuckrn
Member
Get a lawyer
chemman14
Well-Known Member
get a lawyer
Yankeepride15
Active Member
10 points to SittingDuck. This ability alone is worth the attorney's fee.
OP, best of luck. This is going to be expensive for your brother, no matter how it turns out.
Classes, interlock devices, attorneys, punitive fees, etc... none are cheap.
Be supportive of your brother in the meantime. He's going to need it, no matter what he decides to do or the outcome.
Sure. You can refuse to blow. 5th Amendment protections apply.
However, refusal to submit to a breathalyzer, blood or urine test in California results in an automatic, administrative 12 month revocation of your license... even if you're not later convicted of a DUI.
Classes, interlock devices, attorneys, punitive fees, etc... none are cheap.
Be supportive of your brother in the meantime. He's going to need it, no matter what he decides to do or the outcome.
Sure. You can refuse to blow. 5th Amendment protections apply.
However, refusal to submit to a breathalyzer, blood or urine test in California results in an automatic, administrative 12 month revocation of your license... even if you're not later convicted of a DUI.
I am not an attorney, but I wonder about the above. Is this not the epitome of 'arbitrary and capricious"? Or does the fact he had a choice negate this?
I can't answer the "why." I would guess that it's because you agreed to submit to a screening test when applying for a Driver's License. I specifcally remember this being a question on my written test when I was 17, and then at least twice when I've renewed in person.
Perhaps this helps?
Shouse Law Group said:
and
Law Office of Lauren K. Johnson said:
Note that while you can decline a roadside breathalyzer, if the officer has reasonable suspicion, he can arrest you, at which point you have to submit to a screening anyway.
I've talked to people who decline the roadside, then are arrested because the officer thinks they did poorly enough at their roadside test. They are taken into the station, then they refuse the screening there. They think this will buy them time to sober up and get the alcohol level down. They can then lawfully forcefully take blood for a test. From when I understand, they can argue that given your BAC at the time of the test and the known time of arrest, they can calculate your closely approximate BAC at the time of the arrest for presentation at the trial.
I'm assuming there's a technicality in there somewhere to get off because it wasn't measured at the supposed level presented at trial, but I haven't met anybody yet that was able to get off that way.
lowtones84
Well-Known Member
Yeah, definitely not true. I was pulled over in a small town for going 8 over late at night. The officer asked if I had any illegal drugs or weapons in the car, I say no. Then he asks "Mind if I take a look around?"
Mind if I take a look around, REALLY?! I knew exactly what he wanted to do. I was a college age kid in a not super great car driving late at night. He had no probable cause to search my vehicle. So you say "I do not consent to any search of my person or vehicle." That's exactly what I did even though I had nothing to hide, and he said "Oh you don't consent, okay." Then he walked back to the car and took 30 minutes to write me a speeding ticket.
Know your rights, people!
(Not saying to not blow, just addressing this particular point.)
But what happened is you pissed the cop off by being a bit of a smart guy, so he "taught you a leasson" by giving you a ticket. And in his mind was the winner.
If you really had nothing to hide, and politely said that you didn't mind but would rather not have all your thing thrown around it might of been possible that you wouldn't of even got the speeding ticket... maybe
But what happened is you pissed the cop off by being a bit of a smart guy, so he "taught you a leasson" by giving you a ticket. And in his mind was the winner.
If you really had nothing to hide, and politely said that you didn't mind but would rather not have all your thing thrown around it might of been possible that you wouldn't of even got the speeding ticket... maybe
A little OT, but...
Went to go to work a little while back. I'm on Active Duty. Got about 200 feet over the line onto federal property, and was pulled over even before I hit the ID check at the gate by two military cops on foot.
"License and registration, military ID, where are you going today?" All the usual. Then I was told to step out of the vehicle and read my rights. They weren't Miranda rights.
They were along the lines of "The ____ Wing Commander has approved random stopping and and inspection of any vehicle entering this installation. You are hereby ordered to consent to a search of your person and vehicle. If you decline, you will be in violation of a direct order and punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice Article 92, 'Failure to obey order or regulation'. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?" "Yes, sir." "Do you consent to these searches?" *sigh* "Yes, sirs."
I was back on my way within 5 minutes, and it didn't really bother me because I know these are the guys that are paid to protect my life while I'm at work and deployed.
Can you imagine how many people here would flip their **** if civilian traffic stops were like these?
maltytoasty
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2013
- Messages
- 2
- Reaction score
- 0
Jail isn't so bad; may be better than how you're currently living. But it may cause loss of job etc... ain't the end of the world.
Best thing to do around cops is to be humble and yes sir/no sir all the way, **no matter how you feel or what was actually right or wrong**, they have the artificial authority at the moment.
Best thing to do around cops is to be humble and yes sir/no sir all the way, **no matter how you feel or what was actually right or wrong**, they have the artificial authority at the moment.
But what happened is you pissed the cop off by being a bit of a smart guy, so he "taught you a leasson" by giving you a ticket. And in his mind was the winner.
If you really had nothing to hide, and politely said that you didn't mind but would rather not have all your thing thrown around it might of been possible that you wouldn't of even got the speeding ticket... maybe
Yeah, standing up for your fourth amendment rights and then being bullied makes you the loser in that situation.
I had the exact same thing happen to me, except I said exactly what you suggested, and the cops called in three squad cars and a K-9 unit because "an honest citizen would have nothing to hide." All because I was 17 and had a skateboard in my car.Authoritarian-minded people like you scare the **** out of me. Fortunately there are good men and women out there who care about protecting our rights.
