DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Al Michaels Arrested for Alleged DUI

Quote:

---

Haha the circumstance is pretty funny if you look at the details.

Michaels pulled up to some traffic and then realized it was a DUI checkpoint. Pulled a U-Turn and the cops chased him down.

Without knowing his blood alcohol content I don't take his arrest very seriously. The legal limit is far too low.

---

Quote:

---

So him turning away from a checkpoint gave them reasonable suspicion?

---

Quote:

---

what you say is true, but it does not apply to Al Michaels here.

Quote:

---

So him turning away from a checkpoint gave them reasonable suspicion?

---

he made an illegal U-turn. that is not only reasonable suspicion, but it is illegal and a reason to pull him over. if he would have done what you suggested (not complied to the checkpoint but gone through it), then he would have likely gotten off in court (if they even pressed forward).

---

Quote:

---

The following article appeared in Volume 2, Issue 4 of the NMA Newsletter.

By William Pangman, a past president and founder of the Wisconsin Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

What is a motorist obliged to do when confronted with a police roadblock?

The United States Supreme Court arrived at an answer to this question in Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, 110 S.Ct. 2481 (1990). In Sitz, a group of Michigan motorists challenged the constitutionality of a highway sobriety check-point utilized by the Michigan State Police. The only check-point operated in Michigan was in Saginaw County. The operation lasted for an hour and fifteen minutes and every vehicle passing through the designated location was stopped for approximately 25 seconds. When officers believed that the drivers stopped at the check-point might be under the influence of an intoxicant, those vehicles were asked to pull over to the side of the road and drivers were requested to perform field sobriety tests.

Out of the 126 motorists which passed through the check-point, only three motorists were asked to pull over. These facts were apparently important to Supreme Court Chief Justice Rehnquist, who wrote the opinion for the majority. The Court determined that the Michigan check-point, under the facts and circumstances presented, did not create an overwhelming intrusion on individual's privacy under the Fourth Amendment.

Rehnquist applied a three-point balancing test to determine whether sobriety check-points in general are reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. This test involved balancing the State's interest in preventing accidents caused by drunk drivers, the effectiveness of the sobriety check- points in achieving the goal, and the level of intrusion on an individual's constitutional right to privacy caused by the check-points.

The Chief Justice reasoned that no one could seriously dispute the magnitude of the drunken driving problem or the State's interest in eradicating it. Moreover, Rehnquist found that a 25 second delay in travel was minimally intrusive on motorist's rights, especially considering the fact that traveling motorists could turn off the road when they saw the roadblock, or make U-turns to avoid passing through it. As to the effectiveness of the sobriety check-point, the court held that the procedure was effective, even though only 1 of the 126 drivers stopped was arrested.

In the final analysis, it is now the law that from a narrow Fourth Amendment standpoint, nondiscriminatory sobriety check-points in general are not unreasonable. Bear in mind that other Fourth Amendment problems with sobriety check-points may exist when individual drivers passing through the check-point are asked to pull over.

Police do not have the right, per se, to check driver's licenses or registrations when the stop is not initiated by a violation. However, where the police have a reasonable suspicion of illegal conduct, even though there is not actual violation of the law they may examine drivers' licenses or registration.

In the Sitz case, officers were not allowed to make a driver pull over and show his/her license or check the driver's registration unless the officer noticed signs of intoxication. Moreover, a driver never has to consent to a police search of his or her person or vehicle, but, the police may make such a search even without the driver's consent when either: 1) they have probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband or the fruits or instrumentalities of a crime; 2) when the driver has been placed under arrest; or 3) they may make a visual inspection of the inside passenger compartment from the officer's position outside the vehicle, to observe illegal articles in plain view.

As to the extent of motorists rights; when citizens are faced with roadblocks, they should be cooperative. If they do not roll down their window it seems that the officer's suspicion would be heightened and, at minimum, may give the officer grounds to require the driver to pull over to the side of the road.

