The Media & St Patricks Day Sobriety Checkpoints

JOEJOEJOE

Some local media outlets usually inform viewers/readers where the police will be setting up checkpoints on holidays associated with heavy drinking.

Seems a bit irresponsible to advise drunk/buzzed drivers how to avoid a possible DUI.

Thoughts?

hedonist

I hope/think the regular patrols would still be out and about.

But yeah, giving a heads-up on a specific location is, well...a heads-up to the dumbasses putting the rest of us in jeopardy.

This is one of those things where the element of surprise is key.

(We're along Sunday's marathon route; excellent excuse to stay in, get as buzzed as we like, bother no one, and avoid said dumbasses.)

norm

Sobriety checkpoints are operations organized by local police department personnel and are designed to check vehicles for signs of driver inebriation. Usually, sobriety checkpoints allow officers to check only every third or fourth car that passes down the road, and the issue is quite controversial among politicians.

Although the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that sobriety checkpoints are constitutional, there are certain requirements that must be met in order for sobriety checkpoints to be legal. Police officers must be careful not to violate the Fourth Amendment against illegal search and seizure, which means that sobriety checkpoints are closely monitored.

The following are the requirements for sobriety checkpoints that all police officials must follow, and are derived from the rules and regulations published by the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration.

(1) Sobriety checkpoints cannot be set up at random. Instead, they must be one facet in a departmental program designed to deter intoxication while behind the wheel.

(2) The local district attorney's office must be aware of the sobriety checkpoint and must be willing to offer its support in the prosecution of DUI/DWI offenders.

(3) The police officers who set up the sobriety checkpoint must have a specific pattern for stopping cars and must not deviate from that pattern. For example, they must agree to stop every fourth car, and stick to the fourth-car pattern.

(4) The decision to implement a sobriety checkpoint must not be made out of thin air, but should be a measure in response to a demand. For example, if there have been three drunk driving accidents outside of a neighborhood, the officers would have a need to set up a sobriety checkpoint.

(5) Police officers who decide to set up a sobriety checkpoint must adequately inform drivers that the checkpoint will be in place. While checkpoints are for the good of society, they can also deter drivers who need to reach certain destinations.

(6) As drivers approach the sobriety checkpoint, they should be able to see that the police are present. Usually, this is accomplished by starting the flashing light bars on the tops of police cruisers.

(7) If the police intend to send drivers to a test site for chemical testing, there must be an easy and fast route from the sobriety checkpoint to the test site.

(8) Police officers must be able to successfully manage the sobriety checkpoint without unreasonably halting the flow of traffic. They must use standardized procedures and follow the proper protocol for investigation.

(9) The public must be notified aggressively and well in advance of any sobriety checkpoint so that drivers can avoid them if necessary.

In addition to the above, police officers are expected to ask the drivers they stop for feedback as to the effectiveness of the sobriety checkpoint. Since the practice is intended as a public service, police officers are encouraged to be friendly and accommodating with drivers.

If you have experienced a sobriety checkpoint that fails to meet the above standards, or if you feel that your rights were violated, you have every right to call the precinct under which the sobriety checkpoint was orchestrated. Ask to speak to a high-ranking officer and inform him or her that you wish to make a formal complaint. Give a detailed explanation of your experience, and request to be notified about any developments.
http://voices.yahoo.com/requirements-so ... 96573.html

hedonist

Thanks, norm! That was eye-opening, especially #9.

#9...

(now I've gotta go listen to the White Album )

JOEJOEJOE

Wow, who knew there were so many complications related to setting up these checkpoints.

I wonder who backed the issue so zealously that it went to the supreme court?

Personally, I'd gladly get to my destination a bit later due to the delay if it meant that lives were being saved as a result of a checkpoint.

Weird how the city must advise of a possible delay due to a checkpoint, yet construction delays often happen without much advance warning.

norm

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

I wonder who backed the issue so zealously that it went to the supreme court?

without looking it up, i'd think the aclu might some thoughts on this

Thorns2010

I'm struggling to make sense of this. I suppose I'll need to read up on the 4th amendment, and its interpretations through cases, but wow.

