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.