What do you think about DUI checkpoints?

[SsupernovaE]

If they're going to have them, they need to be randomized so that random idiots can't advertise the best way to avoid them while shitfaced.

 

[moshquerade]

the only ones who fear them are drunks

 

[jlee]

They're alright with me, but they're 'advertised' ahead of time up here. Would be nice to double patrols on the convenient 'bypass' roads during the time of the checkpoint...

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: CadetLee
They're alright with me, but they're 'advertised' ahead of time up here. Would be nice to double patrols on the convenient 'bypass' roads during the time of the checkpoint...

Here in Modesto, the cops usually set up a perimeter several blocks around the DUI checkpoints. Anyone who makes a u-turn or turns off close to the checkpoint is likely to get stopped and scrutinized carefully. Yes, that sets up some slippery-slope arguments, but since it's been proven (at least here) that if people SEE the DUI checkpoint and have a reason to believe they might be ticketed or even arrested, they will then try to avoid said checkpoint...

The cops usually announce they will be having DUI checkpoints on certain days, but don't disclose the location. That falls to the local radio stations who pass on reports from motorists. :roll:

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: CadetLee
They're alright with me, but they're 'advertised' ahead of time up here. Would be nice to double patrols on the convenient 'bypass' roads during the time of the checkpoint...

Here in Modesto, the cops usually set up a perimeter several blocks around the DUI checkpoints. Anyone who makes a u-turn or turns off close to the checkpoint is likely to get stopped and scrutinized carefully. Yes, that sets up some slippery-slope arguments, but since it's been proven (at least here) that if people SEE the DUI checkpoint and have a reason to believe they might be ticketed or even arrested, they will then try to avoid said checkpoint...

The cops usually announce they will be having DUI checkpoints on certain days, but don't disclose the location. That falls to the local radio stations who pass on reports from motorists. :roll:

I could see anything coming from such a stop being challenged in court..that's definitely on the iffy side..

 

[altonb1]

Originally posted by: moshquerade
the only ones who fear them are drunks

I don't think anyone here has said they were fearful of them--just annoyed by them.

My biggest issue is they cause backups on the road and they use it as a catch-all for everything - seatbelts, registration expirations, etc. I admit that I don't always buckly my seatbelt, but that should be MY decision.

I would also like to see them concentrate on additional patrols and/or quicker response times when an erratic driver is reported. I have called state police numerous times to report suspected DUI drivers. I have literally followed a guy for 20 minutes AFTER calling it in and never saw a cop show up even though I gave them exact info on where we were and the direction we were heading.

DUI checkpoints really don't catch many people. They simply increase revenue for the district/state/whatever when they issue the "extra" tickets in the process.

 

[pstylesss]

Originally posted by: Mojoed
For some strange reason, this thread reminds me of that Best Buy thread where someone threw a fit over being asked to show their receipt.

I'm willing to bet the people who think DUI checkpoints are a bad idea are the same people who would refuse to show their receipt when asked.

DUI checkpoints save lives. Period. You are selfish if you think checkpoints are stupid just because it costs you a few minutes of your time. It seems some of you take this personally.

It's about saving lives, not about your convenience. Get over yourselves.

We take your freedom away for your safety. Pretty soon we'll have checkpoints at state lines to make sure we don't have warrants out, for our safety of course.

:thumbsdown:

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: altonb1

Originally posted by: moshquerade
the only ones who fear them are drunks

I don't think anyone here has said they were fearful of them--just annoyed by them.

My biggest issue is they cause backups on the road and they use it as a catch-all for everything - seatbelts, registration expirations, etc. I admit that I don't always buckly my seatbelt, but that should be MY decision.

I would also like to see them concentrate on additional patrols and/or quicker response times when an erratic driver is reported. I have called state police numerous times to report suspected DUI drivers. I have literally followed a guy for 20 minutes AFTER calling it in and never saw a cop show up even though I gave them exact info on where we were and the direction we were heading.

DUI checkpoints really don't catch many people. They simply increase revenue for the district/state/whatever when they issue the "extra" tickets in the process.

if only one person is caught at a checkpoint drinking and driving and had otherwise driven down the road and killed someone, the inconvenience to any other citizens is negligible.

 

[Killerme33]

While I do support them, it seems strange to me that they are legal. I thought a cop had to have a reasonable suspicion to pull you over?