Two years ago if I read this I wouldn't be so confused, but now that I am living in Australia, and been exposed to a different culture and society.... America, you are just flat out crazy, and not always in the good kind of way.

Here in Australia they have RBT (Random Breath Tests) where if they flag you down you have to be breath tested. They don't check your license or you car registration or anything, just have you lean your head out the window and blow. I think I had been living here for a few months before I experienced my fist one. My wife was driving and I was all like 'What the hell is this? You couldn't do this in America'

My wife being Australian was confused at the thought that America would have a problem with this. If the actual concern is drunk driving and wanting to curb it, why as a citizen would you object to things like RBT's that help the betterment of society?

Since this thread showed up, I've been talking to her and trying to explain it from an Americans point of view, but quite frankly, this is just stupid, and America needs to stop behaving like spoiled little brats who get there way.

vant0037

With all due respect, the jurisprudence of stop and seizure/search and seizure law in America has a lot to do with race relations in American history that aren't as prevalent in Australian history. You might think it laziness, but our history suggests that without requiring that police have an articulable reason to stop someone, the laws are enforced arbitrarily and that fortunately, doesn't comport with the protections afforded in our Constitution.

So yeah, I disagree completely with your assessment.

Thorns2010 wrote:

I'm struggling to make sense of this. I suppose I'll need to read up on the 4th amendment, and its interpretations through cases, but wow.

Two years ago if I read this I wouldn't be so confused, but now that I am living in Australia, and been exposed to a different culture and society.... America, you are just flat out crazy, and not always in the good kind of way.

Here in Australia they have RBT (Random Breath Tests) where if they flag you down you have to be breath tested. They don't check your license or you car registration or anything, just have you lean your head out the window and blow. I think I had been living here for a few months before I experienced my fist one. My wife was driving and I was all like 'What the hell is this? You couldn't do this in America'

My wife being Australian was confused at the thought that America would have a problem with this. If the actual concern is drunk driving and wanting to curb it, why as a citizen would you object to things like RBT's that help the betterment of society?

Since this thread showed up, I've been talking to her and trying to explain it from an Americans point of view, but quite frankly, this is just stupid, and America needs to stop behaving like spoiled little brats who get there way.

CAVSTARR313

Never seen one in Michigan.. thank bejesus

81

don't be stupid and drive smashed....

if they tell you, and you still hit it, you deserve what you get.

CAVSTARR313

81 wrote:

if they tell you, and you still hit it, you deserve what you get.

Its like a buddy system for avoiding the clap

81

Caveeze wrote:

81 wrote:

if they tell you, and you still hit it, you deserve what you get.

Its like a buddy system for avoiding the clap

the clap sounds fun

CAVSTARR313

81 wrote:

Caveeze wrote:

81 wrote:

if they tell you, and you still hit it, you deserve what you get.

Its like a buddy system for avoiding the clap

the clap sounds fun

I met a chick that had applause..

81

Caveeze wrote:

I met a chick that had applause..

i like applesauce

Go Beavers

Caveeze wrote:

Never seen one in Michigan.. thank bejesus

12 states don't have them. To me, they're unconstitutional.

peacefrompaul

Go Beavers wrote:

Caveeze wrote:

Never seen one in Michigan.. thank bejesus

12 states don't have them. To me, they're unconstitutional.

I agree 100%

Thorns2010

vant0037 wrote:

With all due respect, the jurisprudence of stop and seizure/search and seizure law in America has a lot to do with race relations in American history that aren't as prevalent in Australian history. You might think it laziness, but our history suggests that without requiring that police have an articulable reason to stop someone, the laws are enforced arbitrarily and that fortunately, doesn't comport with the protections afforded in our Constitution.

So yeah, I disagree completely with your assessment.

Thorns2010 wrote:

I'm struggling to make sense of this. I suppose I'll need to read up on the 4th amendment, and its interpretations through cases, but wow.

Two years ago if I read this I wouldn't be so confused, but now that I am living in Australia, and been exposed to a different culture and society.... America, you are just flat out crazy, and not always in the good kind of way.

