Indiana DUI Checkpoint Refusal Info

[igotdiesel2]

CDL Drivers get the shaft from the Feds when it comes to their licenses and license penalties. I won't ever write a ticket to a CDL driver unless he/she is a total dickbag, but if they're drunk....sorry boutcha.

So I got pulled over 3 days after getting my CDL, didn't even have a driving job. First time pulled over in 15 years and I was freaking out. I was WAY in the wrong so I just knew I was getting a ticket, he came back up to the truck and said just what you said about CDL holders. He told me to slow down and good luck with the new career. That officer was Lt. Allen in Southport....He pulled me over in April and he was killed in July on the day I turned in my notice to go work as a truck driver. I will NEVER forget that LEO encounter. -Jason

 

[Trigger Time]

I hate them because I feel they're an inefficient use of resources. MADD and IACP both LOVE checkpoints but like we discussed above, it's next to impossible to measure specific deterrence. If you take 15-20 people to man a checkpoint, you'll probably net less than 10 DUI arrests in a 6 hour period. If you take those same 15-20 people and put them out aggressively hunting impaired drivers on a weekend night, I'd bet you a cheeseburger that they'd get at least 20 DUI arrests.

I wish politicians and brass would listen to cops like this guy who know what the **** they are doing as a cop and are good at it.
I HATE drunk drivers. I've had a dear friend killed by one and I still over a decade later ask why? If you drive drunk you are an idiot and a selfish scumbag and I dont want anything to do with you. I'd lock you up forever or cut off your hands if it was up to me.
I dont like checkpoints but the ones I've seen you have always been able to turn before you get there and I always do. The last one I saw was on emerson in beech grove by the taco bell and burger king. People were driving right through and they only had a couple cars pull off. Nothing intrusive that I could see.
But if you catch more by going out and driving then do that. DUI checkpoints are only about feel good visible law enforcement IMO. Politicians want people to believe they have cops out doing something productive other than sitting at speedway. It's all smoke and mirrors

 

[VUPDblue]

I wish politicians and brass would listen to cops like this guy who know what the **** they are doing as a cop and are good at it.
I HATE drunk drivers. I've had a dear friend killed by one and I still over a decade later ask why? If you drive drunk you are an idiot and a selfish scumbag and I dont want anything to do with you. I'd lock you up forever or cut off your hands if it was up to me.
I dont like checkpoints but the ones I've seen you have always been able to turn before you get there and I always do. The last one I saw was on emerson in beech grove by the taco bell and burger king. People were driving right through and they only had a couple cars pull off. Nothing intrusive that I could see.
But if you catch more by going out and driving then do that. DUI checkpoints are only about feel good visible law enforcement IMO. Politicians want people to believe they have cops out doing something productive other than sitting at speedway. It's all smoke and mirrors

I wouldn't call it smoke and mirrors. Checkpoints are there for publicity/deterrence/advertisement. If they net some drunk arrests....bonus. The vast majority of drunk-hunting grant dollars are spent on directed patrol, not checkpoints. It's all part of the overall campaign, I just personally wish it wasn't. I'm more of a practical, logic-based personality and I feel like the TV and Radio ads are more than enough. We don't need a 6 hour checkpoint to get our point across too.

 

[VUPDblue]

So I got pulled over 3 days after getting my CDL, didn't even have a driving job. First time pulled over in 15 years and I was freaking out. I was WAY in the wrong so I just knew I was getting a ticket, he came back up to the truck and said just what you said about CDL holders. He told me to slow down and good luck with the new career. That officer was Lt. Allen in Southport....He pulled me over in April and he was killed in July on the day I turned in my notice to go work as a truck driver. I will NEVER forget that LEO encounter. -Jason

If someone is in a passenger vehicle and hands me a CDL I will ask if they drive for a living. If the stop wasn't that deep, and they are cool, it's bye bye, drive safe. I think I've probably ever only pulled over probably less than 10 semis, and all were for violations that were so egregious that they made my blood boil.

 

[Denny347]

I believe it would have much more to do with severe penalties than necessarily enforcement. I think this because fear of something is a greater motivator than the actual reality of probabilities of getting caught.

If we said first offense OWI is minimum three (3) monthes in jail and license suspended one (1) year - oh my!

If we said second offense is minimum six (6) monthes in jail, $1k fine, license suspended three (3) years - well well!

And so on.

People would need to be really, really afraid of driving drunk. I am not saying impaired, but specifically alcohol or illegal drugs.

We would still have drunk drivers. There are folks out there who just do not care about repercussions or consequences. However, for the vast majority of folks the fear of getting caught even once, the casual drinkers who just get stupid on occasion, they would be far more likely to UBER home than drive home due to fear of getting caught.

Just my .

Regards,

Doug

DUI's are the most litigated and scrutinized misdemeanor (sometimes a felony) there is. I've responded to and testified in homicide cases that were not litigated nearly as hard. BIG money is spent on DUI lawyers. There is little push to stiffen the penalties. Why? Because legislators drink too and many likely drink too much at times. Some of them probably drive drunk.

 

[trailrider]

If I was driving impaired, and I knew ahead of time the local resources were tied up executing a checkpoint I could avoid, I would like my chances. Doesn't make much sense to me. I've never been through a checkpoint but it doesn't seem like much of a bother to me unless one had reason to be "bothered". I'm guessing law enforcement would be trained enough to know pretty quick who to detain further and who to let pass.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

DUI's are the most litigated and scrutinized misdemeanor (sometimes a felony) there is. I've responded to and testified in homicide cases that were not litigated nearly as hard. BIG money is spent on DUI lawyers. There is little push to stiffen the penalties. Why? Because legislators drink too and many likely drink too much at times. Some of them probably drive drunk.

