California DUI

The Fair DUI flyer should work in California checkpoints. It will not work as well in most traffic stops because drivers are generally required to sign tickets in CA, which means you’d have to roll down your window.

We are working on an app that would allow drivers to take a picture of the ticket through a closed window and digitally sign it. Please sign up for our e-mail list if you’re interested in that app.

We strongly recommend that people discuss the Fair DUI flyer with a local lawyer before using it. Even if the lawyer doesn’t agree with us, you’ll be better prepared by having that conversation.

Front side of California flyer

Front side of California flyer

Rear of California Version

Rear of California Version

Share Button

97 thoughts on “California DUI

  1. Joe

    I am a LEO. I actually like what you are doing here. I think check points are unconstitutional. I am sort of the token libertarian at work.

    My question is if the two vehicle codes on your sign will work. It seems rather gray area to me. Both sections state a violator is required to “present” license, registration and insurance. It seems like that could mean putting them against the window of physically handing them over.

    Personally I think for officer safety it’s best if they hand it over. It means less time the officer is standing in traffic.

    Reply
    1. David Roberts

      Joe,

      Had never thought of it from an officer safety viewpoint. That makes sense. I also think that if safety is the issue, then the officer should pull someone over and stop them only where it is safe and not put themselves into that situation.

      Reply
    2. Safe Driver

      I understand officers want to be as safe as possible while not taking up lots of time & would rather motorists hand the documents to them rather then placing the documents against the window. But who’s safety & time are the officers concerned with? It seems to me officers are only concerned for the safety & time for themselves, not the innocent citizens that are being forced to risk their safety & time after the officer having no reason to suspect the motorists of driving under the influence at the time. If the officer, before hand, suspects driving under the influence then YES that motorists should be stopped & sited according. To be stopped, harassed & inconvenienced without cause is unfair & unjust but one fact that will remain is this unjust will never stop. WHO’S ALLOWED TO POLICE THE POLICE? I often witness police officers in violation of traffic laws where I live. From not signaling, unsafe speeds without lights flashing, illegal U-Turns & use of personal cell phone while driving. Does the badge make it okay to put other motorists lives at risk unnecessarily?

      Reply
      1. Driver

        In case you don’t know police are legally allowed to use a cell phone when driving. It lets them be in contact with their partners in case they need to communicate sensitive info that can’t be transmitted over radio.

        Reply
        1. wredlich Post author

          So “Driver” are you saying that police have magic powers that make them better drivers than the rest of us? It’s safe for them to drive while using a cell phone but not for anyone else?

        2. Angel Garduno

          Driver also why would a police officer need to use a personal cell phone they have radios in their cars that keep them in touch with their fellow officers.

        3. LFR

          You are correct,to many citizens have some type of scanner, so for safety and Police protection the need to use a cell phone is correct as long you contact dispatch and request that unit to stand by by landline…

        4. John do

          I don’t agree the California law says you can’t drive wild on the cell phone a police officer is not exempt from the law.

      2. Amanda Trebiano

        I’ve gotten a lot of cops on video driving excessively fast. Get the car/plate number in the video, a speed limit sign and name of the road sign (an interstate exit sign will suffice) and your speedometer in the video along with their car so you can show how much over the speed limit they are going FOR NO REASON. I caught a corrections van on video doing 95 mph in a 65 mph zone and sent the video to his supervisor with a note that I was also sending it to the local TV stations. I think he was suspended for either 30 or 60 days, not sure. They also lose their take-home car in a lot of cases. Video them–they are not above the law–and they are EASY to catch. I’ve gotten almost 2 dozen on video like this and the TV stations LOVE to play these videos. LOVE to see it.

        Reply
    3. wredlich Post author

      Not sure what will “work” or even what that means. Some police will obey the sign. Some won’t.

      Some courts will follow the law as we see it. Some won’t.

