Sobriety Checkpoints

[Birds Away]

Well, that's a damn shame for both of us.

 

[Denny347]

So, if the State determined that illegal drug activity is a threat to public safety, based upon what I am reading, what would stop them from putting all of the addresses in a random area in a hat, draw a few out and conduct searches of those houses? Or selecting a neighborhood from a hat and searching every house in the neighborhood? The courts are no longer the defenders of the Contitiution and the people's rights that they are supposed to be. They seem more interested in determining ways to enable the government by rationalizing the violations of rights.

This ruling only addresses DUI checkpoints, drug checkpoints have been addressed by another ruling that deemed them illegal. ISC is quite "citizen rights" oriented even if you do not agree with all their rulings. The USSC was very broad in allowing DUI checkpoints, the ISC norrowed it down, restricting the broad authority the USSC gave us. It is not a perfect system but its still the best out there and one I am fond of, regardless if I agree with the decisions or not.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

We ask for identification but you are not required to provide it. It is not even checked to see if it is suspended. We ask for a driver's license and regiustration at the same time. It's a divided attention test. Intoxicated drivers will focus on ONE or the other and will have to be reminded about the article they forgot. You hand me both and they get handed right back to you and you pull off.

So, intoxicated people, who are naturally good multi-taskers are sent on their way while sober people who are nervous or forgetful, or both, must pull over and submit to further "tests".

 

[Birds Away]

This ruling only addresses DUI checkpoints, drug checkpoints have been addressed by another ruling that deemed them illegal. ISC is quite "citizen rights" oriented even if you do not agree with all their rulings. The USSC was very broad in allowing DUI checkpoints, the ISC norrowed it down, restricting the broad authority the USSC gave us. It is not a perfect system but its still the best out there and one I am fond of, regardless if I agree with the decisions or not.

I don't want drunks on the road either. It just seems to me that the dozen or so officers usually assigned would catch more if each was stationed at places their experience tells them would be best.

 

[Denny347]

So, intoxicated people, who are naturally good multi-taskers are sent on their way while sober people who are nervous or forgetful, or both, must pull over and submit to further "tests".

Haha...drunks THINK they are good multi taskers but they are not.

 

[Denny347]

I don't want drunks on the road either. It just seems to me that the dozen or so officers usually assigned would catch more if each was stationed at places their experience tells them would be best.

I worked DUI Taskforce for about 4 years for OT that was funded by fed money. We worked from 11pm to 5am Fri and Sat evenings and typically had 8 cars roaming the city. In a typical shift with 8 cars we'd net between 10-15 DUI arrests. Now a checkpoint needed at least 12 officers run and during that same time frame, we'd net anywhere between 0 and 4 or 5 DUIs. Checkpoints were required by the Feds if we wanted to continue to receive the OT funding. They were not as effective as roaming, we all knew it. It was a dog and pony show. As an interesting side note, most sober drivers thanked us for stopping them.

 

[Birds Away]

I worked DUI Taskforce for about 4 years for OT that was funded by fed money. We worked from 11pm to 5am Fri and Sat evenings and typically had 8 cars roaming the city. In a typical shift with 8 cars we'd net between 10-15 DUI arrests. Now a checkpoint needed at least 12 officers run and during that same time frame, we'd net anywhere between 0 and 4 or 5 DUIs. Checkpoints were required by the Feds if we wanted to continue to receive the OT funding. They were not as effective as roaming, we all knew it. It was a dog and pony show. As an interesting side note, most sober drivers thanked us for stopping them.

Ain't it great to have a fan club?

 

[Denny347]

Ain't it great to have a fan club?

Like being a rock star.

 

[Birds Away]

I just hate to see wasted resources.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I worked DUI Taskforce for about 4 years for OT that was funded by fed money. We worked from 11pm to 5am Fri and Sat evenings and typically had 8 cars roaming the city. In a typical shift with 8 cars we'd net between 10-15 DUI arrests. Now a checkpoint needed at least 12 officers run and during that same time frame, we'd net anywhere between 0 and 4 or 5 DUIs. Checkpoints were required by the Feds if we wanted to continue to receive the OT funding. They were not as effective as roaming, we all knew it. It was a dog and pony show. As an interesting side note, most sober drivers thanked us for stopping them.

