Not 100% sure I am OK with sobriety checkpoints....

[Logical]

For example, last night in Kansas City the cops stopped 540 cars and made 11 DUI arrests. That is a 2% success rate.

Based on past experience, the city will drop charges on 2-3 of the 11 and will cut a non-DUI plea deal on 3-5 more. So maybe 5 will be convicted of actual DUI

The other 529 cars were stopped for no reason. And if you assume 2 persons per car then over 1000 people were stopped for no probable cause. Just because they were driving in the wrong place.

I am against drunk driving, but I think if you took all the police officers, maybe around 30, and had them drive the city last night they would spot as many DUI drivers as the checkpoint found and not bother 1000 innocent people.

And before you say "maybe one of those people stopped would have killed someone" then I ask you why we do not stop 20,000 cars a night?

I think saturation patrols on weekend nights would be much more efficient and less of a hassle for the drivers who do nothing wrong.

[TheWraith]

1. Agreed. It's theater, designed to make it look like they're doing something. nt

[dionysus]

42. theater, plus a slew of cash. "oh, just happened to notice your inspection is expired (ticket)" ect

[onehandle]

2. DuPage targets drivers who refuse breathalyzer

WHEATON, Ill. (AP) — DuPage County has a secret weapon this weekend for DUI suspects who refuse a breathalyzer — a needle.

State's Attorney Robert Berlin says a search warrant will be sought for anyone arrested for driving under the influence who refuses the breathalyzer.

Suspects will be taken to a central location, where an assistant state's attorney and a judge will be on duty through the weekend.

Once a warrant is issued, licensed medical personnel will be on hand to draw blood to be tested for blood-alcohol content.

http://www.chron.com/news/article/DuPage-targets-drivers-who-refuse-breathalyzer-2153986.php

[Logical]

3. More police state stuff You have to love it!

[PeaceNikki]

4. They do that in some communities in WI, too... as standard practice, not just this weekend.

Menomonee Falls, WI does this every time someone refuses. It's insane.

Coincidentally, I used to live in DuPage County, too.

[mysuzuki2]

31. I live in NW Milwaukee and spend half my time it seems un Men Falls.

most of my shopping is on Appleton av. I see the police pulling people over all the time. Not probably for dui but for whatever. At LEAST 50 % of the time the pulloveree (new word I just made up) is black. Considering the % of black people in Men Falls hovers somewhere around 1%, this has always been very blatant. I would believe almost anything about the Men Falls police dept. BTW, Peacenicki, I grew up in Dupage - in Villa Park. I think my family were the only Dems in town.

[PeaceNikki]

33. Oh wow, small world!

I used to live in Meno Falls (in Lake Country now) and went to high school in Roselle. I still have family, again coincidentally, in Menomonee falls and Villa Park.

Yes, the cops in the Falls are VERY blatantly racist, but they're pretty awful to teenaged boys of any color there, too. I have stories that make people cringe. Appleton Ave is a cop trap because it's 4-6 lanes across and nothing but businesses and the speed limit is 30 MPH. It's brutal.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

7. I always insist on a blood test, saying that the breathalyzer has too many errors

It takes more of them out of the field and costs them more $$$.

[SammyWinstonJack]

64. Land of the Free Home of the Brave...

:puke:

[ProgressiveProfessor]

5. I got stopped today in one

I got out a flip camera and hung it around my neck while I waited in line. They were not amused but did not get stupid either.

[Logical]

6. Good for you! You might know about this but it is a great web site.....

Photography Is Not A Crime Blog...

http://www.pixiq.com/contributors/248

[ProgressiveProfessor]

8. I flog PINAC here regularly

I got my body camera after reading about it there.

[Logical]

10. IM me the model of camera you use for this. I want to get started in this myself! Thanks!

[ixion]

9. I'm sure I"m 100% NOT OK with them

and I say that as someone who doesn't go out to bars anymore, hence would have no problem getting through one. That is not the point. The point is that it's unAmerican fascism. which I reject in whole.

[Logical]

12. I 100% agree. And it amazes me the Tea Party type are not up in arms about this. Seems.....

like they would hate the government doing this. But the GOP tend to love the police state.

[ixion]

14. Yep, I agree. It's a huge contradiction in their premise

which they seem to ignore comfortably... :crazy:

[Gidney N Cloyd]

28. No one invites them out.

:D

[Kali]

11. I am 100% sure that I am NOT ok with them.

same for border patrol/homeland security

Land of the Free, my ass.

[sabrina 1]

13. I'm not, but we are overwhelmed by the politics of fear. That is how

all of the wars and anti-Constitutional police-state tactics become acceptable. Scare the public, then implement police state tactics and you will have even people on the 'left' defending them. Because we live in a frightened rather than an enlightened society. And that is the recipe for a police state.

'Home of the Brave'. I think that ought to be dropped now. We are in no way 'the land of the free and home of the brave'. One in 100 Americans are locked up in prison at any given time. I'm sure these checkpoints will supply the Prison Industrial Complex with more bodies for their profitable business.

[orpupilofnature57]

15. Remember systemic traffic control by the Military ,would be a police state.

I've gone through ton's of road blocks as a kid stoned out of my mind ,and have never received a DUI in my 38 yrs of driving.Drunk driving kills too many people to argue against whatever measures that don't infringe on our rights.

[Logical]

17. Define "infringe on our rights"! Would you be OK with them randomly...

searching houses if they could prove it stops some deaths?

[orpupilofnature57]

22. No Driving is a privilege ,My Privacy is a Right.

But The Patriot Act took care of all that ,another thing I was voting to get rid of.

[Logical]

23. I think people like you allow the slow move towards more and more rights being lost.

[orpupilofnature57]

I hope not , Voltaire would be ashamed ,,I think my Thousands of posts

Might Speak for me ,I mean here you are what you say.

[fishbulb703]

34. You drive really slowly in the left lane, don't you?

Driving is a right. I am fortunate enough to live in a college town with good bike/bus transit, but if I lived back home (DC suburbs) I would NEED TO DRIVE in order to make a living. Not "it would make things convenient" but "I need a car and a license". So before you get all high and mighty on driving being a privilege, think about when voting was a privilege for the rich land owners.

[Confusious]

35. Sorry, driving is a privilege

As I am constantly reminded by the cops when I get my yearly speeding ticket.

If it was a right, you couldn't take away the drivers licenses of drunks. Rights cannot be taken away or infringed. Is that what you want?

[fishbulb703]

36. Rights can be curtailed for the good of society.

I don't know if you ever took a civics class, but its that ole' yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater thing.

Driving in order to be able to access employment, when other options impose undue burden, is a right.

[Confusious]

47. Sorry again, but driving is still a privilege

As much as you might want it to be a right, as much as I hate it and the lack of good public transportation, the law views it as a privilege.

And that privilege can be taken away or not even given. If you find yourself in that situation, you have the right to starve. I've had enough tickets and been to court enough to know. Oh, forgot about drivers Ed classes to get the points off my license.

For that reason, and the time and massive amounts of money I've spent working on my car, I dislike cars and would love to do away with them.

[fishbulb703]

52. I'm not playing a semantics game. I am not discussing how the law views it.

People have the right to work. In some areas, the necessitates the use of a personal vehicle. Barring the curtailment of this (tickets, etc.) that person has a right to drive.

Your thinking, that one of the most vital means of transport in this country is a "privilege" granted by Big Bro is silly, and authoritarian, and exactly the type of thinking that has allowed (insurance) corporations and heavy handed judges to usurp our rights. You are part of the problem.

Clearly, I am not discussing the current state of the world, I am talking about my view that access to one of the most important means of travel in our society is a right.

Sorry about your tickets.

[Confusious]

55. It's not my thinking, it's the way it is.

wether you or I agree with it or not. No matter how loudly you stamp your foot.

Driving is a privilege, not a right. Your constant argument over that fact does not change that fact.

I've got 22 years of driving experience, from Alaska to Michigan, from Arizona to Michigan. 22 years of tickets and far fewer court dates and a couple of drivers Ed classes. That's how the law sees it, that's how society sees it.

If you had read my last post a little better, you would have seen that I don't agree with it. I would do away with a car in a heartbeat if I could, but that's not how society is right now. Of course you will probably gloss over that again, so let me bold it for you

I don't agree that it should be a privilege when society has been built up around the car. Either fund public transportation, or make it a right

I would prefer the latter to the former.

Maybe you should get out and start a movement making it a right (Of course, I won't want to drive then, or be near any roads afterwards)

One other thing, there is no such thing as a "right to work" if you lose your license, you're fucked. That's the way things are. Does it need to be changed? yes. Is it going to happen anytime soon? doubtful. Hybrid cars, electric cars. Americans love their cars way too much.

[MicaelS]

48. So if driving is a "right", I'm sure you can cite

A court ruling from a State or Federal court that states this. :popcorn:

[orpupilofnature57]

38. Simmer down Scooter ,A right is in the constitution, a privilege requires..

Subscribing to Conditions ,unlike our Rights .And yes Elitists like Hamilton thought only the landowners and the Educated should be allowed to vote ,your proof against that mentality.

[pipi_k]

46. Thank you... if driving were a "right"....

they would have to let everyone drive. Even people with certain disabilities which would render them totally unsuited for driving.

I had to deal with a situation like that some years ago when I worked in a residential setting with developmentally disabled adults.

One of the guys had brain damage from hydrocephaly as a baby. He was a hell of a nice guy, but had the attention span of a 10 year old kid, terrible reflexes, and jerky movements.

He was constantly after me (as manager of the home) to allow him to take driving lessons so he could get his license. To allow the guy out on the roads would have been complete and total insanity. If driving were a "right", he could have sued for the right to drive under the ADA, I imagine.

I don't know why so many people think they have some god-given "right" to have a license. The state one lives in can take that license away pretty much whenever it wants to. In Mass, if you don't pay excise taxes on your car for a number of years, your license will be revoked. If you don't pay child support, your license can be revoked.

In fact, one of the first things they teach in drivers ed classes is that driving is not a right.

[fishbulb703]

53. That's overly simplistic, and ignores natural law. nt

[orpupilofnature57]

54. You mean simplistic.

[pipi_k]

43. Hate to break it to you, but...

driving is a privilege...not a "right". No matter HOW much you "need" a car and license.

http://driversed.com/teen-drivers-education/Driving-is-a-Privilege-Not-a-Right.aspx

[treestar]

16. I do not agree with them both due to inefficiency

and unconstitutionality (though there may be case law allowing for them - don't recall right now).

There should be at least some symptom of drunk driving before someone gets stopped for it.

[tularetom]

18. I'm 100% sure I'm not OK with it

We recently got stopped in one in Modesto and had to sit there for almost an hour while they checked the 100 or so cars in front of us.

I'm all for keeping drunk drivers off the roads but you don't help your cause by pissing off a whole lot of sober drivers.

And the cops conducting the checkpoint were a bunch of arrogant little snots.

[PassingFair]

56. I am 100% AGAINST it, too. It is a search without probable cause.

The 4th amendment reads:

“ The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. ”

[Fumesucker]

19. What? You think these are about catching drunk drivers?

The real purpose is one of intimidation and acclimatization, you can be stopped and questioned at any time for no reason whatsoever, just because you happen to drive in a certain location at a certain time.

[Logical]

21. And a minimum of a $5000 bill for the legal fees and fines.

[gateley]

20. Drunk drivers are a menace, but if someone is driving under the

influence it's usually pretty obvious. Why not just stake out the same areas and watch people drive by -- pull them over only if they're swerving, doing the dumb stuff we all do when driving while drunk? I don't drink anymore, but when I did there is NO WAY I should have been on the road when I'd been drinking.

Just like I feel there is NO WAY we need these Gestapo checkpoints.

Hell, people call in drunk drivers on their cell phones all the time - they're getting more help than ever before!

[Lucian]

24. Those things presume everyone is guilty until proven innocent.

I am 100% against them.

[alp227]

25. SB 1070 anyone? and checkpoints would probably make drunk drivers avoid them

normally i'd think that checkpoints are set up without advance notice, but i think that drunk drivers are desperate not to get caught and thus try "alternative routes" without much traffic. you make a good point, this is a government over-reaction like drug testing for welfare recipients or those idiotic TSA rules.

[JVS]

26. They'd probably prevent more deaths by volunteering to drive drunks home than manning a checkpoint

[Logical]

59. +100

[Curmudgeoness]

27. I am also 100% sure that I am against them.

In fact, when they first started these, I was 100% that they would be unconstitutional. It is unreasonable search---unreasonable meaning no reason. Well other than intimidation.

But then again, I am against random drug testing for the same reason. There should be some cause or suspicion, and from the drunks I have seen driving and people who are high at work that I have seen, you can see that there is a problem.

[Rageneau]

29. The purpose of checkpoints is to accommodate us to checkpoints.

First, they stop us to check for DUI. Next, it will be to check for guns or drugs or whether the children are strapped in correctly. Next, it will be to see if our papers are in order. And so on.

The only way it won't get worse is if we finally stood up against it.

But we won't.

We're docile Americans, not lovers of liberty.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

30. Had to cruise slowly through a seatbelt check in Des Plaines, IL a few mornings back.

8 cops standing around 4 corners of a light-to-medium volume intersection, peering into cars to make sure everyone was in compliance.

[dajoki]

32. I am 100% against them n/t

[undergroundpanther]

37. I have been stopped

riding with a friend going to another friends house for a cookout.A cop stopped us. He took all our ID's ran background checks on us,had us all get out of the car.This happened while we were driving through a a neighborhood street.for nothing.

I was once grilled by cops for an arson I had nothing to do with I was grilled from 8am to 10pm.

I was stopped for something I did not steal.


I was walking on a sidewalk at night,cop took my ID and check my background.
Seems cops tend to stereotype people like me,who's style is different.

The cops are assuming guilt before innocence here.That's why I hate checkpoints,random stops,frisks,searches ,without any cause assuming you are a criminal etc.
this article goes into the reasons why people hate cops.


http://www.insurgentamerican.net/2007/05/28/why-people-hate-cops/

[orpupilofnature57]

39. Thats the difference between enforcing and Abuse.

[Obamanaut]

49. I have been stopped at these checkpoints, usually when riding my motorcycle.

The schedule is published in our local paper - if one doesn't want to be stopped, don't go on that route on the scheduled day.

One time the officer expressed surprise that I have a motorcycle endorsement on my license, and when I asked why he seemed surprised, he said that many people who ride do not have the endorsement. And they get tickets. Rightly so.

[Irishonly]

40. I don't think it's that much about DUI

Around here if you don't have a license you are subject to your car being impounded for 30 days. I have always thought it was more to get unlicensed drivers off of the road.

[Shagbark Hickory]

41. I think the purpose to dissuade people from drunk driving. IF you make thousands of people wait

in a line at a checkpoint on a fairly regular basis, people might think twice about it.

[Logical]

58. Saturation patrols would do the same thing. Police cars everywhere.

[Shagbark Hickory]

67. Ugh. I hate that. I'd be afraid to leave home. One of the reasons I moved out of JacksonVILE

Cops everywhere.

[Logical]

69. If I am not drunk they will not bother me. n-t

[Shagbark Hickory]

70. They'll bother when you cannot go anywhere without getting pulled over.

It doesn't matter if they don't have a reason to pull you over there, they'll pull you over just for "looking suspicious" as they do in other parts of floreeduh. The constitution means nothing there.

[Odin2005]

44. I hate drunk-drivers, but I am 100% against these checkpoints.

It assumes guilt.

[Initech]

45. I think they should be considered illegal search and seizure.

[pipi_k]

51. Not sure I agree with that....

People are only being stopped and questioned..."Good evening, Sir...good evening Ma'am... how are you doing tonight?" or something similar.

The search only comes if there is reasonable cause to search...glassy eyes, slurred speech, alcohol on the breath, smell of pot in the car, etc.

Without reasonable cause, people are free to go on their merry ways...

[Logical]

57. You are being stopped for NO REASON at all. Papers please mode IMO

[pipi_k]

63. Well, apparently

the US Supreme Court has decided that properly conducted checkpoints are constitutionally permissible (although some state constitutions do not allow them).

There are certain guidelines which must be followed at those checkpoints.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_checkpoint#Legality_in_the_United_States

[Logical]

68. I guess you agree with the SCOTUS more than I do. n-t

[sfpcjock]

50. In Escondido, California the cops have been told by the legislature not to use the checkpoints

as license checkpoints. They have been impounding immigrants vehicles and charging them $2,000 to get the car back. In this way they make money off of them.

http://video.kpbs.org/video/2115759962"> The story was on San Diego Week of PBS - see 7:45 of video

[Fearless]

60. Drunk driving needs to be solved socially.

Not autocratically.

[hedgehog]

61. So, do 2% of the drivers you encounter look like they're DWI to you?

That suggests to me that a lot of drunks can mostly pass as sober drivers until they run that one red light or swerve a little too sharply and end up in the opposite lane. Those of us with relatives who routinely drink and drive know that drunks can get around for years without getting into an accident. Trouble is, when they do hit someone the results are devastating.

The rule if someone is lost is to stay in one place to make it easier to find you. I suspect the same logic applies here in reverse; the cops are most apt to encounter a drunk driver if they stay in one place and check all the passing drivers rather than cruise around hoping to encounter a drunk making an error.

Some agencies do abuse the use of checkpoints, and some cops stop people for no good reason. Stopping people for DWB is an especially egregious abuse. But stopping everyone for a quick check treats everyone the same.

If you think getting stopped briefly at a checkpoint is a hassle, you should try getting your car down for inspection yearly. My husband has a couple collector cars and we have the used car we drive plus the back-up car, so believe me this is a hassle. My husband does his own work and keeps an eye on the cars, so most of the time our cars pass just fine. But there is that one time the inspector spotted the hidden crack in the frame..... So even though it is a hassle, it's a worthwhile hassle.

FWIW - both myself and my daughter have been pulled over probably on spurious reasons but in reality to make certain we weren't driving drunk. I was driving home from work 2am St. Patrick's Day. She was driving home about midnight on a week-end. In our town, if you're on the road that late the odds are good that you are indeed DWI. Am i upset that we were stopped? Not a bit!

[etherealtruth]

62. I am 100% sure I am not OK with them

I rarely (and when I do "barely") drink ... I have no patience/tolerance for those that drive while impaired ... with all that said .... stop folk for just cause or don't stop them at all!

[Zanzoobar]

65. How many % are you sure?

There's no between on this issue.

Is you is, or is you ain't?

[Matariki]

66. They must be great when you have to be somewhere on time.

I'm SURE that I'm 100% against them. We've really headed down a very bad road with road checkpoints, TSA underwear checking, warrantless wiretapping, etc, etc.

[BrightKnight]

71. The government wants to make me late to work. -n/t