DUI Checkpoint

mahkagari · Aug 7, 2011

Came home from the Chicano music festival tonight to find traffic backed up on the state HWY near my house. I wondered if there was more roadwork but then saw it was a DUI checkpoint. "Oh," I thought. "I might get some experience showing my CHP in a traffic stop without risking a moving violation increase in my insurance."

As I pulled up, I turned off my radio, rolled down my window, and shut my engine off so as not to waste gas idling. Note the tones below were very cordial on both sides.

"Good evening, my name is Officer **** and we're doing an interagency DUI checkpoint by Firestone and Frederick."
"Okay."
"Have you been drinking tonight?"
"No, sir."
"Where you coming from?"
"Denver."
"Ok, what were you up to there?"
"Theater."
"Ok, [handing me a flyer and response card] have a good evening."

I was carrying, but it just didn't come up. As I left, I realized he wouldn't have PC to ask for my ID. It was a very quick and efficient stop.

Beau · Aug 7, 2011

I was over by Firestone the other day for work. Glad the stop went okay. However I have a problem with DUI checkpoints. They really do need to be abolished.

My interaction probably would have went like this.

"Good evening, my name is Officer **** and we're doing an interagency DUI checkpoint by Firestone and Frederick."
"............"
"Have you been drinking tonight?"
"............"
"Where you coming from?"
"............"
"Ok, what were you up to there?"
"............"
"Ok, [handing me a flyer and response card] have a good evening."

Citizen · Aug 7, 2011

Checkpoint is a government spin word for roadblock.

Checkpoint sounds so gentle and safe and, well, its for our safety. So, it must be OK. Right?

I mean, statistics prove that cops catch more drunks at checkpoints than if the same cops were out patrolling the streets, right?

M-Taliesin · Aug 7, 2011

Citizen said:
Checkpoint is a government spin word for roadblock.

Howdy Amigo!
So... what are you saying? That the title wasn't descriptive enough? Like, perhaps not indicating who set up that roadblock?
That it didn't mention that a government agency was running the checkpoint?
Or perhaps that it was a roadblock instituted by some other outfit, like the Internal Revenue service or Bureau of Land Management?
Or that it might have been some group that set up a checkpoint authorized by the government to do so, like the Boy Scouts of America or something? or worse... the Girl Scouts of America... who would extort a sale for a box of cookies to go your way unmolested?
Or that the checkpoint was extralegal, and without government approval, set up by some group without due authority... say...
Drunks Against Mad Mothers, establishing a checkpoint as part of a membership drive?
It's all so confusing!
I understand now the need for descriptive titles!

Thank God you arrived to provide a definition for what a checkpoint is. Who'da thunk it?
And here I thought Checkpoint was a company that businesses utilize to collect on bounced checks!
Wow... Thanks for clearing things up for me pard!

Blessings,
M-Taliesin

Gunslinger · Aug 7, 2011

M-Taliesin said:
Howdy Amigo!
So... what are you saying? That the title wasn't descriptive enough? Like, perhaps not indicating who set up that roadblock?
That it didn't mention that a government agency was running the checkpoint?
Or perhaps that it was a roadblock instituted by some other outfit, like the Internal Revenue service or Bureau of Land Management?
Or that it might have been some group that set up a checkpoint authorized by the government to do so, like the Boy Scouts of America or something? or worse... the Girl Scouts of America... who would extort a sale for a box of cookies to go your way unmolested?
Or that the checkpoint was extralegal, and without government approval, set up by some group without due authority... say...
Drunks Against Mad Mothers, establishing a checkpoint as part of a membership drive?
It's all so confusing!
I understand now the need for descriptive titles!

Thank God you arrived to provide a definition for what a checkpoint is. Who'da thunk it?
And here I thought Checkpoint was a company that businesses utilize to collect on bounced checks!
Wow... Thanks for clearing things up for me pard!

Blessings,
M-Taliesin

You're missing his point, M-. Checkpoints, roadblocks whatever you want to call them are an infringement on our right to peaceful passage. That DUI checkpoints have been allowed by the SC is outrageous. Why should I be detained with no RAS, to say nothing of probable cause, for even 2 minutes because maybe, someone will have been drinking? Cops on the road are a far better way to get drunks off of it--which I support 100%. And while they were running this crap, maybe a serious crime was being committed elsewhere and X number of cops were not available to respond to it. Citizen is dead on in his comments. Just a little bit more of our freedom slipping away...

ManInBlack · Aug 7, 2011

Gunslinger said:
You're missing his point, M-. Checkpoints, roadblocks whatever you want to call them are an infringement on our right to peaceful passage. That DUI checkpoints have been allowed by the SC is outrageous. Why should I be detained with no RAS, to say nothing of probable cause, for even 2 minutes because maybe, someone will have been drinking? Cops on the road are a far better way to get drunks off of it--which I support 100%. And while they were running this crap, maybe a serious crime was being committed elsewhere and X number of cops were not available to respond to it. Citizen is dead on in his comments. Just a little bit more of our freedom slipping away...

I agree wholeheartedly. I am proud to live in a state that bans suspicionless roadblocks by statute except to apprehend wanted criminals when they are known to be using the streets that the checkpoint is located on (i.e.: prison escapes where there is only one highway in the vicinity). Furthermore, our state supreme court ruled that suspicionless DUI/drug/etc checkpoints violate that statue, the state constitution, and, perhaps equally as important, were ineffective based on evidence submitted to the court.