      Reply
        1. Morgan Ricketts

          There is a presumption of validity if the test is performed within 3 hours of driving. That presumption disappears if the test is performed more than 3 hours after the known driving, or when it is not known what time the driving occurred. This is critical for the automatic DMV license suspension. Whether it still holds up in court is a separate issue and mostly depends on what courthouse you’re in. Pro-law enforcement juries embolden prosecutors; law enforcement-skeptical juries make them more reasonable.

    4. Tom

      I was on a very busy interstate once in the city and was chased down by a trooper. I pulled off at the next exit which was less than a mile away and led the trooper to the first available lot to pull over safely. The trooper threatened to arrest me for fleeing even after I explained it was for the safety of us both. So yeah.

      Reply
      1. kim mcdonald

        i had 2 small children in the car and momentarily exceeded the speed limit on the interstate. when i saw the lights flashing, i slowed down and gestured out the window towards the next exit, but did not pull over. the highway patrolman rushed up behind me dangerously close, with lights and sirens blazing, flashed his highbeams, then got on his bullhorn and yelled for me to pull over immediately. i complied. when the officer approached my driver’s side window, he immediately started yelling at me like i was a child, telling me that when i see a cop flash his lights, i’m to immediately pull over. i pointed to the 2 kids in the backseat, and said there are alot of speeding semi trucks on the highway, pulling off on the shoulder is not safe. i said i had gestured to communicate that i was proceeding to the next exit, where i would then pull over. the cop snapped at me, saying he is the one who decides if it’s safe to pull over, not me. if he flashed his lights, that means pull over, not proceed to the next exit. then a semi whizzed by him so close and so fast, he stood straight up and froze like a statue for a second. then he told me he would follow me to the next exit, swallowed the lump in his throat, and scurried back to his car.
        the cop didn’t care that i was concerned about my safety and the safety of the kids. he could care less about people’s concerns or people’s safety. he only moved the stop to the next exit after he almost got clipped by that semi, which showed that he was only concerned about his own safety, not ours.

        Reply
    5. Amanda Trebiano

      One should always pull as far off the road as possible to protect the officer from oncoming traffic, believe me they appreciate that. Statistically they are much more likely to get hit by a car than to be shot in the line of duty. I try to put the car completely in the grass with just the two driver-side tires on the emergency lane pavement. Additionally if you are being pulled over and there is no emergency lane, put on your flashers and proceed to the closest parking lot to get our of traffic. Again, they will appreciate it.

      Reply
      1. wredlich Post author

        Agreed. Everything you can do to make the officer feel safe will help you. And it’s just the right thing to do.

        Reply
    6. Jesus Yo

      Joe and others:

      As I understand it, since I only have to follow lawful orders; if a cop tells me to pull over where it’s not legal to park, I don’t have to park there. And so I don’t go into park. I tell them that I’m not willing to park illegally, but I’m willing to follow them to a legal parking area. And they can’t give me permission to violate the law- they don’t have the authority.
      I once had my license suspended for not filing an SR-22. I didn’t know and actually I had filed the form and had proof of mailing. I found out because I got pulled over for having a busted taillight. Cop could have taken my license, and, assuming I hadn’t parked legally when pulling over, had me towed. Instead I just got a fix-it ticket.

      Reply
    7. TK

      This is where you see our Government hard at work doing everything possible to reduce our rights as guaranteed under the USC. Look at the text. “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” The language is very clear as intended. Now, the Government argues that driving is NOT a right and the States are free to legislate freely as provided in the USC. However, driving has become a human requirement for survival. You will note how the Government uses “progressive” policy to act in thier favor such as gun control. Again, another amendment that is clear and simple. However, in this case the government reverses course and argues that “progressive” policy (meaning modern times and contemporary analysis) has created a “public safety” issue and the right should be limited. Although the debate has never been directed towards an analytical argument, data analysis obtained from the DOJ, FBI, and individual States show the reverse effect in that the more (law abiding) citizens that own and carry guns, has an effect at reducing crimes in that geographic. So, we can see that, the Government is clearly using progressive policy to manipulate the outcome it seeks while the rights of the people are dismantled without an open debate using SCOTUS as the final course of action which again, is NOT the intent of the USC, but fits where the complacency of the people is an advantage.

