If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Centre Daily Times)   Not News: DUI Checkpoint. Holy FARK: The use of specialized flashlights with ethanol sensors to detect the presence of alcohol on a driver's breath   (centredaily.com) divider line 738
    More: Asinine, random checkpoint, Centre County, State College, bus drivers, ethanol sensors, sensors  
•       •       •

16353 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Apr 2012 at 1:01 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



738 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-15 04:38:09 PM
steamingpile: Your "facts" are complete shiat, madd uses suspect gathering techniques which even gives an accident a DUI impairment if a passenger was drunk and the driver sober.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10807209

METHODS: In general, the relative risk of involvement in a fatal vehicle crash increased steadily with increasing driver BAC in every age/gender group among both fatally injured and surviving drivers. Among 16-20 year old male drivers, a BAC increase of 0.02% was estimated to more than double the relative risk of fatal single-vehicle crash injury. At the midpoint of the 0.08% - 0.10% BAC range, the relative risk of a fatal single-vehicle crash injury varied between 11.4 (drivers 35 and older) and 51.9 (male drivers, 16-20). With only very few exceptions, older drivers had lower risk of being fatally injured in a single-vehicle crash than younger drivers, as did women compared with men in the same age range. When comparable, results largely confirmed existing prior estimates.
CONCLUSIONS:
This is the first study that systematically estimated relative risk for drink-drivers with BACs between 0.08% and 0.10% (these relative risk estimates apply to BAC range midpoints at 0.09%.) The results clearly show that drivers with a BAC under 0.10% pose highly elevated risk both to themselves and to other road users. 2000)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21976118

Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Alcohol-impaired driving crashes account for nearly 11,000 crash fatalities, or about one third of all crash fatalities in the United States.
METHODS:
CDC analyzed data from the 2010 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System survey to obtain the prevalence, episodes, and rates of alcohol-impaired driving (defined as driving "when you've had perhaps too much to drink" in the past 30 days) among U.S. adults aged ≥18 years who responded to the survey by landline telephone.
RESULTS:
In 2010, an estimated 4 million U.S. adult respondents reported at least one episode of alcohol-impaired driving, for an estimated total of approximately 112 million alcohol-impaired driving episodes or 479 episodes per 1,000 adult population. From a peak in 2006, such episodes decreased 30% through 2010. Men accounted for 81% of all episodes with young men aged 21--34 years accounting for 32% of all episodes. Additionally, 85% of alcohol-impaired driving episodes were reported by persons who also reported binge drinking, and the 4.5% of the adult population who reported binge drinking at least four times per month accounted for 55% of all alcohol-impaired driving episodes. Episode rates were nearly four times higher among persons who reported not always wearing seatbelts compared with persons who reported always wearing seatbelts.
CONCLUSIONS:
Rates of self-reported alcohol-impaired driving have declined substantially in recent years. However, rates remain disproportionally high among young men, binge drinkers, and those who do not always wear a seat belt. IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH: States and communities should continue current evidence-based strategies, such as sobriety checkpoints and enforcement of 0.08 g/dL blood alcohol concentration laws to deter the public from driving while impaired. Additionally, all states should consider requiring ignition interlocks on the vehicles of all persons convicted of alcohol-impaired driving. States without primary seatbelt laws should consider enacting them to reduce fatalities in alcohol-impaired driving crashes.

Oh yeah. It's all MADD propaganda! You've found out the conspiracy!
 
2012-04-15 04:38:13 PM

lennavan: Aston said the department's new high-tech flashlights helped officers spend less time talking to individual drivers, cutting down on the time people were stopped at the checkpoint.

This is why every person through the checkpoint should just claim 5th amendment and refuse to say anything else. Nothing wrong with cops asking you questions, nothing wrong with not answering them either.




DRIVER: "Officer, i am asserting my constitutional right to refuse to answer your questions."

DUDLEY DORIGHT: "OK, that's a beatin' on the way to jail."

(Most likely outcome)
 
2012-04-15 04:38:19 PM

proton: StoPPeRmobile: proton: Asinine tag? REALLY?!? So It's asinine to farking save lives now?

Fark, you've reached a whole new level of disgust with me on this topic.

Is it really that hard to comprehend. What if the resources were put to other use?

What other use and why should you care if your not breaking any laws? Is that so hard to comprehend?


Well, for starters, how about actually training people how to drive and follow up with continuing education and training. I suspect that education is something that you frown upon.

Yes it is hard to comprehend why people can't learn the difference between "you're" and "your."

Asinine, indeed.
 