 

[Squisher]

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: AlienCraft

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: AlienCraft

Originally posted by: BoomerD
I'd like to see them used more often, and in more places...like outside every bar or tavern.

Oh, that would be profiling.
profiling = the bad.

If police could enforce deportation orders, we could seriously affect crime rates. But noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo, they aren't ALLOWED !!

And if they just jailed all men, rape would be almost nonexistant.

You can go ahead and live in your homogeneous pod-person society if you want.

Sarcasm meter dead, wtf do you mean?

'Jail all men' Preemptively , I assume?
This is probably the singular most asinine response I've ever seen on ATOT.

Sorta like your belief that illegal immigrants commit the vast majority of crimes, huh?

Originally posted by: moshquerade
if only one person is caught at a checkpoint drinking and driving and had otherwise driven down the road and killed someone, the inconvenience to any other citizens is negligible.

That's exactly the same argument that they used to take away our water bottles at the airport, or push through the patriot act.

Don't get me wrong, I'm totally against drunk driving...but if we supported any measure which drove down accident statistics, however small, none of us could have cars in the first place.

 

[Squisher]

Originally posted by: moshquerade
the only ones who fear them are drunks

if only one person is caught at a checkpoint drinking and driving and had otherwise driven down the road and killed someone, the inconvenience to any other citizens is negligible.

I think you need to reread The United States Constitution and the Federalist Papers.

 

[SampSon]

I don't have a problem with them. DUI stops have very little to do with privacy, if anything at all.
You're driving a car that is most likely registered with the state, on a public road owned by the state and performing an action that is licensed by the state.
The car you are in does not have the same rights as your real property (house, for the laymen). You have limited rights while on state owned property.
Next time you enter a court house or state building and they want to do a security check on you, just tell them it's violating your privacy and see how far that goes.

DUI checks do very little but generate revenue, generate stats that help generate revenue and provide many with 'feel good legislation'.
Roadblocks are less effective than standard rolling patrols and do next to nothing in the overall picture of drinking and driving.
Thinking that DUI checks have a significant or even measureable impact on drinking and driving and the issues it creates is deluding yourself.

They may be inconvenient and a waste of police protection funds but if you're not drinking and driving then you have little to worry about.
Just make sure you clear out all the pot smoke before you roll the window down.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: altonb1

Originally posted by: moshquerade
the only ones who fear them are drunks

I don't think anyone here has said they were fearful of them--just annoyed by them.

My biggest issue is they cause backups on the road and they use it as a catch-all for everything - seatbelts, registration expirations, etc. I admit that I don't always buckly my seatbelt, but that should be MY decision.

I would also like to see them concentrate on additional patrols and/or quicker response times when an erratic driver is reported. I have called state police numerous times to report suspected DUI drivers. I have literally followed a guy for 20 minutes AFTER calling it in and never saw a cop show up even though I gave them exact info on where we were and the direction we were heading.

DUI checkpoints really don't catch many people. They simply increase revenue for the district/state/whatever when they issue the "extra" tickets in the process.

I have no problem with you choosing to wear a seatbelt or not, but if you go flying through your windshield in a 30 mph crash and require $100,000 in care I have no problem making you pay for it either.

 

[waggy]

DUI checkpoints are nothing more then a way to make money for the department. it has been shown they really do not have a effect.


while i don't support htem they really have no effect on my life

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: SampSon
I don't have a problem with them.

They may be inconvenient and a waste of police protection funds but if you're not drinking and driving then you have little to worry about.

Another supporter of the pussification of America.

Do you keep your papers in a plastic sleeve hanging around your neck?

 

[meltdown75]

depends if i have a buzz or not.

 

[Linflas]

I detest them as I suspect the authors of this document would have had they lived to see law abiding citizens subjected to random stops and checks while going about their lawful business.

 

[Mojoed]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

if only one person is caught at a checkpoint drinking and driving and had otherwise driven down the road and killed someone, the inconvenience to any other citizens is negligible.

EXACTLY.

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

Originally posted by: Mojoed
For some strange reason, this thread reminds me of that Best Buy thread where someone threw a fit over being asked to show their receipt.

I'm willing to bet the people who think DUI checkpoints are a bad idea are the same people who would refuse to show their receipt when asked.

DUI checkpoints save lives. Period. You are selfish if you think checkpoints are stupid just because it costs you a few minutes of your time. It seems some of you take this personally.