Here in Australia they have RBT (Random Breath Tests) where if they flag you down you have to be breath tested. They don't check your license or you car registration or anything, just have you lean your head out the window and blow. I think I had been living here for a few months before I experienced my fist one. My wife was driving and I was all like 'What the hell is this? You couldn't do this in America'

My wife being Australian was confused at the thought that America would have a problem with this. If the actual concern is drunk driving and wanting to curb it, why as a citizen would you object to things like RBT's that help the betterment of society?

Since this thread showed up, I've been talking to her and trying to explain it from an Americans point of view, but quite frankly, this is just stupid, and America needs to stop behaving like spoiled little brats who get there way.

I understand what you are saying, just that as a United States Citizen living abroad, it is very much an eye opening experience to say the least.

That isn't to say that I think America is bad, and that isn't to say I think Australia is good, just that without being in the country, you start to realize a lot of things that happen in America is because America is very much a selfish country and all about me. That isn't a bad thing, just that it is an observation from someone who lives in another country and has to try and explain to his new found friends and family of why America is that way.

I'm the 'expert' on America to the people around me because I had lived there for the first 30 years of my life, and it can be very hard to try and explain why common sense things seem to be so uncommon in America.

Again, at the end of the day, if people truly cared about stopping drunk drivers there would be very little opposition to random checkpoints in my opinion. As I said, in Australia that is all they are looking for, they don't even know your name or run your plates or anything, just have you pull up to an officer and have you blow into a meter. If you blow over the limit, (which is .05 here) they take you either to a mobile police 'bus' or the local station and test you again with a better machine. I think they aim for 15 minutes later. If at that point you are still over you are fined dependent on the amount you blew over.

unsung

Constitutionalists believe that these stops are illegal simply because you are being detained without probable cause.

I agree and I will spread the word whenever I possibly can.

81

i have no problem with them.

don't get loaded and drive...how hard is that to figure out. :fp:


go read the front page of the chicago tribune

lukin2006

Sobriety Checkpoint Laws

http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws ... _laws.html

Go Beavers

Thorns2010 wrote:

I understand what you are saying, just that as a United States Citizen living abroad, it is very much an eye opening experience to say the least.

That isn't to say that I think America is bad, and that isn't to say I think Australia is good, just that without being in the country, you start to realize a lot of things that happen in America is because America is very much a selfish country and all about me. That isn't a bad thing, just that it is an observation from someone who lives in another country and has to try and explain to his new found friends and family of why America is that way.

I'm the 'expert' on America to the people around me because I had lived there for the first 30 years of my life, and it can be very hard to try and explain why common sense things seem to be so uncommon in America.

Again, at the end of the day, if people truly cared about stopping drunk drivers there would be very little opposition to random checkpoints in my opinion. As I said, in Australia that is all they are looking for, they don't even know your name or run your plates or anything, just have you pull up to an officer and have you blow into a meter. If you blow over the limit, (which is .05 here) they take you either to a mobile police 'bus' or the local station and test you again with a better machine. I think they aim for 15 minutes later. If at that point you are still over you are fined dependent on the amount you blew over.

It's interesting that you'd say opposition to checkpoints is selfish. My take is that it's really the opposite of selfish because it's pushing back on a policy that can encourage abuse of power by police and violation of rights of others, in particular minorities. As a white male, it would be selfish of me to support checkpoints, because it says that my position on law enforcement (trust and well-intentioned) should be the same position for everyone else.

There's also an assumption that checkpoints reduce drunk driving, which I'm not sure they do.

mickeyrat

norm wrote:

Sobriety checkpoints are operations organized by local police department personnel and are designed to check vehicles for signs of driver inebriation. Usually, sobriety checkpoints allow officers to check only every third or fourth car that passes down the road, and the issue is quite controversial among politicians.

Although the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that sobriety checkpoints are constitutional, there are certain requirements that must be met in order for sobriety checkpoints to be legal. Police officers must be careful not to violate the Fourth Amendment against illegal search and seizure, which means that sobriety checkpoints are closely monitored.

The following are the requirements for sobriety checkpoints that all police officials must follow, and are derived from the rules and regulations published by the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration.

(1) Sobriety checkpoints cannot be set up at random. Instead, they must be one facet in a departmental program designed to deter intoxication while behind the wheel.