And this maybe a key reason why "they" wanted the money spent on checkpoints...it is a visible means for demonstrating your government is doing something to solve a problem. It's also a demonstration that many are quite willing to trade liberty for the illusion of safety.

 

[Birds Away]

No offense, but I would rather have them actually catch drunk drivers then run a PR campaign.

 

[Denny347]

I just hate to see wasted resources.

Ha, well after 17 years as an LEO, I'm sad to say that I'm used to it.

 

[Birds Away]

After 26 years with Uncle Sugar I feel your pain.

 

[Denny347]

And this maybe a key reason why "they" wanted the money spent on checkpoints...it is a visible means for demonstrating your government is doing something to solve a problem. It's also a demonstration that many are quite willing to trade liberty for the illusion of safety.

EXACTLY, no one notices us doing roaming patrols as we look just like all the other patrol officers. A checkpoint has to be advertised in the media and people see "we" are doing something about DUIs. There are MANY examples in my work where we do "dog and pony shows" to satisfy the public while the real work/workers goes unnoticed.

 

[Birds Away]

EXACTLY, no one notices us doing roaming patrols as we look just like all the other patrol officers. A checkpoint has to be advertised in the media and people see "we" are doing something about DUIs. There are MANY examples in my work where we do "dog and pony" shows to satisfy the public while the real work goes unnoticed.

Unfortunately, some of those D&P shows, like the checkpoints, create more enmity than positive PR.

 

[HistoryGuy]

This whole debate is a double edged sword, and the police get screwed either way.

1) Drunk driver hits someone and kills them. The people scream, "Why didn't the cops stop them?" ; 2) Police set up check points to stop drunk drivers and keep other motorist safe. The sober drivers move on and drunk drivers are arrested and taken off the streets. The people scream, "You can't violate our rights!"

So in the end, I'm in favor of the check points.

 

[Bunnykid68]

This whole debate is a double edged sword, and the police get screwed either way.

1) Drunk driver hits someone and kills them. The people scream, "Why didn't the cops stop them?" ; 2) Police set up check points to stop drunk drivers and keep other motorist safe. The sober drivers move on and drunk drivers are arrested and taken off the streets. The people scream, "You can't violate our rights!"

So in the end, I'm in favor of the check points.

Show us where they are taking these drunk drivers off the street at these checkpoints

 

[IndyDave1776]

This whole debate is a double edged sword, and the police get screwed either way.

1) Drunk driver hits someone and kills them. The people scream, "Why didn't the cops stop them?" ; 2) Police set up check points to stop drunk drivers and keep other motorist safe. The sober drivers move on and drunk drivers are arrested and taken off the streets. The people scream, "You can't violate our rights!"

So in the end, I'm in favor of the check points.

Just think of what we could do to reduce crime if we eliminated that pesky Fourth Amendment altogether.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

This whole debate is a double edged sword, and the police get screwed either way.

1) Drunk driver hits someone and kills them. The people scream, "Why didn't the cops stop them?" ; 2) Police set up check points to stop drunk drivers and keep other motorist safe. The sober drivers move on and drunk drivers are arrested and taken off the streets. The people scream, "You can't violate our rights!"

So in the end, I'm in favor of the check points.

Just think of what we could do to reduce crime if we eliminated that pesky Fourth Amendment altogether.

....and guns!

1)Man takes a gun(s) into a school and kills a bunch of kids and teachers--The people scream, "If they didn't have easy access to guns, these kids would be alive today!" 2)Federal and state legislators pass laws limiting magazine size and banning certain scary weapons to keep kids alive. The people scream, "You can violate our rights!"

So in the end......

 

[ATOMonkey]

Everyone knows that security is more important than Liberty.

Now, where did I put that book of B. Franklin quotes...