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?

Mugato: Giltric: Don't drink and drive.


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

Yeah only drunks care about their Constitutional rights.

No plenty of people care about their constitutional rights, far to few care about the constitutional rights of others.....its kind of like the fark you I got mine mentality.

FormlessOne: The real problem is that, in this age of technology, we still sell cars that allow an inebriated driver to operate them.

Or that we sell guns that don't detect danger. Or parachutes that don't detect if they're properly fastened. Or Peanuts that don't detect if you're allergic before you eat them.

The flashlights have been around for a while, but aren't used in many places as they are not approved methods of detection in court. That's not to say they don't work, but depts. have to follow procedures and, if the flashlight isn't issued by the dept., it can't be used.

That said.... why can't people stop drinking and driving? There are so many complaints about cops "cheating" by catching the drunks before they mow someone down... maybe if people would think before acting so stupid, then we wouldn't have to have such enforcement efforts. Put the blame where it belongs. If you're a drunk and driving, then you're stupid and deserve whatever happens.

Here's a cheapo version $4.17 (new window)

Giltric: Don't drink and drive.


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

The problem is that they keep ratcheting the limits lower and lower.

Or is it realistic to sequester oneself for 24 hours after drinking half a beer?

Bit'O'Gristle: Having a drivers license is a privilege, not a right. To do so, you must comply with laws in effect. If these laws save lives, i have no problem stopping at a dui checkpoint, as I'm not a asshole who goes out and gets drunk, and doesn't worry about anyone but themselves.

The problem reasonable people have is the penalities for someone blowing just over an arbitrarily low number are severely out of wack with the penalities that other, far more dangerous behaviors behind the wheel entail.

Which do you want, some guy who can hold his booze fine and had half a glass of wine too much at dinner roll up on a checkpoint and get pinched when he was driving just fine, or my girlfriend, who is a terrible driver, half a wake and texting on her cell phone while driving down a busy road?

One person is looking at thousands in fines, maybe jail time and possibly his career being screwed up. The other is looking at a $100 or so fine, EVEN if she actually hits someone\something.

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?

clipperbox: 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?

i believe that the reason was that he was trying to build a case against you. even after 1 beer, the breathalyzer would not have helped his case against you, but any trip up at all on their little dexterity test, he could use it against you.

Which is fine, but then wouldn't I still have to blow if they wanted to prove a DUI?

FormlessOne: The real problem is that, in this age of technology, we still sell cars that allow an inebriated driver to operate them.

They sell kits you can install. You should give them out as birthday presents to all your friends and family.

gojirast: They're not there to promote safety, they're there to promote REVENUE for the PD.

And if morons stop drinking and driving, that revenue dries up. Maybe they'll come up with some other scam, maybe not, but fining and inconveniencing people who are that stupid is very low on my list of things to be Constitutionally concerned about.

checkpoint chickie (new window)

_{blatantly stolen from the articles comments.}

badhatharry: FormlessOne: The real problem is that, in this age of technology, we still sell cars that allow an inebriated driver to operate them.

They sell kits you can install. You should give them out as birthday presents to all your friends and family.

Here is the million dollar question. We are probably 10 or so years away from a car that can reasonably avoid an accident on its own, if not just drive you home on its own all knight rider fashion. Hell, our new car today will stop itself if I try and drive it into a wall, and will match the car in front of mines speed just by pushing a button.

Do you honestly think the penalties or threshold for a DUI will be relaxed when that is factored in?

In Louisiana, this was ruled illegal years ago

crab66: fredklein: Heck, in some places, cops have been known to actually go into a bar and arrest people for that very thing.

Please show me an example of this happening where people were not being obnoxious dickheads.

That's a good one... a bar where people weren't being obnoxious dickheads.

clipperbox:
i honestly don't know if they need that, but his testimony that you appeared impaired is what he was looking for; that is what i'm guessing. if you really smelled of beer, he might've gone for the breathalyzer though to save himself some time to try to bust you.

It was just a weird experience. I watched them cuff and stuff like 3 people while they were talking to me. My point is, if they were looking for any reason to bust me, it was wrong, because I honestly only had one beer and was fine. If saftey is the real reason for these, they should just be going right to the breathalyzer, because the limit is so low now that anyone blowing under is absolutely no danger on the road.

BunkoSquad: gojirast: They're not there to promote safety, they're there to promote REVENUE for the PD.

And if morons stop drinking and driving, that revenue dries up. Maybe they'll come up with some other scam, maybe not, but fining and inconveniencing people who are that stupid is very low on my list of things to be Constitutionally concerned about.

We need a dumbest comment button.

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?



They have to follow the same procedure each and every time... treating each person exactly the same. Otherwise, sleazy lawyers and anti-police people will be filing lawsuits because the police deviated from their procedures.

He may have seen that you appeared okay, but still had to do the initial tests to avoid any liability issues later (such as you drive into someone down the road, then are found to be intoxicated... the first cop would be in trouble). Since you admitted drinking beer, that would be another push towards continuing with the investigation. The preliminary tests (I assume you meant HGN... because of the mention of the flashlight) may have indicated a possibility of intoxication, so he had to move to the next step. If he had just jumped to the breath test, again... the legal screwballs would have been all over the issue of consistency.

It might have been slightly inconveniencing, but at least the cops are trying to prevent the sloshing drunks from continuing down the road. I'd rather be delayed a short time than have the drunks let loose to damage and maim others.