      Reply
  2. Starwizz

    I am interested in anything that gets me some of my rights back. So put me down for one app. If you’re interested in the security of the app (since I’m sure it will be questioned in court) let me know, I can help. As far as DUI is concerned, I am definately for stopping drunk drivers but there has to be a better way then eroding my rights in the name of public safety. Like the lame CA gun laws, this does very little, if anything, to make the public safer. How about making it illegal to buy alcohol if you get busted for DUI?

    Reply
  3. BAD INFORMATION

    What about CVC 2814.2 (a)? ???? What is your view?

    Sobriety Checkpoint Inspections

    2814.2. (a) A driver of a motor vehicle SHALL stop AND SUBMIT to a sobriety checkpoint inspection conducted by a law enforcement agency when signs and displays are posted requiring that stop.

    Reply
  4. Starwizz

    What does “submit” mean? If I am unwilling to abdicate my rights and I post a note saying “you must order me to do stuff”, am I not “submitting” albet in a manner that requires them to exercise their “rights”? When I get pulled over am I not suspected of committing some offense that has given LEO probable cause thereby changing the dynamic of the encounter? Is that not different then a checkpoint where I am stopped for merely being in the area?

    Reply
  5. Driver

    What about this?

    “NOTE: When you sign your application for an instruction permit/driver license, you agree to submit to a chemical test to determine the alcohol or drug content of your blood when required by a peace officer. If you refuse to sign this statement on your driver license application, DMV will not issue a permit or license.”

    http://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/teenweb/permit_btn1/apply

    It seems that by “required” they basically imply “when asked to,” which is almost every time.

    Reply
  6. BAD INFORMATION

    No it does not! ….
    The section states submit to a sobriety examination…. Not show your license up against your window and be on your way…. People are going to have a broken window on their vehicle and get arrested because of your bad information….. Driving is NOT a right!

    Reply
    1. Michael Husk

      Michael Husk

      Dear Mr. Driver,

      So what you’re saying is that the State of California Vehicle Code and DMV Rules take precedence over our Federally Constituted protections against “unreasonable searches and seizures” and without “probable cause”? Driver, you’re wrong. You’re the one with the BAD INFORMATION as you enjoy stating.

      Our rights cannot be taken from us by some dumbass politician or mindless bureaucrat that rights these stupid laws nor by some gung-ho, overzealous law enforcement officer. Take the time to read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

      Reply
    1. Croidhubh

      You’re right, you did see it in the Constitution. It’s called the First Amendment. Not to mention the tie-ins with the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, with the Fourteenth Amendment firmly stating all rights ensured by the Constitution (not granted, but ensured) must be applied to the State as well. Let us not forget the glorious Ninth Amendment telling the government we have more rights than what is listed and they cannot (or should not have) grow(n) as big as they have.

      The Supreme Court has most certainly held the idea of Freedom of Movement as well:
      – Crandall v Neveda, 73 U.S. 35 (1868) declared that freedom of movement is a fundamental right

      -United States v. Wheeler, 254 U.S. 281 (1920), the Supreme Court reiterated its position that the Constitution did not grant the federal government the power to prohibit freedom of movement. It was the first to locate the right to travel in the privileges and immunities clause, providing the right with a specific guarantee of constitutional protection

      -Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999) held that the United States Constitution protected three separate aspects of the right to travel among the states [this is protected by the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause]

      -Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221 declared, “The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived.”

      -Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579 states, ,”The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

      There’s even a law in reagrds to air travel
      – 49 U.S.C. § 40103, “Sovereignty and use of airspace”, the Code specifies that “A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace.”