Upon initial contact with the roadblock, citizens may politely refuse to answer any of the officer's questions. The following is an example of an assertion of rights that can be reproduced and handed to an officer at a roadblock:

Assertion of Rights:

Officer, please understand:
•I refuse to talk to you until I consult with my attorney. I also refuse to consent to any search of these premises or any other premises under my control, or in which I have a possessory, proprietary, or privacy interest, including my car, my body, or effects. I hereby demand to immediately be allowed the reasonable opportunity to obtain the advice of my attorney by telephone.
•I desire to exercise all my rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this State, to be free from your interference with my person or affairs.
•If you attempt to question me, I want my lawyer present. I refuse to participate in any line-up or to perform any physical acts, or to speak or display my person or property at your direction, without first conferring with my lawyer.
•If I am under arrest, I wish to invoke and exercise my Miranda rights. If you ignore my exercise of these rights and attempt to procure a waiver, I want to confer with my lawyer prior to any conversations with you.
•If I am to be taken into custody, removed from my present location, or separated from my property, I request a reasonable opportunity to make arrangements to secure my own property. I do not consent to any impoundment or inventory of my property. I do, hereby, waive any claim of liability for loss, theft, or damage against you, your superiors or any other authority, and agree to hold all harmless therefrom, if I am afforded the reasonable opportunity to arrange for the safekeeping of my own property. If this reasonable opportunity is denied or is unavailable, I demand that only such intrusion occur as is minimally necessary to secure such property, hereby waiving any claim of liability for your failure to scrutinize the property or its contents prior to it being secured.
•If I am not under arrest, I want to leave. If I am free to leave, please tell me immediately so that I may go about my business.

We advise our clients to hand this card to the officer along with their license when stopped or contacted by police. However, drivers need not even present their license during the initial contact with the officer in a roadblock situation.

Drivers may also refuse to perform field sobriety tests. This does not prevent the officer from arresting the driver. However, the arresting officer will have substantially fewer factors to support the arrest when it is challenged later in court.

Generally, by the time the officer has requested a driver to perform these roadside agility tests, the officer already believes the driver is intoxicated. Citizens should think long and hard before deciding whether or not to provide the officer with additional "evidence" of intoxication by performing the field sobriety tests.

If the motorist does not wish to comply, the police, in absence of an articulable reason to believe a crime has been or is being committed, must allow the driver to proceed. In the face of police inquiries based on less than probable cause, the citizen has the right to remain silent and move on without fear of retaliation in the form of further detention. The "right not to respond" permits motorists to refrain from engaging in alphabet recitations or other "command performances" of verbal and physical exercises.

The Supreme Court of Oregon observed:

"I know of no law that obliges a driver to answer an officer's questions or perform 'field tests' directed at determining whether the driver has committed the crime of driving under the influence of intoxicants. Reluctance to inform the detained driver that such cooperation is voluntary can only demonstrate the state's willingness to take advantage of those of its citizens who are ignorant of their rights though it must respect the rights of those who know them."

Merely recognizing that a motorist is not obliged to cooperate with a police investigation, however, grants the citizen little security given the setting within which the questioning occurs. Understandably, the average motorist will hesitate to invoke this "right not to respond" to police questions and "requests" to perform so-called coordination tests. A late-night confrontation with an armed police officer will normally induce cooperation from all but the boldest citizens whose main concern is to appease the officer and avoid "trouble."

Indeed, the consequences of non-cooperation are undoubtedly understood to be further coercive detention. While this is, unfortunately, not unlikely to occur, it is, nevertheless, often advisable that the motorist insist on invoking his or her rights.


http://www.motorists.org/dui/roadblock

---

Quote:

---

Has there been a court case where DUI checkpoints have been found to be unconstitutional?

I don't remember one, but then again, I'm not 100% up on all legal matters.

Last I heard on the general matter, driving is not a Constitutional right. It is a privledge. As such, it can be licensed and legally controlled. As such, checkpoints are within the legal arena of law enforcement.

---

Quote:

---

Per the article, he did an "illegal u-turn", which then gave them justification for pursuing and pulling him over.

But I'm willing to bet if they see someone turn around to avoid a checkpoint they will have someone follow you until you mess up, and it's pretty easy to find an error in almost anyone's driving habits.

---

Quote:

---

Per the article, he did an "illegal u-turn", which then gave them justification for pursuing and pulling him over.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Per the article, he did an "illegal u-turn", which then gave them justification for pursuing and pulling him over.

---

Just a general question, aren't all U-turns illegal?

I'm aware of places where signs say you can and can't....but when you don't see sign, what's the law?

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Per the article, he did an "illegal u-turn", which then gave them justification for pursuing and pulling him over.

---

Just a general question, aren't all U-turns illegal?

I'm aware of places where signs say you can and can't....but when you don't see sign, what's the law?

---

If there is no sign that says you can't, then you are OK to make one, as long as you yield (duh)

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Per the article, he did an "illegal u-turn", which then gave them justification for pursuing and pulling him over.

---

Just a general question, aren't all U-turns illegal?

I'm aware of places where signs say you can and can't....but when you don't see sign, what's the law?