2012-04-15 04:39:08 PM

soupbone: I am not in that "don't break the law and you have nothing to worry about" group at all, but I also don't want to see innocent people getting mowed down by drunk assholes. So you tell me a better way. You can't just let the assholes drive around.


There needs to be a more concerted effort to detect dangerous driving rather than try to fake it by defining a bunch of arbitrary numbers and conditions as stand-ins. You're telling me the same guy is a significantly worse driver at .08 than at .07? Is he better or worse at .08 than the sober asshole texting while shaving in the next lane? What if they're both driving OK but the guy in the passing lane is just a plain old shiatty driver (I see PLENTY of those every day commuting)?

What matters is who's causing the problems. If that's a drunk guy, so be it -- but what matters is not his drinking but his driving.
 
2012-04-15 04:39:17 PM

Honest Bender: Gunderson: If thats the case, you'd better be wearing a seat belt while cycling in NY as well...

§ 1231. Traffic laws apply to persons riding bicycles or skating or gliding on in-line skates.

Every person riding a bicycle or skating or gliding on in-line skates upon a roadway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this title, except as to special regulations in this article and except as to those provisions of this title which by their nature can have no application.

Seems to me DWI laws would apply to bikers as well. Unless bikers are expressly exempt from that law.


This is my last post regarding DWI and bicycling in NYS...

If you can google 'bicyclist charged with DWI in New York' and find anyone (I'm sure that if it has happened, it would be newsworthy) that has been convicted of DWI while on a bicycle, I will concede this argument.

However, the point of my original post was as a reply to someone who drinks and drives home from a bar less than a mile from his house using back roads. I hope we can agree that bicycling instead of driving is the lesser of the two evils and probably would result in lesser legal trouble if caught, and the only person likely to die would be the cyclist.
 
2012-04-15 04:39:52 PM
Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: I think we could make the roads much safer by having texting checkpoints, don't you?

I think you're making an argument from absurdity.

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: There are laws against drinking and driving, too. Why not have checkpoints for all the illegal activities that people can engage in while in a vehicle? It's almost like the organization lobbying for DUI checkpoints is interested mainly in the consumption of alcohol, and not actually that interested in making the road's safer. Almost like they're operating from a prohibitionist mindset, not a roadway safety mindset.

And you'd have a point, if I were using MADD statistics, or arguing the from the standpoint of taking the same position as them.

Too bad I'm not.
 
2012-04-15 04:40:02 PM

BronyMedic: Nem Wan: Who's asserting a right to drive while toasted? I'm asserting a right to not be stopped and questioned when I haven't done anything.

Several people have claimed in this thread that evidence of drunk driving patterns are not probable legal/constitutional cause for the police to stop someone and conduct sobriety or BAC tests.


There is a huge distinction between being pulled over for displaying patterns of drunk driving, and for being stopped, as is every driver, drunk or sober, at a dui checkpoint.
 
2012-04-15 04:40:07 PM
 
2012-04-15 04:41:14 PM

BronyMedic: The way you are driving gives them probable cause. If they have cause to think your driving is a danger to safety, they can and will pull you over.

Reckless driving, itself, is illegal.


No shiat, dumbass! We're talking about sobriety checkpoints. The only "way I'm driving" is "down the street." That's not enough for probable cause. So any search they carry out is in violation of the constitution. The search is illegal. This isn't a complicated concept, dude.
 
2012-04-15 04:44:52 PM

Gunderson: I hope we can agree that bicycling instead of driving is the lesser of the two evils and probably would result in lesser legal trouble if caught, and the only person likely to die would be the cyclist.


I think we're on the same page here. All I was trying to point out is, according to NY law, bicyclists are subject to DWI laws unless explicitly exempted. Now, that's based off the ny.gov website which was quoting traffic regulations. I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of New York traffic law.
 
2012-04-15 04:46:24 PM

BronyMedic: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: I think we could make the roads much safer by having texting checkpoints, don't you?

I think you're making an argument from absurdity.

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: There are laws against drinking and driving, too. Why not have checkpoints for all the illegal activities that people can engage in while in a vehicle? It's almost like the organization lobbying for DUI checkpoints is interested mainly in the consumption of alcohol, and not actually that interested in making the road's safer. Almost like they're operating from a prohibitionist mindset, not a roadway safety mindset.

And you'd have a point, if I were using MADD statistics, or arguing the from the standpoint of taking the same position as them.

Too bad I'm not.


So, you think texting checkpoints are absurd. What's the qualitative difference between DUI checkpoints and texting checkpoints? Or checkpoints for any other type of illegal or distracted driving behavior?

You personally may not share MADD's views, but they are by far the leading lobbyist for DUI checkpoint laws. That's why I phrased by comments the way I did.