It's about saving lives, not about your convenience. Get over yourselves.

We take your freedom away for your safety. Pretty soon we'll have checkpoints at state lines to make sure we don't have warrants out, for our safety of course.

:thumbsdown:

Give me a break. I will never eeeeeeeever buy into this. We will never have checkpoints at state lines like that. I know your type. "Ohhh, but what's to stop them from passing new laws that allow for stops at state lines, etc" Common friggen sense, that's what. Just because "A" happens does not necessarily mean "B" will happen. The only people who should worry are drunks.

You people take the constitution too literally. I don't believe for a second our fore-fathers would have an issue with DUI stops had it been something they actually envisioned. You'll argue forever that the fact that these stops occur means our rights, freedoms and liberties are automatically eroding. The only thing that's eroding is common sense. DUI stops do not take away freedom. You're free to go where ever the hell you want. The definition of freedom for some people is really out there. Using my example above, I bet you're the type that would throw a fit if ever asked to show your receipt because your "freedom" is being compromised. :roll:

<derail>
As far as you dmocowen674, I'm not even gonna get into this with you. We could go back and forth forever on this. Our fundamental political differences are polar opposites. I don't agree with too much you have to say, but I do support your support for Free Mammograms! Keep up the good work there. :Alcohol-FreeBeer;
</derail>

 

[NL5]

Originally posted by: Squisher

Originally posted by: moshquerade
the only ones who fear them are drunks

if only one person is caught at a checkpoint drinking and driving and had otherwise driven down the road and killed someone, the inconvenience to any other citizens is negligible.

I think you need to reread The United States Constitution and the Federalist Papers.

Constitution?!?!?!? Who needs the stinkin' Constitution. 99% of Americans have no idea what it says, or more importantly WHY. It's sad really. Really sad.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety" Benjamin Franklin (1759)

 

[NL5]

Originally posted by: Mojoed


Give me a break. I will never eeeeeeeever buy into this. We will never have checkpoints at state lines like that. I know your type. "Ohhh, but what's to stop them from passing new laws that allow for stops at state lines, etc" Common friggen sense, that's what. Just because "A" happens does not necessarily mean "B" will happen. The only people who should worry are drunks.

You people take the constitution too literally. I don't believe for a second our fore-fathers would have an issue with DUI stops had it been something they actually envisioned. You'll argue forever that the fact that these stops occur means our rights, freedoms and liberties are automatically eroding. The only thing that's eroding is common sense. DUI stops do not take away freedom. You're free to go where ever the hell you want. The definition of freedom for some people is really out there. Using my example above, I bet you're the type that would throw a fit if ever asked to show your receipt because your "freedom" is being compromised. :roll:

I think you are dead wrong. Our fore fathers are rolling in their graves. This kind of crap (stopping innocent people for NO REASON) is one of the primary reasons this country was founded. Equating the legality of drunk driving and unlawful search is ridiculous. One has nothing to do with the other. I am all for locking up drunk drivers, especially repeat offenders. However, that doesn't give the government the right to stop me whenever they see fit. Sorry, I kinda believe in maintaining the personal freedoms my family fought and died to protect, but that's just me........

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: coldmeat
They help get idiots off the road.

Not really...most only tie up innocent people (sometimes an hour) and most arrested just barely failed the breath test and more than likely would not be involved in any incident.

It's about a $5000 profit per arrest though.

 

[alkemyst]

The screwed up thing is although any death is sad, the DUI caused accidents that hurt a third party are statistically insignificant. Most are single vehicle no/driver only injury.

 

[Gunslinger08]

If checkpoints are worthwhile because they can stop a few drunks, why not install breathalyzers on all cars? The only people who should care are drunk drivers. Why not take your keys when you walk into a bar, and make you blow to leave with them? Why not make each group entering a bar declare a designated driver and track that person's drinking so that either they have none, or keep their BAC below the legal limit? The only people who should care are drunk drivers.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: coldmeat
They help get idiots off the road.

Not really...most only tie up innocent people (sometimes an hour) and most arrested just barely failed the breath test and more than likely would not be involved in any incident.

It's about a $5000 profit per arrest though.

And another addition to the manipulated statistics regarding "alcohol related arrests and accidents" to drive fund raising for MADD and raids on local coffers for more alcohol safety and awareness programs and enforcement.