I've always thought this, especially as it relates to "the war on drugs". Arguably alcohol probably causes or is involved in as much, if not more damage to society than illegal drugs. Alcohol just doesn't carry the same stigma with lawmakers that "drugs" do.

 

[patience0830]

CDL Drivers get the shaft from the Feds when it comes to their licenses and license penalties. I won't ever write a ticket to a CDL driver unless he/she is a total dickbag, but if they're drunk....sorry boutcha.

As a CDL holder and general all around responsible driver, I appreciate the forbearance.
Especially as ANY kind of a ticket, even a warning, costs me about $2700 before I ever pay a fine or court costs. $.02 per mile off my usual rate for the next year and depending on the violation, from $300 to $750 of my quarterly safety bonus. I try diligently to be good.

 

[VUPDblue]

If I was driving impaired, and I knew ahead of time the local resources were tied up executing a checkpoint I could avoid, I would like my chances. Doesn't make much sense to me. I've never been through a checkpoint but it doesn't seem like much of a bother to me unless one had reason to be "bothered". I'm guessing law enforcement would be trained enough to know pretty quick who to detain further and who to let pass.

Ding Ding Ding


At our CPs in Marion County, we check several hundred cars at each one. That ought to say something about how fast we get cars in and out, and it doesn't take more than a few seconds to determine if someone needs to be checked further or if they should be sent on their way.

 

[watchamakalit]

If it is truly about protecting the innocent from drunk drivers why dont the officers stand outside the bars offering free breathalyzer tests before people get in their cars?

Sent from my LG-H871 using Tapatalk

 

[VUPDblue]

If it is truly about protecting the innocent from drunk drivers why dont the officers stand outside the bars offering free breathalyzer tests before people get in their cars?

Sent from my LG-H871 using Tapatalk

Because NOBODY leaving a bar is going to drive if there are cops outside. Besides, even if we put even just one cop outside every bar, we'd need to hire about eleventybillion more cops.

 

[epeery]

If it is truly about protecting the innocent from drunk drivers why dont the officers stand outside the bars offering free breathalyzer tests before people get in their cars?

Sent from my LG-H871 using Tapatalk

"Offering" probably wouldn't have much effect, and I think that "requiring" is illegal, but I've often wondered why it hasn't been made legal if we want to get serious about reducing drunk driving.

 

[Leadeye]

Just the additional costs in insurance are enough to keep me from ever driving after drinking. It's just not worth it. That said I see the same folks getting charged with DUI all the time here in the GSF, progressively working their way up the penalty scale. With some you see suspended license, out on bond for DUI, wanted on warrants for the same, but still cruising the roads blasted. I don't see those people ever changing.

 

[Libertarian01]

DUI's are the most litigated and scrutinized misdemeanor (sometimes a felony) there is. I've responded to and testified in homicide cases that were not litigated nearly as hard. BIG money is spent on DUI lawyers. There is little push to stiffen the penalties. Why? Because legislators drink too and many likely drink too much at times. Some of them probably drive drunk.

I agree with you entirely on why it won't be changed, although I didn't know that it was fought over so hard.

But I still believe that if the first offense were even a minimum of 30 days in jail to a maximum of 90 days, served in order (ie. no weekend nonsense) then the fear of even getting a first offense would motivate the majority of people to act more responsibly. Because with 30 days in jail that could mean your job, your house, your everything, at least for a while.

We don't have that fear today. Enforcement of a law is important, sure enough, but I believe the fear of getting caught would deter more people than better enforcement.

Of course, on the opposite side I would remove laws against public intoxication wherever they are, so long as the person isn't doing any damage. A person leaving the bar drunk who acts responsibly and decides to walk home instead of driving shouldn't be in fear of arrest because he can't walk in a straight line.

But getting back to your point we have had drinking in this country for centuries. It has been readily accepted and even a rite of passage into adulthood. This attitude will need to change before our laws will.

Regards,

Doug

 

[VUPDblue]

A person walking home, drunk, cannot be arrested for PI, unless other factors exist. Being drunk in public is not a crime if there are no aggravating factors.


Sec. 3 . (a) Subject to section 6.5 of this chapter, it is a Class B misdemeanor for a person to be in a public place or a place of public resort in a state of intoxication caused by the person's use of alcohol or a controlled substance (as defined in IC 35-48-1-9 ), if the person:
(1) endangers the person's life;

(2) endangers the life of another person;

(3) breaches the peace or is in imminent danger of breaching the peace;  or

(4) harasses, annoys, or alarms another person.

 

[watchamakalit]

Because NOBODY leaving a bar is going to drive if there are cops outside. Besides, even if we put even just one cop outside every bar, we'd need to hire about eleventybillion more cops.

That's a pretty bold assumption to say absolutely "nobody" and it's also very interesting that you make up numbers to prove a point. You should try making up some more facts. It really helps support a logically and openminded discussion.

Sent from my LG-H871 using Tapatalk

 

[ghuns]

...Being drunk in public is not a crime if there are no aggravating factors.

So I've heard...

[video=youtube;neUaSTSKFZc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neUaSTSKFZc[/video]

 

[VUPDblue]

lol wut?


There are about ~120 cops on duty in Marion County at any given time, and there are three patrol shifts. There are ~350 alcoholic beverage permits. If you want to put a cop with a breath test instrument outside every bar, plus keep patrol cops on patrol, we're gonna need 1150 more cops. You good with those numbers?

 

[watchamakalit]

Still dont add up

350 liquor licenses should equal ~350 extra officers.

Sent from my LG-H871 using Tapatalk

 

[VUPDblue]

Still dont add up

350 liquor licenses should equal ~350 extra officers.

Sent from my LG-H871 using Tapatalk

Those 350 extra cops gonna work 24/7?