      These are a small taste of how wrong you are. You’re what’s wrong with this nation and the State of California as a whole.

      Reply
  7. CA Driver

    I guess all of you haven’t read Michigan v. Sitz,  Ingersoll v. Palmer, or even the new case of Mr. Navarrete & Mr. Alfaro in Escondido. When it comes to challenging the police just beware that you have a great chance of being arrested.

    Reply
    1. wredlich Post author

      Thanks for pointing out Ingersoll. I hadn’t read it before. Horrible decision. It’s worse than Sitz.

      But it still doesn’t say the driver has to roll down his window. It still doesn’t address the driver’s rights under the 5th and 6th amendments.

      Reply
  8. Jeremy C

    According to 12951a you are required to give your ID to law enforcement for examination. The way it is worded indicates physical examination. With that said, keeping your license in your vehicle with this flyer seems like it will present problems. To the same note if you hang it out the window like some of the videos from Florida that I have seen I think this would apply in California and therefore could not do it:

    26708. (a) (1) A person shall not drive any motor vehicle with any object or material placed, displayed, installed, affixed, or applied upon the windshield or side or rear windows.
    (2) A person shall not drive any motor vehicle with any object or material placed, displayed, installed, affixed, or applied in or upon the vehicle that obstructs or reduces the driver’s clear view
    through the windshield or side windows.

    The exception to the above vehicle code being:

    (3) Signs, stickers, or other materials that are displayed in a seven-inch square in the lower corner of the windshield farthest removed from the driver, signs, stickers, or other materials that are displayed in a seven-inch square in the lower corner of the rear window farthest removed from the driver, or signs, stickers, or other materials that are displayed in a five-inch square in the lower corner of the windshield nearest the driver.

    With the above information, will this flyer actually work? Sounds like you still have to hand over the license for examination (not just viewing) and you cant hang it out the window to get around that.

    Reply
    1. Todd Keierleber

      Hanging it out the window is not a clear violation of that law. The ziplock bag can be deployed after you have pulled over (police are generally in no hurry in a traffic stop). The ziplock bag is obviously not permanently affixed to any window; you are not “driving” at this point (this can blur many laws about “driving”); lower the bag below the window ‘drops mic’ ; this does not mean the nice officer won’t crash out your window, pop a couple tazer hooks in your chest, drag you out of your car and beat you relentlessly. Being Caucasian, I generally keep my hands on the wheel, move slowly (if I haven’t already prep’d them) to get license, registration, and proof of insurance. I’ve seen video of several unarmed black men being shot at this point.

      Reply
  9. Jeremy C

    Agreed, but whenever you try and quote the constitution cops tend to laugh at you or get agro. For the most part unless you got a top notch lawyer, let’s be honest, the constitution as a defense is not a viable or affordable defense in most cases anymore. Unfortunately, I live in a location right outside of Sacramento that has checkpoints regularly in 3 locations right by my house. I have no choice but to go through them in order to get home. This is why I ask because most people go through them every once in a blue moon and I am forced to go through them regularly. If my concerns noted above could be addressed beyond the 4th amendment I am willing to go through the checkpoint and film my encouter for you.

    Reply
    1. wredlich Post author

      It’s not about persuading the police. You shouldn’t talk to them at all. Not one word.

      It’s about what happens in court afterward. Did they follow their guidelines? Were their guidelines legal and constitutional?

      If you’re serious please call me to discuss. 888-733-5299

      Reply
  10. Adam

    I was in law enforcement for several years and I understand the difference between the sign working during the stop and the sign working for you even better in the long run if it fails at the stop.
    But I do however want to hear your take on passengers. There is case law stating if your a passenger in a vehicle that is stopped, and you don’t involve yourself in the officers investigation by keeping your mouth shut and hands in sight, the officer can’t force you to identify yourself like he did the driver.
    My question is, in California if I’m a passenger in a car that is stopped for a typical traffic offense, and I keep my mouth shut completely and my hands in plain sight. If the officer asks for my ID and I refuse culminating in my arrest for concealing id. Would the officer be in the wrong?

