Many municipalities set up checkpoints for law enforcement to cut down on drunk driving over the Fourth of July holiday, but one stop in particular is getting national attention.

The now viral video posted to YouTube showing a man getting stopped at a DUI checkpoint in Rutherford County, Tennessee, has more than 2.8 million views as of Monday morning after being posted the night of the event. The video includes what the driver believes to be a unconstitutional search of his car where an officer is even recorded saying the man is “perfectly innocent and he knows his rights.”

The video shows driver, 21-year-old Chris Kalbaugh, has his window cracked as Deputy  A.J. Ross walks over asking the man to roll it down further. Kalbaugh says he thinks the level he has it rolled down is “fine” because he is able to hear the officer adequately. Ross asks how old Kalbaugh is (who before providing his answer responds asking if that’s even a relevant question), walks briefly toward the back of the vehicle, returns and then asks Kalbaugh to pull over.

Kalbaugh repeatedly asks if he is being detained, not moving the car, while Ross doesn’t answer his question but tells him to either pull over or step out of the vehicle.

“After he keeps using intimidation to get me to do what he wants, all the officers surround my vehicle like I’m a criminal,” Kalbaugh wrote in the video.

Kalbaugh eventually pulls over. He then is asked to unlock his car door — he again asks if he is being detained with no response from Ross — and takes off his seat belt. Kalbaugh steps out of the car and out of the camera view.

Kalbaugh has inserted text of the conversation that took place with a faint recording of it audible on the video.

“Are you an attorney or something? You know what the law is?” Ross asks.

“Yes sir, I do,” Kalbaugh replied.

“Ok, what is the law?” Ross said.

“The law says at checkpoints I have to stop. And I did,” Ross said.

“That is all. I’m not required to answer any questions. I have Constitutional freedom to travel without being randomly stopped and questioned,” Kalbaugh continued after Ross prompted him further.

More mumbled conversation can be heard but Kalbaugh didn’t translate the text into the video at this point. The young adult later wrote that he was asked to provide his I.D., which Kalbaugh believes he legally didn’t need to as he didn’t commit any traffic violations or other infractions.

Kalbaugh then wrote that the officer asked if he could search the vehicle, which Kalbaugh said he would not consent to. Ross then got a K-9 to sniff around the vehicle.

But Kalbaugh then referenced the so-called ability of K-9s to issue a false alert. Previously, TheBlaze has reported on the questionable constitutionality of other stops where the vehicle owners felt the dog had been commanded to issue a false alert to allow the officer to legally search the interior of the car.

This is what Kalbaugh seems to believe happened to him when the K-9 handler says “check here” and the dog begins scratching.

“That is how police can give themselves permission to search your car without your consent,” Kalbaugh wrote.

Officers then search his car. While doing so, Deputy Ross is recorded saying, “he’s perfectly innocent and he knows his rights. He knows what the Constitution says.”

Another officer said, “it wasn’t a very good alert.” He then shines his flashlight on the camera, noticing it and alerts Ross that it is recording. Shuffling can be heard as the search continued but the picture goes blank.

Kalbaugh wrote that they found no illegal drugs in their search.

“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,” the video description stated.

Watch the footage:

The video began going viral after being uploaded to the website Libertarian Republic and then making its way to the social news site Reddit.

The Tennessean has reported the response of a Libertarian to the video:

“We’ve gotten worldwide response for this,” said Axl David, communications director for the Libertarian Party of Tennessee.

“I watched the video when he uploaded it, and my blood boiled. I think that’s why it went viral.”

David said the organization is not anti-police, and the demonstration was aimed to send the message that “any abuse of the constitution will be exposed,” David said.

The Tennessean reported Rutherford County Sheriff’s public information officer Lisa Marchesoni saying the incident is being reviewed  ”to determine if there are any policy or procedure violations.”

Update: TheBlaze has corrected that neither Axl David nor Kalbaugh have said his confrontation with the police officer was planned. David emailed TheBlaze saying too that Kalbaugh had never called it a “crash the checkpoint party.” TheBlaze had reported based on an article from the Daily News Journal that David had spoken with Kalbaugh about planning the confrontation to “exercise his rights.”

In a press release, Kalbaugh, who is a member of the Rutherford County Libertarian Party, said, ”I broke no laws and I made sure to be respectful the entire time while still exercising my Constitutional freedom.”

