Maryland State Police Agree With Fair DUI Method

Video of the Fair DUI interview with Fox 45 Baltimore is below. Notably the reporter spoke with the Maryland State Police and they agreed that a motorist only has to stop at a checkpoint and does not have to roll the window down.

Unfortunately it appears Fox 45 has deleted the video. We can’t find it.

Share Button

17 thoughts on “Maryland State Police Agree With Fair DUI Method

  1. Ben

    Great response! If only more people would just do the research and study they might actually have a clue to what their talking about. Anyway I found some Massachusetts laws…..

    Part 1, TITLE XIV, Chapter 90, Section 25 – REFUSAL TO SUBMIT TO A POLICE OFFICER
    Any person who, while operating or in charge of a motor vehicle, shall refuse, when requested by a police officer, to give his name and address or the name and address of the owner of such motor vehicle, or who shall give a false name or address, or who shall refuse or neglect to stop when signalled to stop by any police officer who is in uniform or who displays his badge conspicuously on the outside of his outer coat or garment, or who refuses, on demand of such officer, to produce his license to operate such vehicle or his certificate of registration, or to permit such officer to take the license or certificate in hand for the purpose of examination, or who refuses, on demand of such officer, to sign his name in the presence of such officer, and any person who on the demand of an officer of the police or other officer mentioned in section twenty-nine or authorized by the registrar, without a reasonable excuse fails to deliver his license to operate motor vehicles or the certificate of registration of any motor vehicle operated or owned by him or the number plates furnished by the registrar for said motor vehicle, or who refuses or neglects to produce his license when requested by a court or trial justice, shall be punished by a fine of one hundred dollars.

    Part 1, TITLE XIV, Chapter 90, Section 21 – ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT
    Any officer authorized to make arrests may arrest without a warrant and keep in custody for not more than twenty-four hours, unless a Saturday, Sunday or a legal holiday intervenes, any person who, while operating a motor vehicle on any way, as defined in section one, violates the provisions of the first paragraph of section ten of chapter ninety. Any arrest made pursuant to this paragraph shall be deemed an arrest for the criminal offense or offenses involved and not for any civil motor vehicle infraction arising out of the same incident.

    Any officer authorized to make arrests, provided such officer is in uniform or conspicuously displaying his badge of office, may arrest without a warrant and keep in custody for not more than twenty-four hours, unless Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday intervenes, any person, regardless of whether or not such person has in his possession a license to operate motor vehicles issued by the registrar, if such person upon any way or in any place to which the public has the right of access, or upon any way or in any place to which members of the public have access as invitees, operates a motor vehicle after his license or right to operate motor vehicles in this state has been suspended or revoked by the registrar, or whoever upon any way or place to which the public has the right of access, or upon any way or in any place to which members of the public have access as invitees, or who the officer has probable cause to believe has operated or is operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, marihuana or narcotic drugs, or depressant or stimulant substances, all as defined in section one of chapter ninety-four C, or under the influence of the vapors of glue, carbon tetrachloride, acetone, ethylene, dichloride, toluene, chloroform, xylene or any combination thereof, or whoever uses a motor vehicle without authority knowing that such use is unauthorized, or any person who, while operating or in charge of a motor vehicle, violates the provisions of section twenty-five of chapter ninety, or whoever operates a motor vehicle upon any way or in any place to which members of the public have a right of access as invitees or licensees and without stopping and making known his name, residence and the register number of his motor vehicle goes away after knowingly colliding with or otherwise causing injury to any person, or whoever operates a motor vehicle recklessly or negligently so that the lives or safety of the public might be endangered in violation of paragraph (a) of subdivision (2) of section 24 and by such operation causes another person serious bodily injury as defined in section 24L, or whoever commits motor vehicle homicide in violation of subsection (a) or (b) of section 24G.

    Any person who is arrested pursuant to this section shall, at or before the expiration of the time period prescribed, be brought before the appropriate district court and proceeded against according to the law in criminal or juvenile cases, as the case may be, provided, however, that any violation otherwise cognizable as a civil infraction shall retain its character as, and be treated as, a civil infraction notwithstanding that the violator is arrested pursuant to this section for a criminal offense in conjunction with said civil infraction.

