your thoughts on driving checkpoints

[llperez22]

sometimes driving 150mph ( by legal definition) is not harmful.

difference is that driving at high speeds is easy to equate to danger. 150 gives you no time to make quick decisions that will keep you safe. How does this realate to someone drinking over a .08 who has high alcohol tolerance? If you are doing nothing that is considered dangerous, how are you being dangerous? DOnt bring up driving 150mph because that is clearly dangerous and lowers reaction times.

 

[7437]

difference is that driving at high speeds is easy to equate to danger. 150 gives you no time to make quick decisions that will keep you safe. How does this realate to someone drinking over a .08 who has high alcohol tolerance? If you are doing nothing that is considered dangerous, how are you being dangerous? DOnt bring up driving 150mph because that is clearly dangerous and lowers reaction times.

I dont see the difference. I drove like that when I was a teenager and never have been in a wreck. does that mean that its ok because I can drive that fast and not wreck? of course not.

 

[Throttlehead]

difference is that driving at high speeds is easy to equate to danger. 150 gives you no time to make quick decisions that will keep you safe. How does this realate to someone drinking over a .08 who has high alcohol tolerance? If you are doing nothing that is considered dangerous, how are you being dangerous? DOnt bring up driving 150mph because that is clearly dangerous and lowers reaction times.

If your blood alcohol content is over .08 it doesn't matter if your a well practiced drunk or not, your still over .08, some can drink more before getting to .08

Your argument in almost every post seems to stem from practiced drinker = high alcohol tolerance.

In this day and age there is no reason to drink and drive, its ridiculous. The previous poster is exactly right with his argument, he feels perfectly under control at 100 MPH, just like you feel under control when over .08, whats the difference? I might add, your both wrong, but its the same argument.

 

[7437]

If your blood alcohol content is over .08 it doesn't matter if your a well practiced drunk or not, your still over .08, some can drink more before getting to .08

Your argument in almost every post seems to stem from practiced drinker = high alcohol tolerance.

In this day and age there is no reason to drink and drive, its ridiculous. The previous poster is exactly right with his argument, he feels perfectly under control at 100 MPH, just like you feel under control when over .08, whats the difference? I might add, your both wrong, but its the same argument.

no, im saying I did that as a teenager. it was still stupid

 

[Bagatur]

how do you feel about random driving check points and catching someone for a dui at one?

no problem unless it creates a massive traffic jam.

 

[Bagatur]

tons of things make you more likely to get in accident. But drinking brings the hammer. Im required by state law for my job to take defensive driving courses and the stats are absolutely overwhelming how much more impairing cell phone use is for driving impairment. But it doesnt get even a fraction of the punishment that drinking and driving does.

i think people should have to show driving impairment before they are pulled over and ticketed.

the thing is when you get behind the wheel drunk, you are a danger to others for the whole duration of the ride. cell phones are temporary.
but I agree that penalties for cell phones should be harsher.

 

[Protectandserve]

Having worked both checkpoints and saturation patrols, the public gets more bang for the buck with DUI saturation patrols instead of checkpoints.

Our last checkpoint my graveyard shift made 6 arrests for DUI, the checkpoint made 1.

Also those who don't think drinking impairs your driving ability should find a local "wet lab" DUI enforcement class and volunteer as a participant to see the actual levels of impairment they would experience.

 

[panamaican]

difference is that driving at high speeds is easy to equate to danger. 150 gives you no time to make quick decisions that will keep you safe. How does this realate to someone drinking over a .08 who has high alcohol tolerance? If you are doing nothing that is considered dangerous, how are you being dangerous? DOnt bring up driving 150mph because that is clearly dangerous and lowers reaction times.

You can't be this obtuse/retarded/stubborn/ignorant.

Every drink impacts your judgment and your motor control. Every single drink. Every single time. You are a worse driver after your first drink. Period. End of Story.

You are not necessarily a worse driver at 150 mph vs. 120 mph vs. 55 mph. Your ability to make decisions and react are as sharp as ever. It's the conditions around you that have changed. Under the influence of even a single drink - YOU are impaired. You are a worse driver at 10 mph, 30 mph, 60 mph. YOU. ARE. IMPAIRED.

The only way to cure that impairment is to give your body time to process the alcohol and work it out of your system. This will result in your BAC going down. As long as your BAC is up, you are influenced, to some degree, by the alcohol in your system...even if you don't notice it. Hence checking for BAC levels is a very solid method of determining if the driver's abilities have been compromised, even if the driver thinks he feels fine.

http://www.brown.edu/Student_Servic...&_other_drugs/alcohol/alcohol_&_your_body.php

 

[Repoman23]

Driving is a privilege and not a right. Drunk driving is one of the worst offenses imaginable and if the police want to stop people then more power to them

 

[afrdzak]

I think drunk driving is fucking moronic.
However, I do not think checkpoints should be used.