“I wanted to show that I was not impaired and to get the confrontation over with.  When I got out, he demanded my ID even though I didn’t break any laws or traffic violations.  They also said they were going to search my vehicle because the drug dog ‘hit’ on the vehicle.  I don’t do any drugs and I have never had any illegal substances in my car.  When the officers said that the drug dog hit on my car, I became furious because I knew that was impossible.  All of this happened because I did not want to lower my window all the way, which was completely legal.”

Kalbaugh also included in the press release that he didn’t intend the video to be disrespectful to law enforcement.

Never before has such a comprehensive survey of law enforcement officers’ opinions on gun control, gun violence, and gun rights been conducted

In March, PoliceOne conducted the most comprehensive survey ever of American law enforcement officers’ opinions on the topic gripping the nation’s attention in recent weeks: gun control.More than 15,000 verified law enforcement professionals took part in the survey, which aimed to bring together the thoughts and opinions of the only professional group devoted to limiting and defeating gun violence as part of their sworn responsibility. Totaling just shy of 30 questions, the survey allowed officers across the United States to share their perspectives on issues spanning from gun control and gun violence to gun rights. Top Line Takeaways Breaking down the results, it’s important to note that 70 percent of respondents are field-level law enforcers — those who are face-to-face in the fight against violent crime on a daily basis — not office-bound, non-sworn administrators or perpetually-campaigning elected officials. 1.) Virtually all respondents (95 percent) say that a federal ban on manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds would not reduce violent crime. 2.) The majority of respondents — 71 percent — say a federal ban on the manufacture and sale of some semi-automatics would have no effect on reducing violent crime. However, more than 20 percent say any ban would actually have a negative effect on reducing violent crime. Just over 7 percent took the opposite stance, saying they believe a ban would have a moderate to significant effect. 3.) About 85 percent of officers say the passage of the White House’s currently proposed legislation would have a zero or negative effect on their safety, with just over 10 percent saying it would have a moderate or significantly positive effect. 4.) Seventy percent of respondents say they have a favorable or very favorable opinion of some law enforcement leaders’ public statements that they would not enforce more restrictive gun laws in their jurisdictions. Similarly, more than 61 percent said they would refuse to enforce such laws if they themselves were Chief or Sheriff. 5.) More than 28 percent of officers say having more permissive concealed carry policies for civilians would help most in preventing large scale shootings in public, followed by more aggressive institutionalization for mentally ill persons (about 19 percent) and more armed guards/paid security personnel (about 15 percent). See enlarged image 6.) The overwhelming majority (almost 90 percent) of officers believe that casualties would be decreased if armed citizens were present at the onset of an active-shooter incident. 7.) More than 80 percent of respondents support arming school teachers and administrators who willingly volunteer to train with firearms and carry one in the course of the job. 8.) More than four in five respondents (81 percent) say that gun-buyback programs are ineffective in reducing gun violence. 9.) More than half of respondents feel that increased punishment for obviously illegal gun sales could have a positive impact on reducing gun violence. 10.) When asked whether citizens should be required to complete a safety training class before being allowed to buy a gun, about 43 percent of officers say it should not be required. About 42 percent say it should be required for all weapons, with the remainder favoring training classes for certain weapons. 11.) While some officers say gun violence in the United States stems from violent movies and video games (14 percent), early release and short sentencing for violent offenders (14 percent) and poor identification/treatments of mentally-ill individuals (10 percent), the majority (38 percent) blame a decline in parenting and family values. Bottom Line Conclusions Quite clearly, the majority of officers polled oppose the theories brought forth by gun-control advocates who claim that proposed restrictions on weapon capabilities and production would reduce crime. In fact, many officers responding to this survey seem to feel that those controls will negatively affect their ability to fight violent criminals. Contrary to what the mainstream media and certain politicians would have us believe, police overwhelmingly favor an armed citizenry, would like to see more guns in the hands of responsible people, and are skeptical of any greater restrictions placed on gun purchase, ownership, or accessibility. The officers patrolling America’s streets have a deeply-vested interest — and perhaps the most relevant interest — in making sure that decisions related to controlling, monitoring, restricting, as well as supporting and/or prohibiting an armed populace are wise and effective. With this survey, their voice has been heard.