Man ticketed for holding sign warning drivers of DUI checkpoint

[Teh One Who Knocks]

by 19 Action News Digital Team


http://i.imgur.com/pHNSTup.jpg

PARMA, OH (WOIO) -

Freedom of speech or obstruction of justice? There is controversy stemming over a sign held by Parma resident Doug Odolecki as he stood on the sidewalk. His camera was rolling last Friday night near Brookpark and State roads, less than a mile from a DUI checkpoint.

"It's an issue of freedom of speech for me because they wanted to make me take down my sign. They're trying to tell me that certain words on my sign are not proper," said Doug Odolecki.

In the video, you can hear officers ask several times for Odolecki to remove the sign that reads "Check point ahead turn now"

"They're not going after DUI's anymore. They're going after everything else," said Odolecki.

Odolecki was issued a ticket and forced to hand over his sign.

Parma Police tell us they can't get into the details of the pending case but a Sergeant told me that Odolecki was obstructing officers ability to do their job. They also said that the issue was with the part of the sign that said "turn now."

Odolecki has an attorney who's working for free.

"He's not in the street. He's not doing anything at all to physically interfere or impair the police ability to conduct their checkpoint at the checkpoint site. It's absolutely free speech under the first amendment," said Attorney John Gold.

"They could be out patrolling the streets and be a hell of a lot more effective It's not worth the millions of dollars of tax revenue they're spending," said Odolecki.

Odolecki says he has no plans on putting the brakes on warning drivers in the future.

"I'll absolutely do it again. I'll be out at the next checkpoint with another sign," he said.

By law police have to let residents know a week before a drunk driving checkpoint begins. A few hours before its set up they have to reveal the location and times.

Police arrested one person for DUI that night. Odolecki will be in court next week. He could get up to 90 days in jail and pay up to a $700 fine.

[KevinD]

Good for him. As I've said before, I'm totally against these checkpoints and "no refusals"

[FBD]

fuck you jackboots

[redred]

and on the flip side it warns all the drunk drivers to use a different route so they can potentially kill someone on another road :shrug:

[FBD]

well, there's lawful police tactics, and then ones that infringe upon people's rights...for some reason a lot of cops cant tell the difference between the two

[KevinD]

Red, and others.. I have zero problems with police catching drunk drivers when witnessing said drivers. My problem is the blatant disregard of the 4th amendment


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.[

that inho such checkpoints violates.
It goes back to the old argument. "is it okay for your rights to be violated, as long as it might save one life"
I say NO!

[Teh One Who Knocks]

and on the flip side it warns all the drunk drivers to use a different route so they can potentially kill someone on another road :shrug:

The biggest problem with the DUI checkpoints is that they are borderline illegal. They come dangerously close to violating the 4th Amendment to the Constitution which protects Americans against unlawful search and seizure. A law enforcement officer needs probable cause in order to stop someone and search and/or interrogate them. Just being out driving at 10 PM on a Friday night is not probable cause to stop someone and interrogate them as to whether they have been out drinking that evening. This is why all checkpoints have to be announced several days in advance and their exact locations have to be announced no later than the day of the checkpoint. By doing this, it informs the people of where these checkpoints will be and will give them the option of either going thru them or avoiding them. Now if you choose to go thru the checkpoints, then you have given your consent to be questioned and possibly searched by waiving your 4th Amendment rights in this instance. However, even with the law stating that the checkpoints must be announced, the police do their damnedest to try and still keep them secret by posting the announcements in tiny little print ads deep in newspapers or airing the notices in the middle of the night on radio stations. Technically they have complied with the letter of the law, but they are still trying to catch people off-guard with the police checkpoints because odds are, nobody saw or heard the notices.

None of us are saying we condone people drinking and driving, but if the police want to catch these people, then do it the old fashioned way by using stepped up patrols and being visible out on the roads. Herding innocent people that are guilty of nothing thru a police checkpoint reeks of Nazi-esque tactics.

[Pony]

Now if you choose to go thru the checkpoints, then you have given your consent to be questioned and possibly searched by waiving your 4th Amendment rights in this instance.

And if you turn off or turn around you will be pulled over for suspicious activity.

I do have a couple pages "liked" on my facebook dedicated to alerting the public where checkpoints and "saturation" points are. (saturation points are not technically checkpoints so don't need to be announced ahead of time).

[Hal-9000]

I disagree with a lot of the opinion here...but have a story :)

Driving home around 7pm one Wednesday night and see a whole bunch of lights/cop cars on a non-busy road close to my house. I assumed an accident so I immediately turned off and took a short cut in the direction of my place. I was about 3 blocks from home.

This cop car comes cruising up an alley at high speed and dramatically brakes in front of me complete with screeching tires :lol:

It was a check-stop and he was sure I was trying to avoid it. To keep this short it was a series of questions and me giving smart-ass, but accurate answers.

His face got so red by the end of the convo I thought he was going to blow a heart valve :lol:

what angered him most was when he checked my address and determined that yes, the short cut I took DID bring me closer to my house...

[Hugh_Janus]

Red, and others.. I have zero problems with police catching drunk drivers when witnessing said drivers. My problem is the blatant disregard of the 4th amendment



that inho such checkpoints violates.
It goes back to the old argument. "is it okay for your rights to be violated, as long as it might save one life"
I say NO!

even if it's the life of someone you know/care about?

[Pony]

Here's the opinion from a local law office that publishes checkpoint alerts.


If you haven’t read the coverage on this guy Doug Odolecki, the gist of his story is that he decides to go out about a half a mile from where checkpoints are set up with a sign and inform the public that there is a checkpoint ahead and directs them to turn around. His last time doing this, Parma police officers approached him and told him that informing the public was an obstruction of justice. When they first issue him a verbal warning and instruct him to leave the area. Mr. Odolecki tells the cops that this isn’t a Nazi state and that they are violating his constitutional rights. It is at this point that the police issue him a citation

Why am I writing this? I believe in the safety of our roads, I believe that people should be held accountable for their actions and I believe in due process and probable cause. What does Doug believe in? Hindering a legal police operation, comparing the United States to Hitlers Germany (which i personally find insulting and ridiculous) and endangering our roads and police officers. Hey Doug, did you know that turning around before a checkpoint gives probable cause to the officers to pull you over? Did you know that turning around can cause accidents and is illegal? The officers reasoning for citing you wasn’t becasue you were warning people, it was because you were endangering people and officers with your selfish actions.

Police checkpoints are public information, and we provide a public service compiling them in a central database for you to look through. The important difference is that we are trying to encourage the public to make smart decisions about drinking and driving by providing them information about checkpoints; when Mr. Odolecki sits out on street corners with a sign, the passers-by have already made a conscious decision of whether or not to act responsibly. Mr. Odolecki is clearly obstructing the efforts of the police to make the roads safer, while helping potentially guilty parties get off the hook. It is illegal to turn around.

It is for these reasons we want to make it clear that we do not support Doug’s efforts, even though at the surface it may appear that we have similar goals. We do not. It is not and never has been our goal to obstruct officers ability to keep the roads safe. It is our goal to help protect your constitutional rights, we’ve been practicing at Taubman Law for over 37 years and like to think we know how to.

We believe that providing you with information about checkpoints days in advance we can help you make smart decisions about drinking and driving. This helps promote safer roads, which I think we can all agree is a good thing.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

What complete and utter bullshit.

[FBD]

The officers reasoning for citing you wasn’t becasue you were warning people

you dont get more bullshit than that

[FBD]

even if it's the life of someone you know/care about?

:hand: bleeding heart straw man