If you want to bust a drunk driver, do so when the drunk driver is exhibiting the behavior of a drunken driver. Not via stopping every car, searching for a drunk driver.

 

[BKMMAFAN]

I think they're conducted in violation of the 4th Amendment. I think the SCOTUS got it wrong in the Sitz case. A random stop without reasonable suspicion and a search w/out probable cause doesn't pass constitutional muster, imo.

Stopping every car in the effort to (maybe) make it easier to prevent drunken driving is an insufficient justification for foregoing the usual requirement of individualized suspicion

 

[panamaican]

I think drunk driving is fucking moronic.
However, I do not think checkpoints should be used.

If you want to bust a drunk driver, do so when the drunk driver is exhibiting the behavior of a drunken driver. Not via stopping every car, searching for a drunk driver.

The problem with that is that drunk driver might only exhibit the behavior of drunk driving while already engaged in a potential dangerous/fatal course of action.

 

[Crocswithsocks]

The problem with that is that drunk driver might only exhibit the behavior of drunk driving while already engaged in a potential dangerous/fatal course of action.

Stuff people *might* do. Wow.

 

[panamaican]

I think they're conducted in violation of the 4th Amendment. I think the SCOTUS got it wrong in the Sitz case. A random stop without reasonable suspicion and a search w/out probable cause doesn't pass constitutional muster, imo.

Stopping every car in the effort to (maybe) make it easier to prevent drunken driving is an insufficient justification for foregoing the usual requirement of individualized suspicion

Which is why checkpoints have to stop every car - eliminate the randomness of the stops. It's no different than requiring you tp pass through a metal detector to access a building. If everyone must do it then it's not random.

And there are no searches w/out probable cause. You have to provide pc via your responses to non-invasive questioning at the checkpoint. The police have the right to question you so long as they don't detain you or require you to exit the vehicle or some other action that puts you under their authority.

I think Sitz was right, even if it's on the cusp.

 

[panamaican]

Stuff people *might* do. Wow.

Wow?

Someone who is drunk has already broken the law. There's no "might" to it. The "might" is in reference to when they'll demonstrate said drunkenness. They might not show that they are drunk until they weave into the other lane of traffic. At which point, it's certainly too late to stop them from engaging in the dangerous behavior.

So, if the intent is to minimize the potential negative consequences of drunk driving you cannot wait until they are acting drunk to intervene.

Really there is no good solution because impairment isn't visible. The best solution might be to require turning your keys over when entering a drinking establishment (like a coat check) and thus requiring a Breathalyzer for their return but that reeks of unconstitutionality to me and does nothing for people drinking at private parties or at home.

Checkpoints work because they only occur after someone has already drank too much and gotten behind the wheel.

 

[BKMMAFAN]

Which is why checkpoints have to stop every car - eliminate the randomness of the stops. It's no different than requiring you tp pass through a metal detector to access a building. If everyone must do it then it's not random.

And there are no searches w/out probable cause. You have to provide pc via your responses to non-invasive questioning at the checkpoint. The police have the right to question you so long as they don't detain you or require you to exit the vehicle or some other action that puts you under their authority.

I think Sitz was right, even if it's on the cusp.

But they are random. There aren't designated dui checkpoint stops one must pass through constantly as would be the case with going through a metal detector to enter a federal courthouse. Their location, time and duration are random.

Moreover, a metal detector is a much more effective measure at accomplishing its purported goal when compared to dui checkpoints. Where is the evidence that general suspicionless stops searching for drunk drivers is anymore effective than using traditional law enforcement methods based on the notion of individualized suspicion?

And your argument that you 'aren't detained' at such a stop doesn't stand up to scrutiny. One is most certainly detained for 4th amendment purposes at a dui checkpoint.

 

[45ACP]

I think they're conducted in violation of the 4th Amendment. I think the SCOTUS got it wrong in the Sitz case. A random stop without reasonable suspicion and a search w/out probable cause doesn't pass constitutional muster, imo.

Stopping every car in the effort to (maybe) make it easier to prevent drunken driving is an insufficient justification for foregoing the usual requirement of individualized suspicion

I agree with this. I think DUI checkpoints are a pretty clear violation of the 4th.

 

[CubicleGangster]

I think these check points are complete horse shit. Not only do people just text out alerts to avoid them, most of the time they are just writing people tickets for minor things and not busting people for DUI. I think they are a farce, and just a revenue generator for the cities. Each check point stops like 1 DUI, but they hand out plenty of tickets for things like Registration, seat belt tickets, fix it tickets, etc. They'd catch more drunk drivers on patrol after midnight then with one of these.

 

[Toastytoy]

they are bullshit i cant believe so many people are on board with them

 

[Repoman23]

they are bullshit i cant believe so many people are on board with them

when someone you love gets killed by a drunk driver you may think different. Maybe not, but something to consider