DUI Checkpoint advice.........Possibility for general police stops in Indiana?

[Vigilant]

Unfortunately, the officer at I-70 west of Holt Rd. was just a few minutes late, Sunday morning. Thankfully, he apprehended the drunk-driving illegal, but unfortunately, not before Indianapolis lost an Uber driver and a beloved, if not well-known, Colts player.

(DUI checkpoints do absolutely nothing to deter such miscreants as that drunk driver.)

DUI checkpoints weren’t the particular problem with this murder.

 

[chipbennett]

DUI checkpoints weren’t the particular problem with this murder.

Indeed not. The problem with DUI checkpoints is that they are unconstitutional wastes of time and money.

 

[actaeon277]

Indeed not. The problem with DUI checkpoints is that they are unconstitutional wastes of time and money.

I bet we could get the judges to agree to that, if we put the checkpoints in front of their house, all the time.

 

[hpclayto]

Good lord. If you don't want to go through a checkpoint find another way home.

 

[actaeon277]

Good lord. If you don't want to go through a checkpoint find another way home.

You've completely missed the point.

 

[chipbennett]

Good lord. If you don't want to go through a checkpoint find another way home.

And if you have nothing to hide, just consent to the search.

 

[BluePig]

Good lord. If you don't want to go through a checkpoint find another way home.

Says someone who has never had to go thru them 4 times in one night.

 

[VUPDblue]

Where on earth did you get hung up in 4 checkpoints?

 

[Trigger Time]

He was seeing double and hit the same one from two directions lol

 

[BluePig]

Where on earth did you get hung up in 4 checkpoints?

Elkhart County on a New Year's Eve.
Took my girlfriend at the time out for the night and they had set up on the road to her house.
Got pulled over going there, then going out to dinner, then taking her back to her house and finally going home.
The 4th time, I had my driver's license, registration and insurance out the window before I even got there.
It is pretty bad when you pull up and the cop says "Oh, it's you again.".

 

[BluePig]

One other thing before someone else asks, they had set up the checkpoint on one of the few roadways that had a bridge going across the St. Joe river.
There were few bridges going across the river and I didn't know the area very well to find my way without getting lost.
This was a while ago (pre-GPS) and I was a much younger lad with hair on the top of my head.
Their choice of locations was very well selected.

 

[VUPDblue]

Not sure how they do it there, but the locations here are selected based on DUI crash data and DUI arrest historical data. Basically heat maps of each of those things are laid over one another and that’s how it’s decided where a checkpoint is going to happen.

 

[rhino]

Elkhart County on a New Year's Eve.
Took my girlfriend at the time out for the night and they had set up on the road to her house.
Got pulled over going there, then going out to dinner, then taking her back to her house and finally going home.
The 4th time, I had my driver's license, registration and insurance out the window before I even got there.
It is pretty bad when you pull up and the cop says "Oh, it's you again.".

Why didn't you go around it?

Oops! Answered in a subsequent message.

 

[rhino]

So, would having something in the vehicle with a strong odor of alcohol and/or aldehydes (ethanal is the stinky stuff you smell on someone's breath when they've been drinking) --- that is not any kind of alcoholic beverage or intoxicant --- be a bad idea when going through a checkpoint?

 

[hpclayto]

You've completely missed the point.

That checkpoints are legal? Or that you think they shouldn't be?

 

[actaeon277]

That checkpoints are legal? Or that you think they shouldn't be?

Well, I thought the points had already been covered.
They have been ruled "Constitutional" as long as they follow certain rules.
That many people, such as I, disagree with that rule, because it does away with "presumption of innocence".
That many people, such as I, and many in law enforcement, know that "checkpoints" actually are BAD at catching DUIs. 1st, they must be published ahead of time. 2nd that there must be a way to avoid them. 3rd that the same number of officers, spread throughout the town/city looking for DUIs would actually catch MORE DUIs than the checkpoint. But more officers spread throughout the town/city isn't as "visible" a presence, so the checkpoint makes it look as if they are "doing something".
And as Kirk has pointed out, if these checkpoints were placed in positions that Indiana Supreme Court Justices had to go through them, they'd probably find them to be against the 4th amendment. They don't care, because it does not affect them, and this way they look like they are "doing something".

 

[actaeon277]

Presumption of innocence.
Officer observes someone swerving all over the road. Driving to slow. Suspects drunk driving. Pulls over motorist that then has to prove he's not.

Presumption of guilt.
Officer pulls over a motorist. Motorist must prove innocence. Even though there were no observations that he was driving drunk.

 

[Drail]

An officer does not have to "prove" that he smelled alcohol or weed when you roll down the window (how could he?). He only has to claim that he thought he did. At that point everything just goes downhill..... If we allow law enforcement and the courts to operate this way we no longer have any 4th Amendment rights. I really like the States and cities where you leave your window up and show them your license, insurance and registration and claim demand an attorney before you answer ANY QUESTIONS WHATSOEVER. That's how it is supposed to be. It is absolutely none of their business where you are going and where you are coming from. You can either demand your legal rights - or just throw them away. Your choice.

 

[VUPDblue]

An officer does not have to "prove" that he smelled alcohol or weed when you roll down the window (how could he?). He only has to claim that he thought he did. At that point everything just goes downhill..... If we allow law enforcement and the courts to operate this way we no longer have any 4th Amendment rights. I really like the States and cities where you leave your window up and show them your license, insurance and registration and claim demand an attorney before you answer ANY QUESTIONS WHATSOEVER. That's how it is supposed to be. It is absolutely none of their business where you are going and where you are coming from. You can either demand your legal rights - or just throw them away. Your choice.

The crux of this issue seems to be your disagreement with the courts on what is "reasonable" and why. The court has repeatedly said that the brief (<2min) stop of random cars at a checkpoint to look solely for impaired drivers is reasonable. The language in several court decision even hints that such checkpoints are necessary. Driving not being a protected right, coupled with the immense danger posed to the public posed by drunk drivers, there is minimal intrusion on a person's liberties. Of course this only holds true when a checkpoint is held as a pure impaired driving checkpoint, not masquerading as a way to check for suspended drivers, expired plates, equipment violations, etc.....

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The crux of this issue seems to be your disagreement with the courts on what is "reasonable" and why. The court has repeatedly said that the brief (<2min) stop of random cars at a checkpoint to look solely for impaired drivers is reasonable. The language in several court decision even hints that such checkpoints are necessary. Driving not being a protected right, coupled with the immense danger posed to the public posed by drunk drivers, there is minimal intrusion on a person's liberties. Of course this only holds true when a checkpoint is held as a pure impaired driving checkpoint, not masquerading as a way to check for suspended drivers, expired plates, equipment violations, etc.....

This pains me, but the copper is right.