Also, all you posted is data linking alcohol consumption to an increased risk of crashed and fatalities. It says nothing about DUI checkpoints lowering that risk. We all know drinking and driving is dangerous, but that's irrelevant to the fact that DUI checkpoints are an inefficient and unconstitutional means of reducing drunk driving risks.
 
2012-04-15 04:47:46 PM

gojirast: My right to not be hassled when I have no alcohol in my system in violation of my constitutional rights


You certainly do have that right, don't drive and you'll never have to worry about it. Otherwise, the Supreme Court has ruled that DUI checkpoints are not a violation of your rights. Just because you say it is, doesn't make it so.
 
2012-04-15 04:47:53 PM

BronyMedic: steamingpile: Your "facts" are complete shiat, madd uses suspect gathering techniques which even gives an accident a DUI impairment if a passenger was drunk and the driver sober.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10807209

METHODS: In general, the relative risk of involvement in a fatal vehicle crash increased steadily with increasing driver BAC in every age/gender group among both fatally injured and surviving drivers. Among 16-20 year old male drivers, a BAC increase of 0.02% was estimated to more than double the relative risk of fatal single-vehicle crash injury. At the midpoint of the 0.08% - 0.10% BAC range, the relative risk of a fatal single-vehicle crash injury varied between 11.4 (drivers 35 and older) and 51.9 (male drivers, 16-20). With only very few exceptions, older drivers had lower risk of being fatally injured in a single-vehicle crash than younger drivers, as did women compared with men in the same age range. When comparable, results largely confirmed existing prior estimates.
CONCLUSIONS:
This is the first study that systematically estimated relative risk for drink-drivers with BACs between 0.08% and 0.10% (these relative risk estimates apply to BAC range midpoints at 0.09%.) The results clearly show that drivers with a BAC under 0.10% pose highly elevated risk both to themselves and to other road users. 2000)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21976118

Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Alcohol-impaired driving crashes account for nearly 11,000 crash fatalities, or about one third of all crash fatalities in the United States.
METHODS:
CDC analyzed data from the 2010 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System survey to obtain the prevalence, episodes, and rates of alcohol-impaired driving (defined as driving "when you've had perhaps too much to drink" in the past 30 days) among U.S. adults aged ≥18 years who responded to the survey by landline telephone.
RESULTS:
In 2010, an estimated 4 million U.S. adult respondents reported at least one episode of alcohol-impaired driving, for an estimated total of approximately 112 million alcohol-impaired driving episodes or 479 episodes per 1,000 adult population. From a peak in 2006, such episodes decreased 30% through 2010. Men accounted for 81% of all episodes with young men aged 21--34 years accounting for 32% of all episodes. Additionally, 85% of alcohol-impaired driving episodes were reported by persons who also reported binge drinking, and the 4.5% of the adult population who reported binge drinking at least four times per month accounted for 55% of all alcohol-impaired driving episodes. Episode rates were nearly four times higher among persons who reported not always wearing seatbelts compared with persons who reported always wearing seatbelts.
CONCLUSIONS:
Rates of self-reported alcohol-impaired driving have declined substantially in recent years. However, rates remain disproportionally high among young men, binge drinkers, and those who do not always wear a seat belt. IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH: States and communities should continue current evidence-based strategies, such as sobriety checkpoints and enforcement of 0.08 g/dL blood alcohol concentration laws to deter the public from driving while impaired. Additionally, all states should consider requiring ignition interlocks on the vehicles of all persons convicted of alcohol-impaired driving. States without primary seatbelt laws should consider enacting them to reduce fatalities in alcohol-impaired driving crashes.

Oh yeah. It's all MADD propaganda! You've found out the conspiracy!


Yes it is since they fund the studies those stats are based on, you really need to read up on their members and some of their testimony in front of congress.

They lie, DUIs count for a lot fewer fatalities than they lead on and if a drunk driver kills himself then who cares, a lot of drunk fatalities are single car accidents but scream about the few who cause innocents deaths.
 
2012-04-15 04:49:01 PM

soupbone: mongbiohazard: Giltric: Don't drink and drive.


You could probably tell who does by the complainers in this thread.


Uhhh, no. If you read the article you'll see that they arrested 6 people for DUI at their checkpoint.... however they reportedly stopped around 594 people who weren't DUI. For 6 who were. It sounds like an unreasonable search to me.

It looks like a success to me. 6 assholes were removed from the road and prevented from possibly killing innocent people. Success.