    An investigator or examiner appointed under section twenty-nine may arrest without a warrant, keep in custody for a like period, bring before a magistrate and proceed against in like manner, any person operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or marihuana, narcotic drugs, depressants or stimulant substances, all as defined in section one of chapter ninety-four C, irrespective of his possession of a license to operate motor vehicles issued by the registrar.

    Basically Section 21 in a nut-shell, what I think, it means is if you injure someone and/or damage their property, aka violate an individuals rights, whether your under the influence or not, then your gonna have to fork over your license, and quite possibly never get it back again.

    I’m still trying to find out if you are required by Massachusetts law to sign a traffic ticket or not. Still lookin though. As always stay smart, stay safe, and remember no victim, no crime. 🙂

    Reply
  2. Ben

    DAMNE IT!! NOT AGAIN!! Just got some responses back from some lawyers and after reading it over and over again, Part 1, TITLE XIV, Chapter 90, Section 25 means IF and only IF the officer requests you to sign your name in his presence, FYI on a ticket, and/or, requests you to hand him your license for examination, FYI to make sure it’s not a fake one then, and only then, you are required by Massachusetts law to sign a ticket and/or hand them your license. WTF OVER!?!? Sneaky bastards!

    Reply
  3. Ben

    Sorry Connecticut. Looks like your law is basically the same as Massachusetts’. IF and only IF the officer “requests” you to surrender your license, FYI “Can you give me your license sir/ma’am.”, then your gonna have to fork it over. DAMNE!! I hate being the bearer of bad news!! 🙁 WTF OVER!!

    Sec. 14-217. OPERATOR TO GIVE NAME AND ADDRESS AND SHOW OR SURRENDER LICENSE, REGISTRATION AND INSURANCE IDENTIFICATION CARD WHEN REQUESTED.
    No person who is operating or in charge of any motor vehicle, when requested by any officer in uniform, by an agent authorized by the commissioner who presents appropriate credentials or, in the event of any accident in which the car he is operating or in charge of is concerned, when requested by any other person, may refuse to give his name and address or the name and address of the owner of the motor vehicle or give a false name or address, or refuse, on demand of such officer, agent or other person, to produce his motor vehicle registration certificate, operator’s license and any automobile insurance identification card for the vehicle issued pursuant to section 38a-364 or to permit such officer, agent or such other person to take the operator’s license, registration certificate and any such insurance identification card in hand for the purpose of examination, or refuse, on demand of such officer, agent or such other person, to sign his name in the presence of such officer, agent or such other person. No person may refuse to surrender his license to operate motor vehicles or the certificate of registration of any motor vehicle operated or owned by him or such insurance identification card or the number plates furnished by the commissioner for such motor vehicle on demand of the commissioner or fail to produce his license when requested by a court. Violation of any provision of this section shall be an infraction.

    Reply
  4. jack

    I would argue that an officer demanding that I relinquish my “papers” to him without a warrant is a violation of the fourth amendment. Therefore any of these state or county laws commanding you to comply with a request to relinquish your “papers” is illegal. Perhaps someone will see this and challenge the court.

    Reply
  5. Dan Pendergast

    I’m 75 years old, never had an accident, haven’t driven a motor vehicle since I was 19 years old when I worked for a dairy and had a wholesale ice cream route. I haven’t had a driver’s license since 1995. I lawfully travel all over the country in my automobile.

    It is unfortunate that the public has been intentionally dumbed down to the point that we believe every statute and code applies to us when, in fact, it doesn’t. I am careful when I go down the road and I try to follow all sign instructions, speed limits, etc. I do not look for an encounter.

    Well, that’s not entirely true. If we are in town and my wife is at the wheel I usually remove my seat belt. I would enjoy the opportunity to defend a seatbelt violation. The law requires a driver [just what is a driver?] and any passengers [just what is the legal definition of a passenger?] to wear a seat belt while the vehicle is in motion. If one looks up the definition of “Driver” in the Federal regulations you’ll find, upon careful scrutiny, that they are referring to anyone engaged in commerce, that is one who is hired to carry goods or passengers for hire. As I said before, I haven’t done that since I was 19. Black’s Law dictionary defines a passenger as one who pays a fare to be transported from one place to another.

