Fair DUI – Court Update

Photo by Grant Stern of PINAC

From a December court appearance on Redlich’s traffic case; From left you can see Sgt. Escobar (the arresting officer), attorney Manuel Guarch for Coral Gables, Warren Redlich, and Traffic Hearing Officer Carman; Photo by Grant Stern of PINAC

We’ve made a lot of progress getting the Fair DUI Flyer into court and it’s time to update our readers.

Working with the journalists from PINAC, Warren challenged a DUI checkpoint in Coral Gables back in August. As we hoped for purposes of getting this into court, Warren was arrested. You read Warren’s description of the arrest, and you can watch PINAC’s video of it here:

There are two court cases going. Warren was “unarrested” at the scene and then ticketed for “failure to exhibit license.” That traffic case was initially dismissed. Coral Gables hired an attorney who made a motion for a rehearing. The case was reopened and a trial was held on January 13th. County Court Judge Steven Leifman found Warren guilty despite numerous issues that called for a different result. Warren filed his “Notice of Appeal” yesterday (document at bottom).

The ticket is a $129 non-moving, non-criminal violation. Despite what would seem a very minor offense, the Coral Gables attorneys submitted over 50 pages of documents. At the first appearance one attorney showed up for the city. Then two came to the next one, along with the arresting officer. For the trial the city sent at least four attorneys. We estimate they’ve spent over $5000 pursuing a minor non-moving violation. Apparently taxpayers are not well represented in Coral Gables.

The other case – and far more important – is Redlich’s federal lawsuit which was filed on January 1st, and served on the various defendants at the trial and afterward. The full document is at bottom but here’s a picture of part of the first page:


There are many issues raised. The biggest underlying issue we are shooting for is the question of whether a driver has to roll down their window at a checkpoint or traffic stop. Some people think this is an obvious yes, but we disagree and we’re not alone. In December the Kentucky Supreme Court threw out a checkpoint case. The reason was different, but one of the judges wrote this:

Must everyone stop at one of these roadblocks? Can one blow off the officer and speed right past? Can a motorist be cited for not stopping? That question is yet to be decided.

There is little or no case law discussing what a driver is required to do in a checkpoint (as well as in traffic stops for things like speeding). This is the heart of our challenge. We believe drivers retain their rights under the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments and we’re fighting for that.

There’s a lot more in our federal lawsuit, but the most critical part is here:

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, including but not limited to:
a. An order barring Defendants from conducting any checkpoints; or
b. An order strictly limiting the scope of any checkpoints conducted by
Defendants and limiting the manner in which such checkpoints are
conducted; and
c. An order mandating that Defendants, while conducting checkpoints,
wave through anyone who asserts their constitutional rights without
any inquiry or demands; or
d. An order mandating that Defendants, while conducting checkpoints,
wave through anyone who asserts their constitutional rights without any inquiry or demands unless police have articulable probable cause related to the stated purpose of the checkpoint; and
e. An order mandating that Defendants allow, without any interference or hindrance, people to photograph and record checkpoints using photography and both audio and video recording devices.

You can read the whole thing at bottom.

This is the Notice of Appeal on the traffic case:
Notice of Appeal

And this is the Complaint in the federal case:
Federal Complaint

Warren Redlich photo from 2018

Share Button

32 thoughts on “Fair DUI – Court Update

      1. Wes

        So what happens when a driver is under the influence and exercises their rights, drives off, and causes an accident and possibly injures or kills an innocent person? You are probably the same lawyer who would then go after the police for not investigating this person and yet blame the incident on the police. I’m all for protecting rights, but I’m not going to push the open carry law by walking around my town with my guns strapped to me and refusing to answer questions. The police are trying to make things safe for the community. Yes there are those who abuse their power, but there are also lawyers who waste our tax payers dollars by intentionally pushing their own propoganda and making sure they get arrested to prove a point. How then will they ever be able to prevent a DUI…this has ramifications that will now be public safety having to react instead of being proactive. So how exactly will you feel when one of your followers does this while under the influence and then wrecks and injures someone. I can only hope that it’s caught on tape that they are using your same tactics so that then you will be held responsible for allowing those who drive under the influence to cause harm to innocent people who didn’t ask to be involved in your disagreement with dui checkpoints.

        1. Mike

          So what happens when Legal enforcement breaks the law, harm people, arrest them simply because the officer said, “I smell alcohol…” but had nothing to drink; are forced to go through the system to prove innocence; the cost expense along with humiliation? That’s just one example.

          Why is it if you have the self-evident right (and laws are supposed to be made to protect self-evident rights not to restrain them) to remain silent; not self-incriminate, simply because an innocent word or phrase becomes in the mind of an officer a reason to arrest, they should not be protected?

          “I’m all for protecting rights…” You must mean protecting the rights assumed and never properly delegated to state or law enforcement. But their “authority” does have the appearance of legal, particularly where it agrees with one’s politics or fear.