Granted; let's get those guys off the streets and in jail. But are you ok with police writing tickets or impounding cars for other minor, and unrelated, offenses?

http://www.10news.com/news/28455793/detail.html
 
2012-04-15 04:51:27 PM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: badhatharry: LiberalEastCoastElitist: The entitlement attitude in this thread is terrifying. The primary reason we (democratically) legislated DUI laws and buy breathalyzers to put in cop cars and pay cops to be pulling people over at 3am is because the majority of us got tired of our family members and friends being chewed up in horrible alcohol related accidents. Car accidents are a major cause of death and disability in young adults, and a substantial fraction of those are alcohol related. So to all y'all DUIers biatching about sobriety stops, you can look at yourself and your drinking buddies as the people responsible for this "overreach" of government. I sincerely do not believe there would be such a thing as a sobriety stop if all the cops had to show for freezing their butts off for hours in the middle of the night was a busted headlight and someone with expired registration. I can see there being argument that there isn't probable cause for sobriety stops at 3pm, but in the wee hours of a weekend morning something like 1 in 3 drivers have been drinking. If you are out drinking so much that you can't afford a taxi, maybe you should consider treatment. Binge drinking isn't exactly good for you.

/I know, I'm a fascist. etc etc etc
//My constitutional right to my body and property > your "right" to drive while toasted

I agree that driving while actually drunk is a serious crime. But shouldn't we also have random checkpoints after every bank robbery, murder, or kidnapping?

Or random searches of pedestrians on the sidewalk. Think of all the drugs, weapons, contraband, illegal aliens, etc... That could be found simply but searching every person on the street.

And think of all the kiddie porn, meth labs, etc... That could be found by raiding every persons house or apartment.

Rights are apparently meaningless as long as 6 people are possibly preventing from harming someone.


Don't go giving anybody ideas, now...
 
2012-04-15 04:52:26 PM

BronyMedic: There are laws regarding texting while driving. It will get you pulled over, and is a probable cause to do so.


It won't get you pulled over in lots of states. It's not even an offense in many yet.

There are also ways to tell if you HAVE been texting or using the 'net prior to an accident, and lawyers have recently built their careers on doing just that.

Many states say you can use a phone if it's in a hands-free rig. So if my phone is in its clamp I can legally thumbs-down a song on Pandora, but if it's not, I can't. Now after an accident where my phone got tossed through the windshield, how are you going to tell which was the case?
 
2012-04-15 04:55:14 PM

dwlf: soupbone: mongbiohazard: Giltric: Don't drink and drive.


You could probably tell who does by the complainers in this thread.


Uhhh, no. If you read the article you'll see that they arrested 6 people for DUI at their checkpoint.... however they reportedly stopped around 594 people who weren't DUI. For 6 who were. It sounds like an unreasonable search to me.

It looks like a success to me. 6 assholes were removed from the road and prevented from possibly killing innocent people. Success.

Granted; let's get those guys off the streets and in jail. But are you ok with police writing tickets or impounding cars for other minor, and unrelated, offenses?

http://www.10news.com/news/28455793/detail.html


I agree that is the slippery slope of these checkpoints. Minor traffic offenses would hopefully not result in being jailed anyway. Tickets? If the original ruling bt the SCOTUS is that DUI checkpoints are constitutional, then it should be limited to that specific activity unless there is open and apparent criminal activity going on. Notice I bolded criminal. Most traffic offenses are not listed under a states criminal statutes.
 
2012-04-15 04:59:24 PM

soupbone: then it should be limited to that specific activity unless there is open and apparent criminal activity going on.


Cops run plates all the time when out on patrol. If they find that a vehicle has violations, they pull them over. Are you saying that they should be prohibited from doing that?
 
2012-04-15 05:00:13 PM

9beers: gojirast: My right to not be hassled when I have no alcohol in my system in violation of my constitutional rights

You certainly do have that right, don't drive and you'll never have to worry about it. Otherwise, the Supreme Court has ruled that DUI checkpoints are not a violation of your rights. Just because you say it is, doesn't make it so.


Actually, they ruled that it was an exception to the constitution. Meaning that they admit it is a violation of your rights, but it's totally worth it because we gotta catch them drunk drivers. Because they're drivin' drunk, ya know.
 
2012-04-15 05:01:08 PM
If DUI laws upset you, please, keep drinking and driving.

And if you have kids, PLEASE include them in your drunken excursions.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-04-15 05:01:45 PM

9beers: soupbone: then it should be limited to that specific activity unless there is open and apparent criminal activity going on.

Cops run plates all the time when out on patrol. If they find that a vehicle has violations, they pull them over. Are you saying that they should be prohibited from doing that?