(2) The local district attorney's office must be aware of the sobriety checkpoint and must be willing to offer its support in the prosecution of DUI/DWI offenders.

(3) The police officers who set up the sobriety checkpoint must have a specific pattern for stopping cars and must not deviate from that pattern. For example, they must agree to stop every fourth car, and stick to the fourth-car pattern.

(4) The decision to implement a sobriety checkpoint must not be made out of thin air, but should be a measure in response to a demand. For example, if there have been three drunk driving accidents outside of a neighborhood, the officers would have a need to set up a sobriety checkpoint.

(5) Police officers who decide to set up a sobriety checkpoint must adequately inform drivers that the checkpoint will be in place. While checkpoints are for the good of society, they can also deter drivers who need to reach certain destinations.

(6) As drivers approach the sobriety checkpoint, they should be able to see that the police are present. Usually, this is accomplished by starting the flashing light bars on the tops of police cruisers.

(7) If the police intend to send drivers to a test site for chemical testing, there must be an easy and fast route from the sobriety checkpoint to the test site.

(8) Police officers must be able to successfully manage the sobriety checkpoint without unreasonably halting the flow of traffic. They must use standardized procedures and follow the proper protocol for investigation.

(9) The public must be notified aggressively and well in advance of any sobriety checkpoint so that drivers can avoid them if necessary.

In addition to the above, police officers are expected to ask the drivers they stop for feedback as to the effectiveness of the sobriety checkpoint. Since the practice is intended as a public service, police officers are encouraged to be friendly and accommodating with drivers.

If you have experienced a sobriety checkpoint that fails to meet the above standards, or if you feel that your rights were violated, you have every right to call the precinct under which the sobriety checkpoint was orchestrated. Ask to speak to a high-ranking officer and inform him or her that you wish to make a formal complaint. Give a detailed explanation of your experience, and request to be notified about any developments.
http://voices.yahoo.com/requirements-so ... 96573.html

even with the bolded part, fucktards will still get caught!!!

vant0037

Thorns2010 wrote:

I understand what you are saying, just that as a United States Citizen living abroad, it is very much an eye opening experience to say the least.

That isn't to say that I think America is bad, and that isn't to say I think Australia is good, just that without being in the country, you start to realize a lot of things that happen in America is because America is very much a selfish country and all about me. That isn't a bad thing, just that it is an observation from someone who lives in another country and has to try and explain to his new found friends and family of why America is that way.

I'm the 'expert' on America to the people around me because I had lived there for the first 30 years of my life, and it can be very hard to try and explain why common sense things seem to be so uncommon in America.

Again, at the end of the day, if people truly cared about stopping drunk drivers there would be very little opposition to random checkpoints in my opinion. As I said, in Australia that is all they are looking for, they don't even know your name or run your plates or anything, just have you pull up to an officer and have you blow into a meter. If you blow over the limit, (which is .05 here) they take you either to a mobile police 'bus' or the local station and test you again with a better machine. I think they aim for 15 minutes later. If at that point you are still over you are fined dependent on the amount you blew over.

Again, the requirement that a cop have a reason to stop you has nothing to do with laziness. It has nothing to do with common sense. I'd wager that non-Americans who look at our legal system and think it's based on laziness are probably making pretty baseless assumptions about something they know little about.

Sorry if I'm testy about it, but if you do the least amount of research, you can see that the law of probable cause, search and seizure etc has developed the way it has for some very, very good reasons. It might not be that way in Australia, but so what? Is it our legal system that's "lazy" or the people who make such broad assumptions? :roll: Do some homework on it first, and then tell me if you still think it's lazy.

Thorns2010

vant0037 wrote:

Thorns2010 wrote:

I understand what you are saying, just that as a United States Citizen living abroad, it is very much an eye opening experience to say the least.

That isn't to say that I think America is bad, and that isn't to say I think Australia is good, just that without being in the country, you start to realize a lot of things that happen in America is because America is very much a selfish country and all about me. That isn't a bad thing, just that it is an observation from someone who lives in another country and has to try and explain to his new found friends and family of why America is that way.

