Indiana DUI Checkpoint Refusal Info

[ghuns]

Yes, Utah is the first....but they will not be the last.

Even as a non-drinker, this sounds nuts to me.

Especially crazy given Utah's low alcohol beer requirements. That's like 10 beers.

 

[JettaKnight]

Does anyone know of any data that correlates BAC with number of crashes or number of injuries / deaths from DUI?

I'm curious how many deaths were caused by people between 0.10 and 0.08 before that change, how many are caused by people between 0.08 and 0.05? If the change eliminates all drunk drivers in that range (which it won't) what difference will it make?

Don't think of facts and figure - think of the children!!!!

 

[VUPDblue]

Alcohol is never the primary causation for a crash, it’s always secondary at best. Alcohol can be a factor for sure but not a cause.

 

[VUPDblue]

As the Per Se limits have gone down from .15% to .08%, so have SBI and fatal crashes. That said, there are other major factors at play in reducing those numbers as well, safer cars for instance.

 

[MarkC]

Working for the gubmint, my hourly rate is kind of low, but I always bill 37.5 hours each week!

 

[MarkC]

As the Per Se limits have gone down from .15% to .08%, so have SBI and fatal crashes. That said, there are other major factors at play in reducing those numbers as well, safer cars for instance.

This is absolutely true; although I don't have the research in front of me, I seem to recall that it is a combination of tougher laws, greater enforcement, and changing societal attitudes, among other factors. It is too complicated of an issue to just yell out "MADD got the drunks off the road! All better now!"

 

[Dead Duck]

This is absolutely true; although I don't have the research in front of me, I seem to recall that it is a combination of tougher laws, greater enforcement, and changing societal attitudes, among other factors. It is too complicated of an issue to just yell out "MADD got the drunks off the road! All better now!"

DDAM would not agree.

 

[VUPDblue]

MADD are great advocates, but they’re advocating isn’t as vocal as it used to be.

 

[mmpsteve]

So someone on INGO is advocating for police being stationed everyplace that has a liquor license so that they can, without reasonable suspicion, give breath tests and determine who can and cannot drive.

I just want to make sure I understand this.

Will they also be allowed to check IDs for underaged people? Maybe inspect LTCHs for anyone carrying? Heck, they are there anyway.

With a post count of 5, I'd say you're being generous, as to the term "on INGO". Heck, my first real post here, Printcraft told me 'up yours' and you analysed my post line-by-line to show me how stupid I was. You getting soft in your middle age?

.

.

 

[MarkC]

MADD are great advocates, but they’re advocating isn’t as vocal as it used to be.

Now that you mention that, I guess I hadn't noticed how they seem to have left the field. I wonder if they'll be back, since the push is apparently on to reduce the BAC/ACE to 0.05%?

 

[Libertarian01]

This is not how addicts operate. It is also the type of rational thought that alcohol numbs pretty rapidly. You will or you won't do it whether you know the consequences or not. If you are a person prone to acting irrationally it's wise to leave home with a plan like an accountabilibuddy or a dd, or go out using an uber.

If you go back and look at my original post to which Denny was responding, I already stated that you will always have folks that do not care about responsibility or consequences. They cannot be dealt with rationally.

My whole issue is that with significantly more severe penalties the, how do I want to say, "casual" drunk driver WILL be deterred by the threat of severe consequences. The businessman, lawyer, accountant, who goes out and has one too many and doesn't do it every night, will be much more likely to choose a friend or Uber than to get caught by VUPDBlue or the others. The folks who drink occasionally and are reasonably responsible but might push it just a little bit because they feel OK will be more inclined to not take a chance instead of risking mandatory jail time which could bring with it severe collateral consequences.

If we did this it would cut the number of casual drunks on the road which would then allow LE and the CJS to focus on the severe problem children that won't be deterred no matter what the consequences are.

Regards,

Doug

 

[DoggyDaddy]

If you go back and look at my original post to which Denny was responding, I already stated that you will always have folks that do not care about responsibility or consequences. They cannot be dealt with rationally.

My whole issue is that with significantly more severe penalties the, how do I want to say, "casual" drunk driver WILL be deterred by the threat of severe consequences. The businessman, lawyer, accountant, who goes out and has one too many and doesn't do it every night, will be much more likely to choose a friend or Uber than to get caught by VUPDBlue or the others. The folks who drink occasionally and are reasonably responsible but might push it just a little bit because they feel OK will be more inclined to not take a chance instead of risking mandatory jail time which could bring with it severe collateral consequences.