          Warren’s primary beef, I believe, is with DUI checkpoints created by seemingly the “Just Because Law”. Someone said, “that’s legal know”. They are considered equally as ineffective and certainly a drain on city resources for the results. It seems you believe the ends justifies the means. Where did Constitution go wrong that permits proving innocence a matter of law? It’s one thing if visibly seen intoxication or someone falling asleep at the wheel a whole other matter, Just Because you drove upon a DUI check point. And since traffic court is a matter of convenience for processing people, they are not Constitutional courts of due process. So DUI checkpoints lacking real due process or even a charge before they meet you…well you seem to be comfortable with that.

          BTW a DUI cannot be prevented unless you institute prohibition again. Good luck with that. The DUI as the law is reactive to a prohibition.

          You seem to say the police state can stretch their power and authority, but the people’s (the reason for protections against such power) self-evident rights can be trampled on.

        2. Cops Suck Sometimes

          Excellent point. The law protects you on your worst day.

          it protects your right to be an asshole. Some feel they must be an asshole every day to protect that right. Whether they are truly an asshole depends on motivation. Do you have a personal axe to grind? Does it boost your ego? Does it override yiur hidden sin? Or, are you losing something, gaining for others, and not insane?

          You can burn the flag, everyday.
          You can open carry every day.
          You can fart in elevators every time.
          You can buy flag toilet paper, or sell it.
          You can yell at the armed forces.
          You can challenge law enfircement every day.

          You are an asshole if you do it for selfish reasons. Not a patriot .

        3. Mike

          I myself have been forced out of my car not alowed a jacket on a very dangerously cold night to jump through hoops like a circus animal to finaly be given a breathalyzer that showed zero alcohol. Its more than a little abuse of power witch is why this man is a hero. If your safty is more important than your freedom there are many great countrys that take great care of there people while limiting there rights. You are welcome to move there.

  1. Rattlerjake

    Law Enforcement is not Law Enforcement, it is extortion. The states have concocted a plethura of “malum prohibitum” “laws”, which are unconstitutional, that are created to specifically target the public by charging them with a crime/violation in which they force the citizen to give up money, by threat of violence, damage to the person’s reputation, or extreme financial hardship. They also coerce the individual to violate their 5th amendment rights by “requiring” them to provide identification and/or answer questions. There is no such thing as a good cop; any cop that issues one of these “tickets” or enforces a “malum prohibitum” law is violating their oath to the Constitution and the people, AND THEY ALL DO IT! They are nothing but government sponsored mafia.

  2. Ben

    SWEET! I’ve been wondering how this case has been going. 50 pages of documents, 6 attorneys, and an estimated $5000 already spent?! And this isn’t even the federal courts yet! Absolutely amazing Mr. Wredlich! Keep going and don’t stop!

    If you really want to throw them through another hoop, add another motion to challenge on whether not they have any evidence, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, if the constitution and laws apply and that they have any jurisdiction to proceed against you in the first place. If they’re so sure that these laws apply to you, then they should be able to easily prove that, with evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt. Correct?

    1. Rattlerjake

      What is interesting is that this is over a $129 fine. This case is important for them to win, otherwise they will lose millions by no longer being able to do these stops and randomly charge people with BS charges.

    2. Ifreemantoo

      When you challenge corrupt power to some degree it should be expected that 5 lawyers are involved in prosecuting a very minor trumped up infraction. It is to impress that resistance is futile and to protect the revenue coming in from such mischief.

      Glad to see some resistance.

  3. Greg Kane

    Don’t forget to include that Kangaroo Court Judge Steven Leifman in that Federal Lawsuit he’s a disgrace to all decent judges, which I’m sure doesn’t amount to very many. Although I normally hate lawyers you are a good and decent man. I would stand by your side to help protect the constitution.

      1. MThomas

        Admire what you are doing! Keep up the good work. With regards to judges having “absolute” immunity, I disagree with that premise. Here in California, I successfully disbarred my first family law attorney who was a board certified Family Law Specialist with the highest credentials. It took me almost 4 years and over 750 pages of evidence but I prevailed. What I learned in the effort was that ANY officer of the court has a code of ethics standard by which they can be compared. And as for judges, there is Judicial Review. If a judge’s rulings, demeanor or performance is found to be substandard or not in keeping with the position, there are plenty of cases of reprimands and reparations, as well as dismissals. My brother-in-law is a cop, I have friends who are cops and I am a paralegal and divorce coach… 27 years experience. I have witnessed first hand our legal system which is so fraught with perils and decay that I laugh at the concept of justice, as we define it. KNOWLEDGE is power, and money buys justice, rarely innocence alone.

        Being more knowledgeable and informed than those who would incarcerate you is your only defense. Rare are those with the desire, drive and stamina to fight the fight to correct the injustice of the “system”.

