Sep 12
Some Poker and a Police run-in
Today I played in the o8 Wcoop event all day only to get 68th out of abotu 850 players for basically no money. I have to say, I don’t think I’ll ever play a limit tournament again. In the beginning of the tournament, hands are mostly meaningless as you are playing limits that are way too small for the chip stacks, then suddenly limits get too big and pretty much everyone is playing 1k 2k with a 15k chip stack, it just doesn’t work when one limit hand can end the average stacks tournament with over 200 people left. As a result of my long failure in this tournament, I missed a night out with my friends but went to meet them for a slice of pizza to end the night and offered them a ride home.
I picked them up in the west village and we crammed 5 people in my car, 3 in the back did not really fit too well. The last thing I wanted was to get pulled over because well, it’s pretty much never a good choice of evening activity. As we drove into a wall of police cars, I got a little nervous when I realized that the cops were watching each and every car drive by and picking at “random” who to pull over. I had no doubt that a somewhat flashy convertible with 5 twenty-somethings in the car would be on their list to inspect.
Of course I had not drank anything, but I did feel a little bit loopy from 9 straight hours of online poker. The cop motioned for me to stop, it didn’t help that my friend Rebecca could not stop cackling like a rabid hyena in the back seat. We’re still not quite sure why she found the situation so funny. The cop asked me if I had drank anything and stuck his face very very close to mine. I found this somewhat intrusive and I was wondering if he wanted me to actually breathe on him so he could smell. In the end I thought a deep breath may have been considered rude so I just breathed normally. He then requested my license and told me to pull over. At this point we noticed at least 2 other people being hauled away from the stop point in handcuffs, I guess the police were accomplishing their objective. After a brief wait the officer returned my license and asked me to step out of the car.
At this point he went through a whole litany of questions about where I was coming from, where I was going, and why the girl in my car was laughing so much. He once again asked if I had drank anything and I reiterated my innocence. He then said my eyes looked very red, to which I did not really know how to respond. I opted for saying, “well I’ve stared at my computer for the last 9 hours”, I probably should have also pointed out that I had swam earlier with goggles which I think was the cause of the irritation. He nodded and took out a breathalyzer. He asked if I had taken the test before and then went out of his way to excessively vouch for the sterility of the tube I had to blow into so that I would not fear germs. This had the opposite of the intended effect on me and I became quite worried about someone with contagious something or other who happened to blow into the tube before me. After passing he said, “well congrats, you told the truth, you’re sober” and let me go.
This whole encounter left me with two questions. The part of me that believes that “brevity is the soul of wit” wonders why he needed to go through the whole song and dance routine to determine my drunkenness if he could just test me and let me go on my way. The whole process seems rather redundant.
The law student in me wonders how on earth such stops are legal. They are clearly profiling with who they choose to pull over, additionally they have no probable cause or definite violation to be infringing on my liberty there. I am not necessarily against such stops, they clearly found some drunk drivers tonight and in doing so made my commute safer, but how is it possible that it is legal to deprive people of their liberty for no legitimate reason. After all, had I not listened to the cop and had just driven on rather than pulling over for the test, I would no doubt have been pursued and probably arrested.
September 12th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
They give you the song and dance because it probably eases more people into it or the cop may actually be uncomfortable administering such a test (which would be very telling).
But look at car insurance profiling. I’ve paid a ridiculously high amount in premiums for the 7+ year’s I’ve driven without a single moving violation, all because on average a guy is more of a risk than a girl, nevermind breaking it down into subgroups (btw, why can’t they charge white people more than say asian people if white people are more of a risk? Are all races really equal in risk? What about people with a higher tendency to get sick, I’ve heard the flu is actually much more of a risk driving than being just over the legal limit for alcohol. I hardly get sick and hardly ever drive, where’s my discount?)
On average, they probably catch more drunk drivers in cars crammed with young people.
September 12th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
Steve –
When I’ve witnessed these sobriety checkpoints as a police reporter the cops did two things to make them legal, I think. 1) They advertised them a day or two ahead of time and put out signs a few hundred feet before the checkpoint giving notice. 2) They made some attempt to pull people over randomly, i.e., every third car or something like that.
As far as detaining you against your will, I think you consent to be pulled over when you agree to be a licensed driver. The other thing I would add is that in some states — again, I’m thinking of Florida — you have a right to say no to the breathalyzer, but it often carries a penalty like an automatic suspension of your license. So maybe the cop was giving you the germs speech as a way to get you to go ahead with this test that you weren’t required to take. On the other hand, maybe I just have no idea what I’m talking about.
Jon
September 12th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
driving is NOT a rite…its a privelage…if u were walking with friends and got stopped then I’d agree with you…but driving put u at the mercy of the po po
September 13th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
One interesting thing to note – your passengers have the right to leave the scene. Of course, the police have the right to detain your passengers with probable cause, and that includes the cop just saying your friends looked suspicious because of how they walked. Ah civil liberties are fun. Here’s a fun question cops sometimes ask when they pull you over: “Is there any reason you wouldn’t want me to look in your trunk?” Without probably cause they can’t inspect your vehicle without your consent, but saying “yes” to that tricky question could be construed as probable cause (because you’re implying there may be something illegal in your trunk).
September 13th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
In Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990), the Supreme Court ruled that “sobriety checkpoints” do not violate the Fourth Amendment. They said the public safety benefits of removing drunk drivers from the road outweighed any inconvenience (or rather Fourth Amendment violations) that the checkpoints caused to innocent drivers, like yourself.
I bet this case will come up in one of your classes. It was an instance of the “original intent” Justices conveniently forgetting their judicial philosophy so that they could expand the policing powers of the State.
September 14th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
Are you going to comment on the slowroll in the 25k HU? There is already a huge thread on 2p2 about it.
September 26th, 2009 at 9:54 am
I don`t quite know how does it work in your country, but here in Brazil our constitution says that we can`t be forced to give away proofs of something that can incriminate ourselves, so cops can`t force us to do all this blow test to see if we`re drunk.
But ppl get caught drunk driving anyway…