If we did this it would cut the number of casual drunks on the road which would then allow LE and the CJS to focus on the severe problem children that won't be deterred no matter what the consequences are.

Regards,

Doug

As opposed to formal drunks.

 

[igotdiesel2]

Coming soon to a state near you...

.05

As a CDL holder it is .04 in Indiana and I think 13 other states. -Jason

 

[NKBJ]

The people lost the whiskey rebellion and it's been downhill ever since.

 

[Brad69]

So I forgot what we were talking about?

I think we agreed to hold up a baggie with a sign in it when pulled over?

 

[JeepHammer]

Act like Foster Brooks. Then, when they make you blow, you'll have a 0.00% and you can laugh your ass off that they have wasted time on you.

I've taken medication that doesn't get along with alcohol for 15-20 years, so I don't drink... Always the designated driver.
I do my best drunk routine, mispronounce words, slur words, I'm disabled so walking a stright line isn't possible (severe limp).

I actually enjoy wasting 60-90 minutes in this manner, going so far as to have a blood test when the breathlyzer shows 0.00% they think it's broke.
It's wastes their money as well as time.

I have standard answers to the idiot questions,
"Where are you going?"... Point at the road in front of me and say "That Way!"
"Where are you coming from?"... Point at the road behind me and say "That way."
"Have you been drinking tonight?... "Yes." (Everyone drinks SOMETHING)
"How much have you had to drink?"... "Roughly 32 Ounces" (national average of liquids consumption for Americans)
"Step out of the vehicle SIR"... "Sure! Let me get my cane"... (or crutches on bad days)

Between the scars on the back of my neck (no "Look Up while holding one foot off the ground") and the cane they can see their 'Road Side' test going up in smoke...

My routine,
"Miss on you pister, you ain't so muckin fuch, I seen you on your jack porch backin' off"
This will get you a breath tested EVERY TIME!

 

[JeepHammer]

As a CDL holder it is .04 in Indiana and I think 13 other states. -Jason

Actually, it's 'Officers Discretion' at 0.05% and up in Indiana for common operator license holders.
You CAN get a DUI/OWI at 0.05% and up, you are guaranteed a DUI/OWI at 0.08%.

CDL is 0.04% while operating a DOT controlled or regestered vehicle, but some officers try to enforce the 0.04% when driving your personal vehicle.
0.04% is DUI in a DOT vehicle, while ANY reading above 0.00% will get you a 10 hour out of service in a DOT vehicle.
I ran into that recently & had to educate the officer and his superior.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

These stupid turtle games.

This nonsense is based on Florida law, which is distinct from Indiana.

This is a horrific idea.

 

[watchamakalit]

With a post count of 5, I'd say you're being generous, as to the term "on INGO". Heck, my first real post here, Printcraft told me 'up yours' and you analysed my post line-by-line to show me how stupid I was. You getting soft in your middle age?

.

.

He has a valid point this is my 5th post. But unfortunately for those who cant handle an intelligent discussion I wont be going anywhere. A low post count doesnt mean I'm simply a troll. It just means I arrived late to the party or just simple havent felt the need to post on a topic yet.


Back to the original topic.

I dont agree with random traffic checkpoints. The are pointless wastes of time.

I am assuming (bad on my part) that several of the ingo members are law enforcement. They can all tell you how easy it is in indiana to "find" probable cause for a traffic stop.

It would be a way more effective method to acatter out the officers working the checkpoint into a larger geographical region. They would have a better chance of stopping drunk drivers.


Sent from my LG-H871 using Tapatalk

 

[VUPDblue]

He has a valid point this is my 5th post. But unfortunately for those who cant handle an intelligent discussion I wont be going anywhere. A low post count doesnt mean I'm simply a troll. It just means I arrived late to the party or just simple havent felt the need to post on a topic yet.


Back to the original topic.

I dont agree with random traffic checkpoints. The are pointless wastes of time.

I am assuming (bad on my part) that several of the ingo members are law enforcement. They can all tell you how easy it is in indiana to "find" probable cause for a traffic stop.

It would be a way more effective method to acatter out the officers working the checkpoint into a larger geographical region. They would have a better chance of stopping drunk drivers.


Sent from my LG-H871 using Tapatalk

First, be careful with your "can't handle intelligent discussion" nonsense. I'll ban you flat out for accusations like that, especially when there have been no examples contrary to intelligent discussion in this thread yet.

Second, I agree 110% that more drunks would be caught by directed patrols and not checkpoints, but the point of checkpoints is NOT to catch drunks. The point is to deter them.