  4. david teitelman

    I don’t aggree with jakeratier a boat “All cops are bad” or that it’s unconstitutional to require ID. That’s probably an incorrectly extracted interpretation. Licence, registration and insurance is the ONLY thing law inforcement should be permitted (by law) ask. ” Where are you comming from?” is arrogant governmental intrusion ! As for the incriminating question “How many drinks did you have?” … BEFORE INFORMING US THAT WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO NOT ANSWER is violating the citizen’s right through their ignorance: They exploit people.
    Irregaurdless of weather the teen was still high, this should not serve as a ploy to pardon or reduce a charge against the irresponsible officer. If the officer really insists on pointing a finger at others, he might ought to consider complying with the law himself ! That wreck was clearly the fault of the officer … not the alleged high teen.
    I hope that the boy wins his case, and that Redrich finds grounds to prove the judge to be unfit for continuing as a judge. Hopefully the ACLU unleash a legion of attornies to this legal battle. I would send a donation to the cause !

    1. Rattlerjake

      You should try reading the Constitution sometime! A crime is only committed when there is a victim. The government has no authority to prohibit you from doing anything. Government is there to act upon violations of the Constitution. The only laws should be punishment for violating the Constitution, which means if you do something that violates someone else’s rights. If criminals were prosecuted, and either incarcerated (and treated like criminals instead of like special guests of the prison system), or executed for violent crimes, there would be no need for the massive “judicial” system we have. But government is THE BIGGEST VIOLATOR of our rights. Traffic laws fall under “transportation” which covers commerce, and the state and fed have zero authority to regulate personal travel, yet they force you to pay for that right with a driver’s lisence, tax your vehicle, require insurance, and force you to submit to hundreds of bogus traffic laws; like it or not it is unconstitutional and illegal and every year it gets worse!

      You are a product of the indoctrination that has been done by the government through media and public education. Try watching these videos:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqFgUZcVDfo and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9kVCQ0y5Ec

      The problem is that people refuse to fight the government and instead submit to everything they are told to do!

      1. Milord

        Society exists within a governmental structure; no government, no society. Problems with government can only be changed from within. If you think changes need to be made (they do!) then get involved as Mr. Redlich does. The problem is NOT that people refuse to fight the government. The problem is people do not realize they ARE the government.

  5. david teitelman

    I identify with the phycological affect on the young teen. His FULL cooperation with the Field Subriety test indicates he anticipated passing it without problem. The order to turn around and place his hands behind his back obviously came as a big unexpected shock to him. This was the reason for immediately demanded the breathylizer: To present reason for the officer to consider at least possible sobriety. The talking over the officer was not meant to be obstructive: He was just urgently trying to rectify a situation he believed to have gotten out of hand. After being taken to jail in the presence of another deputy witness, he had spent the entire time of being transported in utter disbelief that that arrest was actually happening. So when he stated that he was too high to get (back) into the patrol vehicle (again) he obviously was being facetious . Some people get too drunk to stand or walk, but no one gets to stoned to get in a car. The teen obviously managed to get into his own car … which the officer irresponsibly crashed into. How curious of the officer to recognize opportunity to place light on a young naive teen who honestly admitted to smoking pot. The officer is clearly using it as a diversion from his own lawlessness ! I didn’t read about any drug test being offered. Noticeable affects of smoking marijuana usually fade off in a half hour: But sustain far longer if consumed.

  6. George Posporelis

    Warren, on reading your court update you stated the case was dismissed but they came back with a motion to reopen the case. Doesn’t jeopardy apply? They can’t have no more than ONE bite at the apple. Did the dismissal have prejudice applied? Also when then city came back with increasing numbering lawyers can that be considered malicious prosecution? Why isn’t the city prosecutor doing the case? Also if a judge of a higher ranking court in any other has rendered a decision with regard to your particular set of events then do all other courts have to follow that courts ruling until overturn by SCOTUS? Now that v&t laws do not vary much from state to state, were they ever codified under DOT? I mean pretty much you can take the v&t book from one state to another & they would be pretty much the same.

  7. Charles T.

    Thank you for your work. Our constitutional rights are being stripped from us more and more. The courts enable this and almost entirely side with the police. It is rare that you find a judge that will not just rubber stamp a conviction once the officer gives his/her testimony. By doing this, the officer and judge have become criminals for denying citizens their constitutional rights. For some reason, the public is not outraged. They act as if either, this is only happening to bad people, and would never happen to them, or that this is the price we pay for having safe communities. I truly welcome cameras into any interaction with the criminal justice system. If the police were smart, then they would too. Instead, I have seen officers threaten to take people to jail for using their video cameras. These people took an oath to defend and support the constitution. Sometimes, you would think they have never read it.

  8. Eric Margolis

    So the city made a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action. The magistrate recommended that it be granted. Rather than having the case dismissed on defendants’ motion, Redlich dismissed the case in May 2017


Leave a Reply