    Hey, folks, if you don’t know who you are and what applies to you then you will needlessly be shorn from your energy.

    Reply
    1. Ben

      @ Dan Pendergast

      What evidence do they have to prove that the constitution and laws apply to me or anyone to begin with?

      Reply
      1. Dan Pendergast

        They try to keep up appearances that the Constitution is still in force and that the Bill of Rights still affords you protection from government abuses, however, you have no such protected rights in their administrative courts. After all, they never charge a real flesh and blood man with any violations of their so-called laws. They always charge a fiction. That’s the all capital letter name that is ALWAYS on their paperwork. Where in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights does it convey any protection at all for fictional entities?

        When you go into one of these administrative courts they are not involved in Constitutional law. It’s private corporate law they are administering. They only apply to you if you have joined their country club. They assume and presume that you have joined and are there acting as the surety for the fiction they have charged. They see you as the one who has come in to pay the fine and do the time because you can’t get blood out of a fiction. They will assume everything to your detriment unless you rebut their presumptions.

        Reply
        1. Ben

          I’m not talking about straw man theories or constitutional laws. I’m simply asking for any “evidence”, or even a witness with personal first hand knowledge, to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the constitution and laws apply to me or anyone to show they have any jurisdiction over me to begin with. Anything else is moot. As long as I’m not injuring anyone or damaging their property the courts, aka the government, have no jurisdiction.

        2. Dan Pendergast

          They will operate as they always do, assuming that you are a member of their club and subject thereto. Its up to you to rebut that presumption if you know how. Since these are all courts of consent its up to you to refuse to consent. Unfortunately most people don’t have the foggiest of ideas of who they are or what they are subject to. They have a mentality that whatever they see on Fox News is fact and whatever is written in the codes and statutes is law that they are subject to.

          You are correct in assuming that they don’t have jurisdiction over you. They only have jurisdiction over fictions and, if you believe that the straw man only exists as theory it would be hard to convince you that the straw man is all that they have jurisdiction over. Their codes and statutes never forbid people from doing anything. Their only concern is “persons”. Persons by definition are fictions.

  6. Ben

    Even if the straw man theory is true the same question would still apply. I’ve asked many lawyers, cops, judges, politicians, and bureaucrats this same question over and over again. All they keep giving me is circular logic, arbitrary opinions, circumventing the question through legalese absurdities, and they even resorted to acts of fear, threat, and coercion of incarceration through physical violence against me! Just because I asked one simple question?! WTF OVER!?!?

    Reply
    1. Dan Pendergast

      I’m not sure just how you are phrasing your question to these people or just how simple it is. What you have expressed above would be something that most cops, politicians, judges, lawyers, etc. either don’t have the knowledge to give an adequate response to or do have the knowledge and don’t have any authority to share that knowledge with a mere subject. After all, the front line troops are never told the truth about why they are pillaging the enemy. Only those in higher positions have that knowledge and they didn’t get to a higher position by telling the victims how to get out of being a victim.

      All those things they use against you to create fear are the tools of their trade. You will never get a straight answer to your questions by going to the entities who are employed by the very system that has been set up to exploit you. It will be up to you to get the answers you are looking for yourself. I might suggest looking into Jack Smith’s Monday Night Class. Contact Caleb at mnclass@frontier.com for details. I have followed them for about 20 year off and on. The Family Guardian site is another one loaded with info that can answer your questions with plenty of remedies for removing yourself from their presumed jurisdiction.

      Reply
    1. Dan Pendergast

      Your rights work anywhere you are if you know what your rights are and how to employ them. Americans have been precluded from learning what their rights or how to defend them. Keeping them in this state of ignorance is very profitable for the controllers. Better to occupy them with iPhones and Facebook. It makes them easier to fleece.

      You won’t find a school to teach you what your rights are. Those were done away with before we entered the picture. Just Google ‘what are my rights’ and see what comes up. Also try the Family Guardian site. There are dozens out there if you are willing to apply yourself. If not, then you have the option of resigning yourself to an existence of an uninformed slave.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *