PDA

View Full Version : DWI check point! FYI


milehighfan
10-14-2005, 01:50 PM
Sobriety checkpoint scheduled tonight

The Kansas City Star


Independence police will conduct a sobriety checkpoint beginning at 11 tonight.
The checkpoint will be located on a major street or highway in Independence where driving while intoxicated arrests and accidents are prevalent.

Donger
10-14-2005, 01:52 PM
intoxicated arrests

Drunken policemen should not be taken lightly.

joesomebody
10-14-2005, 01:52 PM
Good... people whom drive while intoxicated are idiots. ESPECIALLY in a city...

milehighfan
10-14-2005, 01:55 PM
This was meant to help Eric Warfield or Tim Grunhard.

Extra Point
10-14-2005, 01:55 PM
Drunken policemen should not be taken lightly.
Especially in the Big Easy....

milehighfan
10-14-2005, 01:57 PM
joesomebody


DT was one of the biggest drunks in KC history. Saw him in Westport nightly hitting on the children. Someone to look up to.

joesomebody
10-14-2005, 01:59 PM
joesomebody


DT was one of the biggest drunks in KC history. Saw him in Westport nightly hitting on the children. Someone to look up to.Hitting on the children? Where is Westport? I thought you were from Denver and moved to Sedalia when your mom got a job as the bearded lady at the fair?

If you are referring to the accident that killed DT, he wasn't driving...

SLAG
10-14-2005, 01:59 PM
DT was one of the biggest drunks in KC history. Saw him in Westport nightly hitting on the children. Someone to look up to.

Maybe

but I do remember he did alot of this http://www.kcstar.com/photogallery/photos/dthomas/thomas2.jpg

joesomebody
10-14-2005, 02:00 PM
Oh yeah... and I have no problem with drunks... I drink my fair share beleive me...

I just don't agree with driving while under the influence.

Dunit35
10-14-2005, 02:04 PM
I have never allowed any of my buddies to drive drunk..they always call me cause if I found out they did I get pretty pissed at them.

Cochise
10-14-2005, 02:05 PM
milehighfan, I think that you should really take this to heart. This weekend, when you're all wired up driving your rusted out, hubcapless '72 Delta 88, with the ceiling upholstery falling down and ripped vinyl seats, avoid the main thoroughfares. When they see that you have 64 gallons of paint thinner and a case of sudafed in your trunk, you might get put in cuffs and not be able to scratch all the invisible ladybugs off your arms. But on the bright side, if you're in county smiling like a donut for a few days, the shiners on your old lady's eyes might finally start to fade.

GoTrav
10-14-2005, 02:14 PM
joesomebody


DT was one of the biggest drunks in KC history. Saw him in Westport nightly hitting on the children. Someone to look up to.

I saw DT out plenty and he rarely had a drink in his hand.

jspchief
10-14-2005, 02:18 PM
Glad to hear they are going to violate the rights of an entire city so they can catch a few drunk drivers.

joesomebody
10-14-2005, 02:21 PM
Glad to hear they are going to violate the rights of an entire city so they can catch a few drunk drivers.Which right are you referring to?

Never mind, I don't want to turn this into some political argument, I see your point even though I don't agree with you.

Skip Towne
10-14-2005, 02:22 PM
Glad to hear they are going to violate the rights of an entire city so they can catch a few drunk drivers.
Yep, and I like how they want to search your car no matter what they stopped you for. I got stopped for "defective exhaust" (bogus) and the dipshit wanted to search my van. He didn't search it.

dsgreene285
10-14-2005, 02:23 PM
milehighfan, I think that you should really take this to heart. This weekend, when you're all wired up driving your rusted out, hubcapless '72 Delta 88, with the ceiling upholstery falling down and ripped vinyl seats, avoid the main thoroughfares. When they see that you have 64 gallons of paint thinner and a case of sudafed in your trunk, you might get put in cuffs and not be able to scratch all the invisible ladybugs off your arms. But on the bright side, if you're in county smiling like a donut for a few days, the shiners on your old lady's eyes might finally start to fade.

Cochise, its a good thing you didn't post this on the MANE, they all would have wondered how you knew them so intimately.

ptlyon
10-14-2005, 02:24 PM
Yep, and I like how they want to search your car no matter what they stopped you for. I got stopped for "defective exhaust" (bogus) and the dipshit wanted to search my van. He didn't search it.

Thank GOD. He would have found all that smuggled Geritol and Viagra in there.

jspchief
10-14-2005, 02:25 PM
Which right are you referring to?

Never mind, I don't want to turn this into some political argument, I see your point even though I don't agree with you.I'm talking about the right to not be searched without probable cause.

Maybe you think the police should be allowed to search everyone's home too, I'm sure it would allow them to catch an occasional criminal.

chagrin
10-14-2005, 02:26 PM
Sobriety checkpoint scheduled tonight

The Kansas City Star


Independence police will conduct a sobriety checkpoint beginning at 11 tonight.
The checkpoint will be located on a major street or highway in Independence where driving while intoxicated arrests and accidents are prevalent.


I'll make sure to stay home

jspchief
10-14-2005, 02:28 PM
It's a clear violation of our 4th Amendment rights. The supreme court has even admitted as much.

htismaqe
10-14-2005, 02:30 PM
I'm talking about the right to not be searched without probable cause.

Maybe you think the police should be allowed to search everyone's home too, I'm sure it would allow them to catch an occasional criminal.

I wish I could remember all the times I've been searched...

Cochise
10-14-2005, 02:31 PM
It's a clear violation of our 4th Amendment rights. The supreme court has even admitted as much.


U.S. Supreme Court
MICHIGAN DEP'T OF STATE POLICE v. SITZ, 496 U.S. 444 (1990)

Chief Justice REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case poses the question whether a State's use of highway sobriety checkpoints violates the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. We hold that it does not, and therefore reverse the contrary holding of the Court of Appeals of Michigan.

oops

joesomebody
10-14-2005, 02:31 PM
I'm talking about the right to not be searched without probable cause.

Maybe you think the police should be allowed to search everyone's home too, I'm sure it would allow them to catch an occasional criminal.Again, I see your point... I just don't agree with it.

Please look at it from my perspective, I work and live on a military installation, they search our cars and homes at will... Now, as civilians I don't think they should be able to perform illegal search and seizures, however they can most definitly set up check points and question you... they do not have the right to search your car without probable cause, I agree 100% however asking you to roll down your window and answer some quick questions isn't exactly search and seizure...

Again, I shouldn't have responded... I don't want to argue, I understand your point and a few years ago I would have agreed with you. If this can save some lives and possibly awaken a few drunk drivers to the risks they are taking, then IMHO its worth it.

Skip Towne
10-14-2005, 02:32 PM
A couple of years ago I moved o a town of 300 people in OK. It was a speed trap and the reserve cop caught me going 10 mph over. He wanted to search my van. I said no. He finally let me go when he found out I lived there. I think I was getting the "tourist treatment". I hate cops.

Lzen
10-14-2005, 02:32 PM
I dunno, I kind of agree with jspchief. Sure, I don't want any people who are drunk off their ass driving on the same roads as I am. However, I don't agree with these stupid check lanes, either. Sometimes, I'm in a hurry and these are just an annoyance. If the police would just drive around and keep their eyes out (you know, do their jobs), they would catch drunk drivers. They run those stupid check lanes here, too.

Rain Man
10-14-2005, 02:34 PM
A couple of years ago I moved o a town of 300 people in OK. It was a speed trap and the reserve cop caught me going 10 mph over. He wanted to search my van. I said no. He finally let me go when he found out I lived there. I think I was getting the "tourist treatment". I hate cops.

I shudder to think what would have happened if he had actually searched your van.

ptlyon
10-14-2005, 02:35 PM
A couple of years ago I moved o a town of 300 people in OK. It was a speed trap and the reserve cop caught me going 10 mph over. He wanted to search my van. I said no. He finally let me go when he found out I lived there. I think I was getting the "tourist treatment". I hate cops.

Good thing you didn't live down south, otherwise you probably would have gotten this kind of treatment:

joesomebody
10-14-2005, 02:37 PM
As a kid in High school whom would be in a world of hurt had they seached my vehicle at any point, I would 100% agree... However I'm of age, I don't drink and drive, and I have nothing to hide... and granted if you work nights and need to get to work at this hour you may have a legitimate argument about being in a hurry... but typically these checkpoints are only during the hours that most drunks would be on the road, which is 11pm-3am or so... most law abiding citizens aren't in a real hurry at this time of night.

jspchief
10-14-2005, 02:38 PM
This article has some good stuff on the subject.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,171383,00.html

The Supreme Court gave its OK to the road blocks in 1992, despite conceding that they may violate the Fourth Amendment.

Basically, their stance is "yea, it violates your rights, but it's for a good cause". IMO that is bullsh*t. I'll concede there may be times when extreme measures, including violation of 4th amendment rights, are neccessary. I just don't think these ridiculous witch hunts fall in that category.

People are being spoon-fed this anti drunk driving propoganda, and never questioning how much of it is bullsh*t.

beavis
10-14-2005, 02:38 PM
If you are referring to the accident that killed DT, he wasn't driving...
Yeah he was, doing about 70 in a snowstorm, in which it wasn't safe to drive over 30.

joesomebody
10-14-2005, 02:40 PM
This article has some good stuff on the subject.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,171383,00.html



Basically, their stance is "yea, it violates your rights, but it's for a good cause". IMO that is bullsh*t. I'll concede there may be times when extreme measures, including violation of 4th amendment rights, are neccessary. I just don't think these ridiculous witch hunts fall in that category.

People are being spoon-fed this anti drunk driving propoganda, and never questioning how much of it is bullsh*t.Fair enough... I just don't like the idea of WARNING people of a sobriety checkpoint... thats the only reason I posted here... our bitching about it isn't going to stop them from happening, but warning people about them sort of defeats their purpose, even if we don't agree with their purpose.

Donger
10-14-2005, 02:40 PM
Yeah he was, doing about 70 in a snowstorm, in which it wasn't safe to drive over 30.

SUV-itis?

jspchief
10-14-2005, 02:41 PM
Again, I see your point... I just don't agree with it.

Please look at it from my perspective, I work and live on a military installation, they search our cars and homes at will...
That says it all. Living in a military state.

And something you need to consider, if you're in the "it only effects drunks" category. Most cities have made it their standard operating procedure to enforce evrything at these checkpoints. That means seatbelt, burnt out blinker, you name it. It's become a revenue generator, ticketing people that would probably get off with warnings under normal circumstances. And the best part of it all is they don't ever ctach that many drunks.

joesomebody
10-14-2005, 02:42 PM
Yeah he was, doing about 70 in a snowstorm, in which it wasn't safe to drive over 30.Really? I read he was in the back seat, unbuckled... meh... even so, he wasn't under the influence of drugs or alcohol... Speeding, well I'm sure a lot of people are guilty of that.

Skip Towne
10-14-2005, 02:43 PM
I probably sholdn't post on this thread because I'm a nut about freedom. The more you allow yourself to be run over, the more you WILL be run over. We've become a nation of sheep.

ptlyon
10-14-2005, 02:43 PM
Yeah he was, doing about 70 in a snowstorm, in which it wasn't safe to drive over 30.

Yeah - going to a RAMS playoff game. :cuss:

jspchief
10-14-2005, 02:44 PM
Fair enough... I just don't like the idea of WARNING people of a sobriety checkpoint... thats the only reason I posted here... our bitching about it isn't going to stop them from happening, but warning people about them sort of defeats their purpose, even if we don't agree with their purpose.Why? The purpose is to deter drunk driving, not catch people.

It's just like announcing speed traps or crackdowns on seatbelt laws. If everyone knows, then they will choose to obey those laws. Mission accomplished.

It's not about catching criminals, it's about preventing the crimes from happening in the first place.

joesomebody
10-14-2005, 02:44 PM
That says it all. Living in a military state.

And something you need to consider, if you're in the "it only effects drunks" category. Most cities have made it their standard operating procedure to enforce evrything at these checkpoints. That means seatbelt, burnt out blinker, you name it. It's become a revenue generator, ticketing people that would probably get off with warnings under normal circumstances. And the best part of it all is they don't ever ctach that many drunks.Meh, I've never been stopped at a sobriety checkpoint (besides the gate to get on base, which doesn't count)

So if they are doing as you say, and simply doing a catch all for things like out of date tags on your plates, then I will concede, they need to rethink their methods.

Cochise
10-14-2005, 02:45 PM
I have a hard time feeling sorry for drunks that get caught no matter what the circumstances. You shouldn't have been doing it anyway.

What's the big deal about these things anyway? I have been in tons and lost like 5 minutes at the most. If you are fine they just say OK and wave you through.

If the point of all this is to eliminate lines there are a lot of places I spend more time more often waiting in line that I'd like all the freedom fighters here to take a look at... start volunteering at the DMV...

jspchief
10-14-2005, 02:45 PM
Really? I read he was in the back seat, unbuckled... meh... even so, he wasn't under the influence of drugs or alcohol... Speeding, well I'm sure a lot of people are guilty of that.Yea, I'm sure none of us have ever been late for something and been driving too fast for the conditions. Is it stupid? Yes. But it's something we've probably all done at some point in our lives.

joesomebody
10-14-2005, 02:45 PM
Why? The purpose is to deter drunk driving, not catch people.

It's just like announcing speed traps or crackdowns on seatbelt laws. If everyone knows, then they will choose to obey those laws. Mission accomplished.

It's not about catching criminals, it's about preventing the crimes from happening in the first place.It will only deter drunk driving for one night... what good does that do? Where as catching criminals will quite probably lead to a revocation of someones liscense, in turn probably putting a great greif on the offender, which should make them think twice about driving under the influence again.

Prevention for one night doesn't do a whole lot for me.

jspchief
10-14-2005, 02:47 PM
I have a hard time feeling sorry for drunks that get caught no matter what the circumstances. You shouldn't have been doing it anyway.I think you'll also have a hard time finding someone that does feel sorry for someone who gets caught.

I've yet to see someone argue for drunk drivers.

jspchief
10-14-2005, 02:49 PM
It will only deter drunk driving for one night... what good does that do? Where as catching criminals will quite probably lead to a revocation of someones liscense, in turn probably putting a great greif on the offender, which should make them think twice about driving under the influence again.

Prevention for one night doesn't do a whole lot for me.In reality, it's all about federal road money anyway. If they don't do checkpoints, they miss out on federal funds.

But I think the arguement would be that keeping the roads clear of drunks for that one night is better than nothing.

htismaqe
10-14-2005, 02:50 PM
Why? The purpose is to deter drunk driving, not catch people.

It's just like announcing speed traps or crackdowns on seatbelt laws. If everyone knows, then they will choose to obey those laws. Mission accomplished.

It's not about catching criminals, it's about preventing the crimes from happening in the first place.

You'd THINK the purpose was to deter drunk driving. But if everybody stopped, then what?

The reason they don't want these checkpoints announced is because they generate REVENUE.

Donger
10-14-2005, 02:50 PM
I've yet to see someone argue for drunk drivers.

Well, I do remember reading once that drivers who are intoxicated tend to fair better physically in an accident than a sober person.

joesomebody
10-14-2005, 02:51 PM
In reality, it's all about federal road money anyway. If they don't do checkpoints, they miss out on federal funds.

But I think the arguement would be that keeping the roads clear of drunks for that one night is better than nothing.:shrug: nuff said... I live in Utah anyway... Mormons don't drink!

jspchief
10-14-2005, 02:52 PM
You'd THINK the purpose was to deter drunk driving. But if everybody stopped, then what?

The reason they don't want these checkpoints announced is because they generate REVENUE.Exactly. That's why they ticket people for every minor infraction they can come up with. because the few drunks they actually catch don't make it worth their time.

The whole thing is a ruse and a joke, that does very little to make the roads safer. And all the innocent people that get pulled over and searched are the suckers.

joesomebody
10-14-2005, 02:53 PM
Well, I do remember reading once that drivers who are intoxicated tend to fair better physically in an accident than a sober person.Yeah something about the natural instinct to tense up during an accident is lost on those that are less that sober... which in turn allows them to sort of go with the motion of the accident... I dunno, but I've heard the same thing before.

Cochise
10-14-2005, 02:57 PM
In reality, it's all about federal road money anyway. If they don't do checkpoints, they miss out on federal funds.

But I think the arguement would be that keeping the roads clear of drunks for that one night is better than nothing.

I like ranting about government abuses as much as the next guy. I have declined searches on at least two occasions. But I don't see how this is all that intrusive. You run into them how often, once or twice a year for me. And they cost you a total of perhaps 5 minutes each?

If you're talking about cops stopping people on the street and searching them just randomly, yeah, I'll sign your petition or whatever. But I don't see how "How much you had to drink tonight?" "Thanks, go ahead and pull through" is some grevious assault on my freedoms.

Cochise
10-14-2005, 03:00 PM
Exactly. That's why they ticket people for every minor infraction they can come up with. because the few drunks they actually catch don't make it worth their time.

The whole thing is a ruse and a joke, that does very little to make the roads safer. And all the innocent people that get pulled over and searched are the suckers.

If they barely catch any drunks, then how come the one I always drive through has to set up a tour bus sized RV and have a line to the end of the block to go in and get booked?

Hydrae
10-14-2005, 03:36 PM
Interesting read (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5116)

When Drunk Driving Deterrence Becomes Neo-Prohibition
by Radley Balko

Radley Balko is a policy analyst for the Cato Institute.

This fall Mothers Against Drunk Driving marks its 25th anniversary. The organization certainly has much to celebrate: Deaths from drunk driving are down more than 35 percent since the early 1980s. We no longer chuckle at the bumbling drunk who can barely get his key into the ignition we scorn him. Hopefully, we arrest him, too.

Unfortunately, MADD has come to outlive and outgrow its original mission. By the mid-1990s, deaths from drunk driving began to level off, after 15 years of progress. The sensible conclusion to draw from this was that the occasional drunk driver had all but been eradicated. MADD's successes had boiled the problem down to a small group of hard-core alcoholics.

It was at about this time that MADD began to move in a different direction, one not so much aimed at reducing drunk driving fatalities but at stripping DWI defendants of basic criminal rights. MADD also seemed to expand its mission to one of discouraging the consumption of alcohol in general what critics call "neo-prohibition."

MADD's biggest victory on this front was a nationwide blood-alcohol threshold of .08, down from .10. But when two-thirds of alcohol-related traffic fatalities involve blood-alcohol levels of .14 and above, and the average fatal accident occurs at .17, this move doesn't make much sense. It's like lowering the speed limit from 65 to 60 to catch people who drive 100 miles per hour. In fact, the U.S. Government Accountability Office reviewed all the statistical data and concluded "the evidence does not conclusively establish that .08 BAC laws by themselves result in reductions in the number and severity of crashes involving alcohol."

Indeed, many critics of the .08 policy predicted that the new law could make matters worse by using up scarce law enforcement resources to go after these new "drunk" drivers who don't pose much of a threat to highway safety. This is primarily done through the use of highly-publicized roadblock sobriety checkpoints, in which 12 to 20 police officers stop every passing car to make sure the driver hasn't been drinking.

The Supreme Court gave its OK to the road blocks in 1992, despite conceding that they may violate the Fourth Amendment. Former Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote that the threat to public health posed by drunk drivers was reason enough to set aside concerns about searches without probable cause. Given that they're usually publicized, the primary effect of these roadblocks is to deter social drinkers. The hard-drinkers, the real threats to highway safety, know to avoid them.

Sure enough, after former President Clinton signed .08 into law in 2000, drunk driving fatalities began to inch upward again after two decades of decline suggesting that the real drunk drivers were successfully avoiding the roadblocks. Thankfully, fatalities fell again last year, but that hardly proves MADD correct deaths continued to go up in those states that employ sobriety roadblocks. The corresponding fall in fatalities in states that refuse to use the roadblocks more than made up the difference, suggesting that, freed from roadblock duty, law enforcement was able to work more effectively to catch drunk drivers.

Many local police departments have noted the inefficiency of roadblocks and given up the practice, despite the prodding from MADD and the federal funding that comes with them.

Of course, many states and municipalities still use roadblocks. But they use them under the guise of looking for drunk drivers, then ticket motorists for a variety of infractions, only a small percentage of which involve driving while intoxicated. In other words, they've become revenue generators. A newspaper account of one recent North Carolina checkpoint, for example, found officers ticketing motorists for more than 45 infractions. Only three involved driving under the influence. That's actually high. Nationwide, less than .02 percent of motorists stopped at road blocks are arrested for DWI.

MADD has also worked to undermine the criminal protections of accused drunk drivers protections routinely granted to accused murderers, rapists and other felony crimes. MADD, for example, has pushed to impose tougher penalties on motorists who refuse to take roadside breath tests than on those who take them and fail effectively turning the Fifth Amendment on its ear. The organization also favors "administrative license revocation," which means the revocation of the driver's licenses and, in some cases, the confiscation of the vehicles, of those accused of drunken driving before they're ever given a trial.

The organization is also pushing the widespread use of ignition interlock devices, in which a driver must blow into a tube to start his car, then blow again every 20 minutes or so while driving. Washington state recently passed a law allowing judges to mandate the devices in the cars of people merely accused of drunk driving, not convicted. And the states of New Mexico and New York have both considered legislation that would require the devices in every car sold in-state. The New Mexico bill is stalled in the state senate after being passed by the house. The New York bill was initially killed, but it gains more votes each time its determined sponsors reintroduce it.

MADD is also pushing its agenda onto family laws, including a zero tolerance policy for divorced parents. Under the bills MADD is trying to push through state legislatures, a parent caught consuming one beer or glass of wine before driving could face penalties that, according to MADD, "should include, but are not limited to" "incarceration," "change of primary custody," or "termination of parental rights." This means that if you take your kid to the game, have a beer in the third inning, then drive home, you could very well lose your rights as a father.

Even MADD's founder, Candy Lightner, has lamented that the organization has grown neo-prohibitionist in nature.

"[MADD has] become far more neo-prohibitionist than I had ever wanted or envisioned ...," Lightner is quoted as saying in an Aug. 6 story in the Washington Times. "I didn't start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving," she said.

Unfortunately, the tax-exempt organization has become so enmeshed with government it has nearly become a formal government agency. MADD gets millions of dollars in federal and state funding, and has a quasi-official relationship with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. In some jurisdictions, DWI defendants are sentenced to attend and pay for alcoholic-recovery groups sponsored by MADD. In many cities, MADD officials are even allowed to man sobriety checkpoints alongside police.

On the occasion of its 25th anniversary, perhaps its time Congress revisit the spigot of federal funding flowing to MADD, and consider revoking the organization's tax-exempt status. Clearly, MADD isn't the same organization it was 25 years ago. It has morphed into an anti-alcohol lobbying organization. There's nothing wrong with that it's certainly within MADD's and its supporters' First Amendment rights.

But taxpayers shouldn't be forced to subsidize them.

This article appeared on FoxNews.com on October 5, 2005.

Cochise
10-14-2005, 03:41 PM
many critics of the .08 policy predicted that the new law could make matters worse by using up scarce law enforcement resources to go after these new "drunk" drivers who don't pose much of a threat to highway safety.

I agree with that. .08 seems pretty ridiculous. Plus, you know that they would make it even lower if they could.

If someone is a threat to public safety, I'm all for aggressive enforcement. But there seems to be a lot of lunacy on what degree of drunkeness constitutes one.

beavis
10-14-2005, 03:59 PM
Really? I read he was in the back seat, unbuckled... meh... even so, he wasn't under the influence of drugs or alcohol... Speeding, well I'm sure a lot of people are guilty of that.
Yeah, I drove past his accident soon after it happened (I didn't realize it was him at the time, but later put it together). I've never seen road conditions as bad as that. It wasn't even that it snowed a lot, it's just that it came down so quick. I think it took me like 3 hours to get from Liberty to Platte City that day.

Lzen
10-14-2005, 04:10 PM
If the point of all this is to eliminate lines there are a lot of places I spend more time more often waiting in line that I'd like all the freedom fighters here to take a look at... start volunteering at the DMV...

Ha ha ha ha......I just went into the DMV to renew my license last week. Went in on my morning break. I was in and out in less than 5 minutes. I couldn't beleive it. They have a new system that helps make it go much faster these days.

Cochise
10-14-2005, 04:16 PM
Ha ha ha ha......I just went into the DMV to renew my license last week. Went in on my morning break. I was in and out in less than 5 minutes. I couldn't beleive it. They have a new system that helps make it go much faster these days.

Yeah, I was just throwing out an example. The only time I have had trouble recently was the last Saturday of a month, when I went in there on Saturday at 30 minutes before they closed, which was my own damn fault for not getting up early. The one around here is doing a good job these days too.

Lzen
10-14-2005, 04:23 PM
Good article, Hydrae.

Hydrae
10-14-2005, 04:29 PM
Good article, Hydrae.


Thanks. I read it recently but don't remember where so it took me a few minutes to find it (gotta love google!). It reiterates a lot of JSP's points to a tee.

Boozer
10-14-2005, 04:37 PM
http://www.onedirection.com/Paulma~4.gif
Papers, please.

milehighfan
10-14-2005, 04:51 PM
For those that wonder, they announce DWI checkpoints in the paper and radio because it is required by law. Why the law? This way they can say it is not an unlawful search. I do not drink and drive or drink period. I have had a friends life ruined by drinking and driving. I also know how getting a DWI can be a real life ruining experience. Have you ever blinked you lights to let someone know there is a cop around the corner clocking people? I really hope everyone makes it home safe without DWI's. A warning like I posted is not meant to make people drive drunk elsewhere, but to avoid driving drunk period. I just don't like seeing people get arrested, and a checkpoint warning to not drink and drive makes sense to me.

Earthling
10-14-2005, 07:31 PM
That says it all. Living in a military state.

And something you need to consider, if you're in the "it only effects drunks" category. Most cities have made it their standard operating procedure to enforce evrything at these checkpoints. That means seatbelt, burnt out blinker, you name it. It's become a revenue generator, ticketing people that would probably get off with warnings under normal circumstances. And the best part of it all is they don't ever ctach that many drunks.


Yeah, they shouldn't be able to ticket you for anything except drinking at these checkpoints. And I agree with you in that I also think it is an unreasonable search....same way I feel about random drug testing.

dtebbe
10-14-2005, 07:40 PM
If they barely catch any drunks, then how come the one I always drive through has to set up a tour bus sized RV and have a line to the end of the block to go in and get booked?

They bought the tour bus with "drug money" (instead of putting back in the general operating fund to lower taxes) and that line is just tax payers lining up to see what the hell a $500k "mobile operations command center" looks like.

The whole drug money siezure thing is BS. Any money departments bring in while on taxpayer time should go back in the city or county operating fund to lower the taxes of the people who pay thier salary. Same way with siezed "drug vehicles". They should be sold at auction and the money go into the GOF. Instead they put D.A.R.E. on the side and let the desk jockeys use them for dognut runs. Oh, but it's DRUG MONEY... sorry, but that drug money can be spent for schools, roads, jails, and salaries, just like my damn tax money.

Southpark had it right: "To patronize and annoy"

DT
Nothing to see here....