    Reply
    1. Dave

      In California you are required at all times to show ID when asked by a cop. You are not however required to answer questions unless for some other reason you are required to answer questions.

      As the passenger in a DUI stop you have very little to fear even if drunk. Getting a ride home while drunk is not in fact ticketable

      Reply
      1. Packet Guy

        Dave,

        Wrong. In California you don’t have to present an ID whenever the police ask for it. California is not a “stop and identify” state. You only have to provide ID when arrested, which means police must have probable cause (much more stringent than “articulable suspicion” that you have committed a crime. You don’t have to even give your name verbally absent that probable cause, and further, you can’t be detained, let alone ID’d, without articulable reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. “Acting suspicious” isn’t a crime.

        Reply
    2. liv4sun

      law enforcement for several years huh? Riddle me this I was a passenger NOT DRIVER a group of us high schoolers pulled over, I was 16 at time in Ca. I was only 1 striped searched in public forced 2 faceon coming heavy traffic. What advise would you give 4 kids this happens to ? An dont say tell your parents cuz I did, they said I asked 4 it!!!!!!!!

      Reply
  11. Denise

    What is the difference between an “order” and a “request” by a police officer?! Vague~=/

    Reply
  12. Sean

    Not trying to pick sides, but if the officer wants you to sign a ticket and you crack the window down, couldn’t he just say he smells alcohol and that right there would be his probable cause to order you to step out for a sobriety check?

    Reply
  13. stew

    Very interested in this app, I hate to get harassed. Now for these, Alcoholics don’t use the sign , your just asking for it.

    Reply
  14. DiVina

    The amount of time ,man power,and tax payers money used for these stops are becoming redicilous ! Please send me the app.

    Reply
  15. Brobama

    Isn’t it illegal to AUDIO record a conversation without party consent? Shouldn’t it be communicated to the officer that he is being Audio and Video recorded?

    Reply
    1. Croidhubh

      NO! It’s only against the law in some states if BOTH parties ON A PHONE CALL don’t know phone call is being recorded. Generally, this only applies to use in court and not a violation for simply recording, but a few states say otherwise.

      Not to mention many, many SCOTUS cases have already upheld it is a CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT record government officials.

      Reply
      1. wredlich Post author

        Not SCOTUS exactly. Two federal circuit courts have held that, including Glik v. Cunniffe. SCOTUS “denied cert” on one of them which is the next best thing to a SCOTUS decision.

        Reply
  16. Starwizz

    No, it is illegal to record a phone conversation without the other partiy’s knowledge. You notify them, then they are free to discontinue. A public conversation, such as that at a traffic stop, is fair game.

    Reply
    1. LFR

      There are a few states they have one party consent and two patries consent..
      Sample : Idaho and a few state’s don’t have parties consent.. is legal to record
      Califoria two parties.
      And the rest of the state’s, iether one that mean ” yourself ” cause you are a party to the phone conversation and you dont need to informed the other person that you r tecording.
      The others you do, you need to check with your State Barof your State or look it up..

      Reply
  17. Starwizz

    I’ve been watching police actions the last few days at airports and in public. It seems that the word is getting out. For example, during a recent “issue” at LAX, the police escorted the suspect off the plane, through the gate area, and out to the ramp where they could deal with him in a somewhat unobserved way. Same thing with recent traffic issues. The police are covering up the plates and making sure they are out of earshot and covering their mouths while they talk. Looks like the NFL out there!

    Reply
  18. Adam

    I like what you are doing. I have a real problem with DUI / Border Patrol / TSA checkpoints. Real Fascist stuff.