Ugh, that happened to me a while back. My tag was expired... have you seen the new light systems they have on newer police cruisers? Scared the shiat out of me, I thought I was being abducted by the mothership.
 
2012-04-15 05:02:02 PM

Weaver95: Evelyn McKee, manager of the area chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, looked on late Friday as officers made contact with drivers. She said getting even one intoxicated person off the road makes a difference.

MADD are fanatics.


My 14 year old nephew and his friend were walking down the sidewalk and were killed by a drunk driver. If you think stopping people who drink and drive is fanatical you are probably one of those assholes who has a drinking and driving problem and should be jailed before you kill someone. Sadly, the only way people like you learn is when your childs brains ends up on some drunks truck grill.
 
2012-04-15 05:04:25 PM

Mija: Weaver95: Evelyn McKee, manager of the area chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, looked on late Friday as officers made contact with drivers. She said getting even one intoxicated person off the road makes a difference.

MADD are fanatics.

My 14 year old nephew and his friend were walking down the sidewalk and were killed by a drunk driver. If you think stopping people who drink and drive is fanatical you are probably one of those assholes who has a drinking and driving problem and should be jailed before you kill someone. Sadly, the only way people like you learn is when your childs brains ends up on some drunks truck grill.


DUI checkpoints are a very inefficient way of stopping people who drink and drive.
 
2012-04-15 05:05:04 PM

9beers: soupbone: then it should be limited to that specific activity unless there is open and apparent criminal activity going on.

Cops run plates all the time when out on patrol. If they find that a vehicle has violations, they pull them over. Are you saying that they should be prohibited from doing that?


I've always been on the fence about those cameras. Vehicle are required to be legally registered and basically ok's to be on the road by the local and state governments. This means that they are regulated. That means that the police scanning these plates (in a public setting) aren't necessarily doing anything other than checking for valid registration right? I think by then taking the registered owners name and checking it against warrants is where we begin to see individual rights eroded. I honestly am not sure about my opinion when it reaches that point. You want criminals removed from society to face their charges, but at the cost of what personal freedoms? All of these arguments end up being based on your own personal level of what you feel is an acceptable amount. There really isn't a right or wrong in that sense.
 
2012-04-15 05:05:09 PM

soupbone: mongbiohazard: Giltric: Don't drink and drive.


You could probably tell who does by the complainers in this thread.


Uhhh, no. If you read the article you'll see that they arrested 6 people for DUI at their checkpoint.... however they reportedly stopped around 594 people who weren't DUI. For 6 who were. It sounds like an unreasonable search to me.

It looks like a success to me. 6 assholes were removed from the road and prevented from possibly killing innocent people. Success.


Sounds like an incredible waste of manpower to tag 6 drunks. Actively searching for drunk drivers produces higher numbers. The city/county wants to get the low dangling fruit that rakes in cash with minimal effort (e.g., expired tags or other minor infractions) under the guise of a DUI checkpoint.
 
2012-04-15 05:06:45 PM

soupbone: 9beers: soupbone: then it should be limited to that specific activity unless there is open and apparent criminal activity going on.

Cops run plates all the time when out on patrol. If they find that a vehicle has violations, they pull them over. Are you saying that they should be prohibited from doing that?

I've always been on the fence about those cameras. Vehicles are required to be legally registered and basically ok'd to be on the road by the local and state governments. This means that they are regulated. That means that the police scanning these plates (in a public setting) aren't necessarily doing anything other than checking for valid registration right? I think by then taking the registered owners name and checking it against warrants is where we begin to see individual rights eroded. I honestly am not sure about my opinion when it reaches that point. You want criminals removed from society to face their charges, but at the cost of what personal freedoms? All of these arguments end up being based on your own personal level of what you feel is an acceptable amount. There really isn't a right or wrong in that sense.


I should preview before hitting submit.
 
2012-04-15 05:09:28 PM

soupbone: dwlf: soupbone: mongbiohazard: Giltric: Don't drink and drive.


You could probably tell who does by the complainers in this thread.


Uhhh, no. If you read the article you'll see that they arrested 6 people for DUI at their checkpoint.... however they reportedly stopped around 594 people who weren't DUI. For 6 who were. It sounds like an unreasonable search to me.

It looks like a success to me. 6 assholes were removed from the road and prevented from possibly killing innocent people. Success.

Granted; let's get those guys off the streets and in jail. But are you ok with police writing tickets or impounding cars for other minor, and unrelated, offenses?

http://www.10news.com/news/28455793/detail.html

I agree that is the slippery slope of these checkpoints. Minor traffic offenses would hopefully not result in being jailed anyway. Tickets? If the original ruling bt the SCOTUS is that DUI checkpoints are constitutional, then it should be limited to that specific activity unless there is open and apparent criminal activity going on. Notice I bolded criminal. Most traffic offenses are not listed under a states criminal statutes.


