A video of a DUI Checkpoint has had over two million views since the 4th of July. Chris Kalbaugh went through a DUI Checkpoint the evening of July 4, 2013 in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. Kalbuagh used his constitutional rights to refuse to give officers permission to search his vehicle. Is the Rutherford County Sheriff Deputy to blame?  

Kalbaugh provides the following information within the video: "The officer orders me to pull over and get out of my car, demands me to give identification (it is only lawful for him to ask), gets the drug sniffing K-9, lies about me having "Illegal Drugs" in the car, searches without consent, and tells me that it is ok to take away Constitutional rights for safety. All while not being detained. All this because my window was not lowered enough to his preference. I broke no laws whatsoever. On a day that we are supposed to be celebrating freedom and liberty. At the end of the encounter, the officer did not want to give me his name when I asked him. After I repeatedly asked him, he finally gave it to me."

Yes, Kalbuagh has his civil liberties violated by the deputy, but who is really to blame? Does the fault belong to the deputy for conducting a search without consent or to Kalbaugh for his intentional refusal to be cooperative?

I understand Kalbaugh's desire to exercise his constitutional rights to refuse the search of his vehicle, but come on, dude. Really? I would be willing to bet you that the deputy in this video would not have felt the need to attempt a search of Kalbaugh's car had Kalbaugh paid attention to the initial request to roll down the car window.

Police officers and sheriff's deputies literally put their lives in danger every day. It's part of their job training to identify potential threats to themselves and to public safety. Who knows what the deputy was thinking--maybe he felt that Kalbaugh's refusal to roll down his car window was indicative of a hidden threat.

Maybe he didn't and just felt like being a jerk. I don't know, but I doubt it.

What do you think?