    My only concern is what I found regarding CA and Federal (I think) cases regarding the driver’s legal obligation to exit a car when told to do so. I pasted what I found online regarding CA law for officers, and I think if I do what you advise I may get arrested and not have a legal leg to stand on. I am concerned that following your advice may actually get me into trouble I could have avoided. What are your thoughts?

    The courts acknowledge the risks associated with traffic stops and have recognized your need to control the occupants’ movements. In all cases, you have the right to order the driver to get out of the vehicle. You do not need any particular reason, such as danger or suspicion of a crime. This is because the courts believe that all traffic stops involve enough inherent risk to justify the minimal additional intrusion of ordering a validly detained driver to get out of the vehicle. (Mimms (1977) 434 U.S. 106; Maxwell (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1004; Valencia (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 906, 918; Miranda (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 917, 927.)

    Thanks for your time.

    Reply
    1. wredlich Post author

      If you’re ordered out of the car you should obey the order unless you’re ready to face the consequences.

      Reply
  19. Tim Copeland

    I am anxious to learn about passengers’ rights as well. My cousin is on probation and is required to divulge this information when he is confronted with an officer. As a passenger in a vehicle, where the driver remains silent, refusing to roll down the window, at what point might a passenger be violating his probation if the officer asks him any question?

    Reply
  20. P

    Glendale, CA

    Flyer and driver’s license placed against rolled up window. Supervisor said he wasn’t going to play “the flyer” game and ordered to roll the window down. Complied, but rolled down only a few inches. Released after a few questions, no detainment.

    Reply
  21. Starwizz

    This seems like a simple case of escallation. You say no, cop says YES louder therefore you comply. My question is, what are your options at that point? Can you say (politely) “No Thank you. If I’m under arrest I want my lawyer else I’d like to leave now.” or, would it be better to remain silent and not comply?

    Comments from the legal folks?

    Reply
    1. wredlich Post author

      You shouldn’t say no. Say nothing. Wait until you’re given a clear order. Be more patient than the cop. If you’re given a clear order you comply. But not on a request.

      And record the encounter.

      Reply
  22. Starwizz

    Super! So my question is, what is the difference between a request and an order? Request: “please get out of the car” versus the order: “Get out of the car now!” Not trying to nit pick, just trying to understand the difference since I’m sure that in every case the officer is going to say he ordered you to do something. As cops start to get used to the flyers, I’m sure they’re going to counter with new behavior. It seems to be the way that it works.

    Reply
    1. Dan

      Follow the demand with a question:

      Cop — Please get out of the car.
      Driver – Is that a request or an order?

      Cop — Get out of the car now!
      Driver – Is that a request or an order?

      The cop will reply on whether it is an order or request.
      If the cop does not reply with an answer, or continues to repeat the question — then most likely it is a request.

      Reply
      1. wredlich Post author

        No, driver doesn’t speak at all. Not one word.

        Driver has to use his judgment to decide whether it’s an order or not. If you hear the word please it’s pretty clearly not an order. If you here “or else” then it pretty clearly is an order. If it’s commanding language like you used in second example, it’s an order.

        Reply
      1. Kevin

        At 2:20 you say that: you are required to submit your license, paperwork upon request. You should clarify that you are required to show your driver license, and other paperwork, upon request when operating a vehicle.

        Reply
  23. Toni Priore

    I don’t drink or use my meds when I am driving so I am not afraid of getting a DUI but with they way police are acting lately I am scared I will get pulled over by a cop. I dated a cop many years ago and knew all of his work friends. Most were very nice and good people (this was way back in the early 80’s) but it seems there is always one bad apple in the bunch. All of the cops disliked this one cop because he would do things like ticket people for honking their horn in a tunnel… All the other cops thought that was not cool. But these days so many unarmed people are getting shot, harmed and even killed by these bad cops. I just want to protect myself if I ever get pulled over by a cop. I’ll tell you these cops scare me and it isn’t in just a few states it’s seems like it’s in all states! I like what you are doing here for the people who are innocent. If someone is driving drunk, well they deserve getting the DUI… They don’t deserve to get hurt or killed though…
    I did think of one question. I am disabled, I have problems with my left shoulder and I cannot put both hands behind my back if they were to handcuff me… Is there anything I can do or say to make sure that doesn’t happen?