Unfortunately, we are at the bottom of that slippery slope. Read the link (it's not very detailed, sadly). The gist is that more cars were being impounded at checkpoints for non dui related offenses than for dui related offenses. California just passed a law to keep this type of crap from happening
 
2012-04-15 05:09:49 PM

ramblinwreck:

Sounds like an incredible waste of manpower to tag 6 drunks. Actively searching for drunk drivers produces higher numbers. The city/county wants to get the low dangling fruit that rakes in cash with minimal effort (e.g., expired tags or other minor infractions) under the guise of a DUI checkpoint.


Exactly. Which is why anytime you see a report of DUI checkpoints, it's always, "8 arrested for DUI, 17 arrested or ticketing for other infractions during DUI checkpoint."

If people were really interested in preventing people from driving under the influence, checkpoints would be the worst option by far.
 
2012-04-15 05:10:05 PM
The funny thing about DUI checkpoints is that it was a Michigan case the led to the Supreme Court ruling and in all my years of living here, I've never seen a checkpoint. What I do see from time to time is police hanging out around bars and then pulling over random vehicles as they leave. The one time I've been through a DUI checkpoint was in Canada.
 
2012-04-15 05:12:39 PM
From a recent checkpoint here locally:

The Pinellas County Sheriff's Office arrested 25 people, 10 on DUI charges, during two sobriety checkpoints on Friday night and Saturday morning.

Link (new window)

I wonder how many drunks were involved in crashes while those cops stopped, searched, arrested, and processed those 15 people for non-DUI charges at a wink wink "DUI" checkpoint.
 
2012-04-15 05:15:25 PM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: From a recent checkpoint here locally:

The Pinellas County Sheriff's Office arrested 25 people, 10 on DUI charges, during two sobriety checkpoints on Friday night and Saturday morning.

Link (new window)

I wonder how many drunks were involved in crashes while those cops stopped, searched, arrested, and processed those 15 people for non-DUI charges at a wink wink "DUI" checkpoint.


This is not a defense of the checkpoint, but as I pointed out earlier, most checkpoints are funded by grants and being worked by off duty officers. The regular shift workers are not usually working them. Now, you could argue that it would be more beneficial to have those guys patrolling instead.
 
2012-04-15 05:15:35 PM

Nem Wan: Giltric: Nem Wan: Giltric: Don't drink and drive.


You could probably tell who does by the complainers in this thread.

Because the police would never try to create a pretext to search your vehicle or possessions or bust you for anything else but DUI at these checkpoints.

If they found some guy who had a 12 year old girl in the back seat with blood running down her legs and duct tape covering her mouth and binding her wrists at one of these checkpoints you wouldn't want the cop to do or be able to do anything about it?

Of course they should be able to do something about it, but DUI checkpoints should not be justified even slightly by the notion that it's an opportunity to detain and question people without there needing to be any complaint or suspicion.


That's why they call it a safety check. Then they can create suspicion to check for DUI.
 
2012-04-15 05:16:03 PM

Weaver95: 9beers: I have the right to a chance of getting away with a crime, dammit!

That's pretty much the argument some of you are making.

if we're going to bother having a bill of rights in the first place, than we should...I dunno...use it.


Just because some silly powdered-wig wearing fops 250 years ago thought it would be a good idea to risk letting some criminals go if it meant reducing/eliminating the risk of wrongfully punishing people.

Get with the program, Weaver95. If you have ever had any alcohol and if you have ever driven a car, you are a drunk driver and should be flayed alive in a saltwater bath.

(Just kidding. We can't extract money from dead people. That's why we allow drunk drivers to get their licenses back right away, that way they can still make money and pay the fines and the tithes to MADD.)
 
2012-04-15 05:16:12 PM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: In all seriousness, this is the horrific result of drinking and driving:

[hubgarage.s3.amazonaws.com image 600x450]

Just kidding! It's the result of texting and driving. I guess we should set up checkpoints that allow the police to search your phone to see if you've texted anyone recently.


I wonder if people would have a problem with that. Stop at a checkpoint and hand over your phone. It's the same as what happens at a DUI checkpoint except they are checking you instead of your phone.
 
2012-04-15 05:16:40 PM
Alright, BRB, gotta go buy some more booze
 
2012-04-15 05:17:19 PM

fredklein: No. I should be free to do as I please (which includes driving), as long as I don't harm anyone else.