I'm the 'expert' on America to the people around me because I had lived there for the first 30 years of my life, and it can be very hard to try and explain why common sense things seem to be so uncommon in America.

Again, at the end of the day, if people truly cared about stopping drunk drivers there would be very little opposition to random checkpoints in my opinion. As I said, in Australia that is all they are looking for, they don't even know your name or run your plates or anything, just have you pull up to an officer and have you blow into a meter. If you blow over the limit, (which is .05 here) they take you either to a mobile police 'bus' or the local station and test you again with a better machine. I think they aim for 15 minutes later. If at that point you are still over you are fined dependent on the amount you blew over.

Again, the requirement that a cop have a reason to stop you has nothing to do with laziness. It has nothing to do with common sense. I'd wager that non-Americans who look at our legal system and think it's based on laziness are probably making pretty baseless assumptions about something they know little about.

Sorry if I'm testy about it, but if you do the least amount of research, you can see that the law of probable cause, search and seizure etc has developed the way it has for some very, very good reasons. It might not be that way in Australia, but so what? Is it our legal system that's "lazy" or the people who make such broad assumptions? :roll: Do some homework on it first, and then tell me if you still think it's lazy.

Ok, lets back it up a bit.

One, I am a United States Citizen (who grew up in the suburbs of Minneapolis) who understands where you are coming from. Two, since moving to Australia to be with my then g/f, now wife of one year(our anniversary is today, and we met on this very board) I have come to see things from a different perspective, a....foreign perspective if you will.

What I am trying to say, which clearly is not coming across properly, and maybe I shouldn't use the terms 'lazy' and 'selfish' and all that, but what I am saying is this....

If America truly cared about curbing drunk driving, and was a country that was about the better good, the betterment of society, this wouldn't even be a discussion. Someone else earlier quoted me and said they aren't sure if random checkpoints make a difference, and to that I say bullshit.

I can't even count the times I drove drunk in America, but there was little to no fear of being caught there. I can now saw since I've been in Australia the number of times I drove drunk is one, maybe two times. Do you want to know why?? Because I knew in America that they would have to have a 'reason' to pull me over, but in Australia, with the RBT's, they need no reason, they just can. And that does make a difference, and does make one think before they go out, and before they drive home.

Also while not the same of course, but to say that there isn't issues of profiling, or of improper search and seizures of people in Australia is wrong. The Aboriginals of Australia are treated with as much, if not more prejudice then anything I witnessed in America.

At the end of the day if you want to continue to believe that sobriety checkpoints or RBT's as I call them are 'wrong' or will target people or whatever it is that you think is the problem with them that is fine, and I can't change your mind. What I am asking you to do is to see it from a different point of view, and I feel like it is a pretty easy thing to see that it is utter lunacy that America is so against them.

badbrains

81 wrote:

i have no problem with them.

don't get loaded and drive...how hard is that to figure out. :fp:


go read the front page of the chicago tribune

Completely agree. Get a fucken DD. I do it all the time for my boys who want to drink.

MaxGoldenrod

They love them down here in Georgia.

Since I work 2nd shift, I've seen my fair share of them.

More annoying than anything, especially after working a 12 hour day and getting the stupid questions. Even worse, a few years back, I got stopped at one, explained why I was out at 1am, but then a week later, the same cop at the same location, gave me the 3rd degree again. I was like dude I just told you all of this last week, I was even in the same work uniform and had my ID on!

They serve a good purpose. However down here they tend to go a little overboard with them. Once I got stopped at a checkpoint where they were checking for proof of insurance. Guess what a-holes, I have to have proof of insurance transmitted electronically to the state by my insurance company before I can even get tags!

Annoying especially since there was no randomness to it, everyone had to stop. Talk about screwing up traffic

pandora

The media here reminds/warns people that the cops will be out in force for a drinking holiday
like St. Patty's they don't say where or how just will. That and road blocks are a very good thing.
Drunk drivers have caused way too much sorrow.

vant0037

Thorns2010 wrote:

Ok, lets back it up a bit.