    Reply
  24. Darren A.

    I wish I could do this, but as a car enthusiast, every car/truck I own is modified, ill get hammered on fix it tickets.

    Reply
    1. P

      Sorry, that was the wrong link.

      I sent you an email with an attachment to your gmail address.

      There’s something new that popped up for California.

      Reply
  25. Mike

    Hi, I was wondering what you think about this California Law where it states you cant HANG or DISPLAY anything from your car. If I drive to a checkpoint and the cop wants to be a prick, he can really say :Ok I cant get you for DUI but I can write you a ticket for hanging things on your car.
    Vehicle Code section 26708, subdivision (a)(2),  “No person shall drive any motor vehicle with any object or material placed, displayed, installed, affixed, or applied in or upon the vehicle which obstructs or reduces the driver’s clear view through the windshield or “SIDE” windows.” This was proven by the court case Court of Appeal, Sixth District, California.The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Mark Anthony COLBERT, Defendant and Appellant.No. H031479.Decided: December 11, 2007, about a cop pulling over someone for a AIR FRESHINER on his rear view mirror. So I realize placing it on the driver side window with your hands isn’t HANGING it on the outside, but do you think they could push this issue about displaying items on the window?

    Reply
    1. liv4sun

      Come on really? So you think this flyer with ALL YOUR PERSONAL DATA INFO is meant 2 be permanitely fixed 4 all to view it. Well maybe thats what u would do, but no no if u watch videos or are fluent in english language you’d understand those laws you mention do not apply to this flyer action

      Reply
  26. Rachael

    I have a few quick questions about your DUI flyer. 1. As you see the lights and signs coming up to a DUI checkpoint can’t you before you get there roll down your window and take a piece of tape and place your drivers license on the outside of your car door or if you had a passenger have them stick it to the outside of there car door. So when they say they want to physically hold your drivers license all they would have to do is grab it.
    2. Could you just wear sun glasses at night so that way they can’t look into your eyes?
    Asking these questions out of curiosity since handing them the license seems to be such a big deal.
    When they go to give it back to you simply have it stated on the piece of paper to return your drivers license to the trunk of your car when they are finished you open the trunk for them from the inside of your car.
    Problem solved or no?

    Reply
  27. Deidra Ritchhart

    I’m going to practice law in California for graduate school after I get done with my undergraduate degree in Oklahoma….. Please let me know when the app comes out too, Warren. I want to be able to use technology to sign papers! LOL!

    Reply
  28. GreedyLawyersLoveThis

    Lawyers like the one who posted this crap would love for you to get thrown in jail for “flexing your rights”. What they fail to tell you is that for a lawyer to defend your rights, its going to cost you several thousands of dollars- likely more than the DUI would cost. So before you go “flexing your rights” think about whether you can afford to hire a lawyer to get you out of jail.

    Reply
  29. Mark

    So, your answer is to abandon your rights? Am I getting that right? I’m a sober driver and I should just roll over because the police say so? My applologoes but I thought we were a country of laws. Guess I missed the tweet when that changed.

    Reply
  30. mark

    Actually, many states are considering driving a right. For example, in CA there have been a few rulings where the court said that it was unreasonable to expect a citizen to live without a car. By denying them a license, they were sentencing them second class citizen status. It’s the reason that they’re decoupling many fines from the “loss of license” outcome. We can even ignore the fact that our taxes pay for the system and support the very law enforcement people we’re in this “relationship” with. If driving is such a “privilege”, give it up and see how it changes your life. Or better yet, talk to the victims of the system that have lost their “privileges” because they jaywalked, crossed against a light, or worse, didn’t pay a parking ticket. See how it changed their lives.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

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