Let's take that to its logical conclusion: Do you believe you should be able to drive 150 mph through a school zone as long as you don't harm anyone else?
 
2012-04-15 05:18:38 PM
I've read everything needed to form an opinion. People who don't drink hate drunk drivers but love constitutional protection. People who drink and drive on the occasional foray are assholes who wish they didn't get caught. People who drive while drunk on a regular basis know how to do it and know how to avoid the circumstances.

I know where I stand.
 
2012-04-15 05:18:47 PM

CruiserTwelve: Let's take that to its logical conclusion: Do you believe you should be able to drive 150 mph through a school zone as long as you don't harm anyone else?


Yes, dammit! I know my driving abilities.
 
2012-04-15 05:18:54 PM

StoPPeRmobile: proton: StoPPeRmobile: proton: Asinine tag? REALLY?!? So It's asinine to farking save lives now?

Fark, you've reached a whole new level of disgust with me on this topic.

Is it really that hard to comprehend. What if the resources were put to other use?

What other use and why should you care if your not breaking any laws? Is that so hard to comprehend?

Well, for starters, how about actually training people how to drive and follow up with continuing education and training. I suspect that education is something that you frown upon.

Yes it is hard to comprehend why people can't learn the difference between "you're" and "your."

Asinine, indeed.


Do you seriously believe a class that tells you not to drink and drive is going to be very effective in this alcohol soaked society? I like the idea, but I seriously doubt it's effectiveness.

Thanks for the grammar correction :D
 
2012-04-15 05:22:16 PM

LineNoise: My checkpoint story, maybe someone could explain it to me.

I rolled up on one about a year ago outside the horse track. Surprisingly they were making good business outside a race track at 11pm on dollar beer night. Anyway, I'm not someone who drinks and drives, but it was dollar beer night, and I had a beer.

So the cop asks if I had been drinking, and being honest, I say, "yea, it was dollar beer night, I know you probably hear this from everyone, but I had A beer".

So he tells me to pull to the side, and I get to do the whole follow the flashlight thing for a bit while he tries to trip me up with questions, and then sends me on my way, seeing as I was stone cold sober.

Anyway, my question is, why didn't they just breathalyzer me right on the spot? By law i have to consent to it, or its basically an automatic DUI. I would have been happy to do so, and he would have saved both of us time.

By not, didn't he risk the chance of me just being good with the tests and him unleashing a drunk guy on the road?


This may vary depending on where you are, but in my state, the breath tests are on the Intoxilyzer machine, which is not portable, and they don't bring them to checkpoints. Standard procedure is, first you are asked a bunch of questions, then field sobriety test, then arrest the driver. Once arrested you transport them to the machine and give them a chance to blow.

If you refuse to blow, you're booked anyway, and you lose your license. If I had to guess, the breath test comes post-arrest so that the administrative consequences of refusing to blow- ie, losing your license- will not create the same constitutional problems they might if they tried to yank your license when you hadn't even been arrested based on probable cause. As a practical matter, trying to transport the breath machines might jack with their calibration; and, of course, they cannot cuff you and transport you to their machine without admitting that your encounter is now an actual arrest. Possibly too, there is the cost and time consumed in breath tests, which if I recall correctly can take 15 minutes or more and are usually recorded on video.

All of which is why you should probably NEVER do the field sobriety tests. They are putting their case together then and there, and often arrest based on flimsy evidence. By the time you see an Intoxilyzer you are not going home that night. Refusing to blow at that point, just makes you look more guilty in cop- and DA-thinking. And is generally admissible against you.

But if you've truly not been drinking, you might consider the breath test.

Your situation sounds like the cop did his job correctly. For once. You were foolish enough to admit drinking, but you showed no sign of intoxication, so he didn't arrest you and you never had to see the machine.
 
2012-04-15 05:25:10 PM
Honest Bender: So any search they carry out is in violation of the constitution. The search is illegal.

Again. That is your interpretation. The SCOTUS does not share it. Certain States prohibit them as a matter of legislation, but this does not render them unconstitutional.

Sorry. Your interpretation does not carry legal weight in the United States. Disagree with it? Fine. Admit it's something you disagree with. But don't go around throwing the weight of the constitution behind it when legal jurisprudence doesn't agree with you.
 
2012-04-15 05:25:51 PM
steamingpile: Yes it is since they fund the studies those stats are based on, you really need to read up on their members and some of their testimony in front of congress.

MADD funds the CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report?

Really?
 
2012-04-15 05:29:52 PM

BronyMedic: StoPPeRmobile: You used the term "abnormal" did you not?

I called you on your use of a strawman argument to try to prove your point was correct.