---

If there is no sign that says you can't, then you are OK to make one, as long as you yield (duh)

---

Assuming your doing a u-turn within the roadway itself. Doing a u-turn in a median is illegal, as is doing one in the opposite direction turn lane (One I see almost daily down here).

I would be more inclined to pull into a parking lot and do a turn if possible.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Per the article, he did an "illegal u-turn", which then gave them justification for pursuing and pulling him over.

---

Just a general question, aren't all U-turns illegal?

I'm aware of places where signs say you can and can't....but when you don't see sign, what's the law?

---

If there is no sign that says you can't, then you are OK to make one, as long as you yield (duh)

---

Assuming your doing a u-turn within the roadway itself. Doing a u-turn in a median is illegal, as is doing one in the opposite direction turn lane (One I see almost daily down here).

I would be more inclined to pull into a parking lot and do a turn if possible.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Per the article, he did an "illegal u-turn", which then gave them justification for pursuing and pulling him over.

---

Just a general question, aren't all U-turns illegal?

I'm aware of places where signs say you can and can't....but when you don't see sign, what's the law?

---

If there is no sign that says you can't, then you are OK to make one, as long as you yield (duh)

---

They can also be illegal by city. Where I live there is a sign when you enter the city limits that states u-turns are illegal city wide. IMO the only reason they do this is to give more tickets and increase revenue - and they really don't like it when you tell them that as they are issuing you a ticket

Quote:

---

In Ohio, you have to take the test if you are arrested for suspicion of DUI,

Ohio OVI/DUI: Refusal to Take a Blood, Breath, or Urine Test | drivinglaws.org
http://dui.drivinglaws.org/resources/dui-refusal-blood-breath-urine-test/ohio.htm

Ohio law requires you to take a blood, breath, or urine test if you are arrested for an OVI. Ohio’s “implied consent” law says that if you are lawfully arrested by an officer who has probable cause to believe that you have been operating under the influence, then you consent to taking a chemical test of your blood, breath, or urine for the purpose of determining your blood alcohol content (BAC). The test must be taken within two hours of driving and the officer gets to choose which test you take.


I remember a certain head of the Democrat Party in Mahoning County years ago who got so drunk that he drove through the downtown Post Office, (there was no drive thru)

He then ran to the closest bar, had a couple drinks, and called the cops, When the police arrived, he told them that he was so shaken up that he had to have a few drinks to calm his nerves ..... in front of all of the witnesses in the bar, of course. (including a judge, and several lawyers, IIRC)

I think that he got a wreckless op, and a public intoxication, but no DUI. (going from memory here)

---

Quote:

---

Moral of the story is, don't get in the car and get to that point.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Moral of the story is, don't get in the car and get to that point.

---

Which has always made me wonder, why do bars have parking lots??

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Moral of the story is, don't get in the car and get to that point.

---

Which has always made me wonder, why do bars have parking lots??

---

Quote:

---

An Emmy Award winner, the 68-year-old Michaels spent nearly three decades at ABC Sports before moving to NBC in 2007.

Michaels worked NFL games and other sports for ABC, and called "Monday Night Football" for nearly 20 years. He also is known for his call of the U.S.-Soviet Union "Miracle on Ice" game at the 1980 Winter Olympics and the earthquake-interrupted Game 3 of the 1989 World Series.

Last year he received the Vin Scully Lifetime Achievement Award in Sports Broadcasting.

---

I have nothing against the guy except for that every time there is an interesting game on T.V. his face is on my T.V. screen.
I hate listening to anything he has to say, and I hate looking at his face. I'm sure he is a nice enough guy, just those two things.

20 years, and 30 years, He never goes away, that's half a generation, Whether it's Madden and Sommerall, or this guy and whoever he partners with, or that new announcer who sits across from Troy Aikman.
About the only one I like is who everyone seems to hate, and that is Collinsworth.
It really is one of the biggest problems I have with the NFL and sports in general that they lock these guys in to so many important broadcasts and don't rotate different personalities that I might not hate so much.

This guy is going to lose his MNF or SNF gig? No way would I be so lucky, And No way would a DUI, without injury or accident be enough to get him fired.

The problem is, these television dolt producers and exec's think there is some great value or benefit to having a storied and respected personality like this one, or maybe Bob Costas, to commentate on the biggest broadcasts instead of getting new or interesting, or a VARIETY of people to do them.
Well it is not a benefit, it is a detriment, and it makes it so Loathsome to watch these ("lousy") broadcasts. x years