One, I am a United States Citizen (who grew up in the suburbs of Minneapolis) who understands where you are coming from. Two, since moving to Australia to be with my then g/f, now wife of one year(our anniversary is today, and we met on this very board) I have come to see things from a different perspective, a....foreign perspective if you will.

What I am trying to say, which clearly is not coming across properly, and maybe I shouldn't use the terms 'lazy' and 'selfish' and all that, but what I am saying is this....

If America truly cared about curbing drunk driving, and was a country that was about the better good, the betterment of society, this wouldn't even be a discussion. Someone else earlier quoted me and said they aren't sure if random checkpoints make a difference, and to that I say bullshit.

I can't even count the times I drove drunk in America, but there was little to no fear of being caught there. I can now saw since I've been in Australia the number of times I drove drunk is one, maybe two times. Do you want to know why?? Because I knew in America that they would have to have a 'reason' to pull me over, but in Australia, with the RBT's, they need no reason, they just can. And that does make a difference, and does make one think before they go out, and before they drive home.

Also while not the same of course, but to say that there isn't issues of profiling, or of improper search and seizures of people in Australia is wrong. The Aboriginals of Australia are treated with as much, if not more prejudice then anything I witnessed in America.

At the end of the day if you want to continue to believe that sobriety checkpoints or RBT's as I call them are 'wrong' or will target people or whatever it is that you think is the problem with them that is fine, and I can't change your mind. What I am asking you to do is to see it from a different point of view, and I feel like it is a pretty easy thing to see that it is utter lunacy that America is so against them.

Look, I understand everything you're saying. What I still think you're missing is that the "probable cause"/"reasonable articulable suspicion" requirement has nothing to do with lunacy or being lazy. It is a distinct protection against abuses of power that has developed because of the history of race relations. It's not like we just decided one day, on a whim, that we don't like being pulled over, so let's make it a law. This is the law because over two and a half American centuries (ok really, much of it developed between 1950-1980), there were enough instances of disparate enforcement (that's a nice way of saying it) that the Constitution was applied and reapplied and enforced in a number of different ways. I don't doubt that Australia has it's own sordid racial history, but as a student of history, I happen to think it pales in comparison to America's.

So what it comes down to is that an Austrialian thinking American search and seizure law is "lunacy" or "lazy" really means that said Australian isn't familiar with why the laws are what they are. We didn't pick and choose these laws because we don't like speeding tickets; they developed over time as a response to very real government abuse that was occurring against many Americans, but in particular, against racial and ethnic minorities.

As an aside, I never said I disagree with checkpoints. I was contesting what I believe is your ill-informed and hasty claim that Americans are lazy because we want our government to have a reason before stopping us. Critical difference.

unsung

No probable cause. They should not be allowed to exist. Do we stop everyone wearing a backpack under the suspicion that they are transporting a kilo of cocaine?

mickeyrat

unsung wrote:

No probable cause. They should not be allowed to exist. Do we stop everyone wearing a backpack under the suspicion that they are transporting a kilo of cocaine?

maybe, but the courts have ruled otherwise.

hedonist

Thorns2010 wrote:

Ok, lets back it up a bit.

One, I am a United States Citizen (who grew up in the suburbs of Minneapolis) who understands where you are coming from. Two, since moving to Australia to be with my then g/f, now wife of one year(our anniversary is today, and we met on this very board) I have come to see things from a different perspective, a....foreign perspective if you will.

First, congratulations! My guy and I met on the board too, and next month will mark eleven years since he moved here from the other side of the country.

Thorns2010 wrote:

I can't even count the times I drove drunk in America, but there was little to no fear of being caught there. I can now saw since I've been in Australia the number of times I drove drunk is one, maybe two times. Do you want to know why?? Because I knew in America that they would have to have a 'reason' to pull me over, but in Australia, with the RBT's, they need no reason, they just can. And that does make a difference, and does make one think before they go out, and before they drive home.

See, this part I have a bit of a problem with...not so much the end-result of not driving drunk, but shouldn't the fear of punishment/getting caught come second to just not doing it because it's stupid to begin with? Driving drunk, stoned, whatever, is still ultimately a choice someone makes.

(and for what it's worth, in my younger idiotic days, I did the same)

I hope I'm making sense here...still somewhat early