Well, sure you can go that route. I don't think it's helpful in this matter. I hate the fact that driving is so dangerous and that we "seem" to have to drive so often. I'd like to see a solution to the "problem." so, do I really need to point out that a question is not necessarily an argument? So your response appears to be argumentum ad hominem. :)

"Abnormal" as a term appear to be nebulous hence the reason for the question... ass.

:)

/Medical... I knew it.
//reMspect
 
2012-04-15 05:30:30 PM

crab66: Jerseysteve22: NEVER admit to having just 'one beer'. You automatically give them probable cause when you do. Always deny. Remember being honest with cops will hurt you in the long run. They're there to arrest you, don't help them out with it.

Worst advice ever.


No, that's actually good advice. If you get pulled over and asked how many drinks you've had, the only answer that won't result in a test is "none". "None" won't necessarily get you out of it, but any other answer will automatically trigger an investigation into how intoxicated you are.

Think of it this way: when you here "drinks" replace it with "grams of cocaine". Would you admit to a cop that you blazed even a single gram of cocaine before you got behind the wheel? No.

Treat one like it was the other and you have a better idea of what the cop is trying to assess at a traffic stop.
 
2012-04-15 05:34:46 PM

someahole: No, that's actually good advice. If you get pulled over and asked how many drinks you've had, the only answer that won't result in a test is "none". "None" won't necessarily get you out of it, but any other answer will automatically trigger an investigation into how intoxicated you are.


Yes, saying "none" when most likely, the officer can already smell alcohol, is great advice.
 
2012-04-15 05:36:23 PM

BronyMedic: steamingpile: Yes it is since they fund the studies those stats are based on, you really need to read up on their members and some of their testimony in front of congress.

MADD funds the CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report?

Really?


Now read that report and find out that data was culled from numerous sources, don't think the cdc went out and collected all this data themselves, they used other existing reports to arrive at this conclusion. Those reports have outside funding that madd supports, they are basically lobbying to have their viewpoint supported.

Its like they try and say these laws are soley responsible for dui fatalities dropping so far since 1980, when in reality car safety upgrades are primarily the reason for the drop.

Its a subtle twist that simpletons accept as 100% fact.
 
2012-04-15 05:36:36 PM
nice addition on the left, Weaver
 
2012-04-15 05:36:40 PM
StoPPeRmobile: I hate the fact that driving is so dangerous and that we "seem" to have to drive so often. I'd like to see a solution to the "problem." so, do I really need to point out that a question is not necessarily an argument?

Except that you're making an absurd statement, and trying to argue it from a position of it being both realistic and a fact. It is neither.

Driving itsself has risks. No one has argued that is not the case. But those risks can be managed and mitigated. Don't drive intoxicated. (Yes. Intoxicated. Medication and drugs can intoxicate just as much as alcohol.) Don't text while driving. Don't speed. Don't run red lights. And don't cry how it's unfair when you willingly do any of the above and get caught.

You also agreed to follow these rules for the privilege of driving. Operation of a motor vehicle is not a right you are granted. You also agreed to submit to a sobriety check when an officer of the law pulls you over for reasonable suspicion of driving intoxicated when you took that license and signed the forums at the DMV to either get it, or renew it.
 
2012-04-15 05:37:14 PM

9beers: The funny thing about DUI checkpoints is that it was a Michigan case the led to the Supreme Court ruling and in all my years of living here, I've never seen a checkpoint. What I do see from time to time is police hanging out around bars and then pulling over random vehicles as they leave. The one time I've been through a DUI checkpoint was in Canada.


The funny thing is the Rhenquist Court didn't have the balls to call it what it really is - a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

When the case returned to Michigan the Michigan Supreme Court then found it unconstitutional under the Michigan Constitution which is why you've never a checkpoint there.

Sadly the linked article is from my town. I can't figure out why you would brag about wasting money and harrassing 600 innocent people but we have morons at all levels of government, apparently.
 
2012-04-15 05:38:02 PM

BronyMedic: Honest Bender: So any search they carry out is in violation of the constitution. The search is illegal.

Again. That is your interpretation. The SCOTUS does not share it. Certain States prohibit them as a matter of legislation, but this does not render them unconstitutional.


Read the opinion for the SCOTUS case. Their basic opinion was that it only violates your rights a little, so it's ok. Let me spell that out for you: SCOTUS agrees with me, not you. But they decided that getting drunk drivers off the road was more important than following the law. Check points are a government sanctioned violation of your constitutional rights. That's my opinion. That's the opinion of the SCOTUS.
 
Displayed 50 of 738 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report