Please listen closely to what these officers say. I do not believe this is systematic, but I think this is a good illustration of an effort to influence professional groups.. or maybe these officers are just bullies. The video begins at the interview stage, I believe the car was parked and the lady was reading. If that is so I see no reasonable suspicion, let alone probable cause. Decide for yourselves.

Bush spokesman... "Constitution? Never heard of it. But whatever it may say is overruled by executive order."

This is yet another example of activists baiting law enforcement. The Supreme Court has upheld that random checkpoints are Constitutional. This woman had pre-planned to have her "harassment" recorded. Albeit, she had no idea she would be stopped, but she was hoping she would be one of the cars stopped. This is becoming an all too common incident. Her refusal to co-operate is a legal, valid reason to be detained, not arrested, until her identity is established.

The officer in the video had the legal right to reach in and turn off her car when she refused. However he WAS incorrect in arresting her for obstruction of justice. He would have been correct had he cuffed her and DETAINED her to assertain her identity. Also since clips like this are cherry picked and edited to support the posters agenda. What was the checkpoint for? Seatbelt warnings? Inspection reviews? Looked too early in the day to be a DUI checkpoint. Were they looking for a particular vehicle that was wanted and hers was an identical vehicle? The video doesn't show these things. However, right from the start she was uncooperative. Both were in the wrong.

Some states now have laws that allow search and seizure based on reasonable suspicion, not probable cause. Officers are allowed to stop a person in a public place to determine if a person has committed or is about to commit a crime; and frisk if the officer has reasonable concern for their own safety. All these are supposed to be grounded in observation of unusual conduct. Detainment for questioning, not for arrest until there is probable cause.

I think turning the car off would be considered detaining and asking the driver for I.D. is O.K. It was what the officers said about the drivers personal effects that bothered me. They were in plain sight, but the charge was resisting arrest although the officers did not explain what the lady was being arrested for, in order for her to resist being arrested.

As a general rule:

In order to stop and detain someone under the Fourth Amendment, the U.S. Constitution requires that a law enforcement officer justify the stop on something more than articulable and reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. In developing and articulating reasonable suspicion, a profile [such as a drug courier profile] can be a useful tool in categorizing and attaching particular significance to otherwise innocent behavior. However, each decision to detain an individual must be judged on the individual facts available to an officer at the time of the stop, viewed in light of the officer's training and experience.[Source: William U. McCormack. "Detaining Suspected Drug Couriers." FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, June 1991, pp. 31Ã;;Ã;¢;;32.] However,states have jurisdiction over most traffic stops.