Do I believe that drunks should be allowed to run around, damaging persons or property with impunity? Of course not. However, I also don't believe that bank robbers should be allowed to do the same, but a cop shouldn't be able to pull me "just to make sure" I'm not carrying any masks, demand notes, or illegal weapons. The police, as far as they are necessary, should focus their resources on those who are actually creating dangerous situations or committing actual crimes, like swerving recklessly, hitting parked cars/trash cans, etc.

mahkagari · Aug 7, 2011

Yeah, I figured the conversation would go this way. I'd need to see the numbers on whether "more cops on the road" catches more DUIs versus occaisional checkpoints. Particularly on typical party weekends. And how what the cost to taxpayers.

And while they were running this crap, maybe a serious crime was being committed elsewhere and X number of cops were not available to respond to it.

Seriously? C'mon. The idea that PDs would divert their on-duty staff to "run this crap" is laughable. If the cops doing OT for an evening weren't "running this crap", they'd be at home watching the Broncos. Not being on-call for a "serious crime being committed".

I don't know why they picked this weekend to run a checkpoint. Don't know that I agree with it, unless there's been a rash of problems. If a checkpoint now and then is going to be more effective than stepping up patrols 24/7, that's one thing. I like the idea of a statute against suspicionless stops. But since the exchange took probably less than 10 seconds, certainly less than 30, I'm torn. Actually, I thought to myself that it wasn't worth shutting the engine off.

I was ready to get irritated for an overly invasive interrogation, actually, when he handed me the flyer I was going to get irritated with the line of questions having nothing do with DUI. But he took 10 seconds to look at me, not hear me slur or smell booze on me and we parted ways.

Again, I don't know what it's like in the other states whence people come into our forum with an attitude of "....................." because the idea of even smiling at a LEO is an invasion of basic civil rights and will get you slammed to the pavement, but every time the gods have granted me a "practice encounter" I haven't had an opportunity to "stand up for my rights" because they're not being directly attacked. But if it'll make y'all feel better. I won't respond to anything next time. Actually, I won't even roll down my window. Actually, ya know what? I'm not even gonna stop. I'm just going to drive right around it, even if I have to go into oncoming traffic. These are my basic constitutional righst we're talking about! They have no right to stop me and driving around them is simple civil disobedience that was like, you know, handed down to us by our forefathers or something. Yeah, me refusing a DUI checkpoint and Washington crossing the Delaware. They'll be right next to eachother in the history books!

M-Taliesin · Aug 7, 2011

Gunslinger said:
You're missing his point, M-...

Howdy Gunslinger!
No, I didn't miss the point at all. I simply made fun of the concept to drive my own point about the whole thing being silly... just as a request from somebody or other about "descriptive thread titles" was also silly. Two birds, birds of a feather, one bullet. Both an infringement on going our way.

The wholel checkpoint thing is silly and rightly deserves to be subjected to the sort of derision as I directed at the concept. As silly, say, as having drunks set up a checkpoint to stop mad mothers. (Drunks Against Mad Mothers... DAMM!) See, that's funny right there!

Ya know... I've never once encountered a sobriety checkpoint in the entire time I've lived in Colorado. That may be odd, and perhaps I'm an abberation, but I've never even seen one. And if I were stopped because of one, I think I'd heap the same sort of acerbic retorts to their face that such infringement rightly deserves. I ain't one to keep my opinion to myself, and they'd be stuck with their regret at having stopped me and having to listen to my opinion for as long as I felt reasonable sharing it with them.

If you go back and re-read my comments, you'll see that I was being facetious, just as I would if I were stopped from going about my business, whether on the road or the internet superhighway. Both an infringement, IMHO.

Some people knuckle under to whatever some 'authority' sets before them without a word, others get mad and start making a fuss, while there are a few that will simply put foolishness under the glare of stagelights and use humor to point out how utterly stupid some things just happen to be.
Checkpoints being among the stupidest on wheels!

But then again, I may have been just a little subliminal in my approach.

Personally, I feel there should be checkpoints offering coffee to drivers because you never know when there may be sleepy people behind the wheel! Sleepy people have accidents too. And what about checking the driver's I.Q. while we're at it. I am pretty sure there are a whole bunch of folks driving impaired due to stupidity. I know this to be true... I've seen plenty of those! Or how about checkpoints to determine whether citizens may be transporting an illegal shrubbery? Eh? See the peril there?

Blessings,
M-Taliesin

ManInBlack · Aug 7, 2011

mahkagari said:
If the cops doing OT for an evening weren't "running this crap", they'd be at home watching the Broncos. Not being on-call for a "serious crime being committed".

Oh yeah, having a whole detachment of tax-feeders on overtime is certainly cost effective to the taxpayers...

M-Taliesin · Aug 7, 2011

ManInBlack said:
Oh yeah, having a whole detachment of tax-feeders on overtime is certainly cost effective to the taxpayers...

Howdy MIB!
Another prefectly legitimate reason to poke fun at the whole concept.
Here we are, the economy on the verge of collapse, and these yokels are squandering taxpayer resources with gay abandon.
(Editorial note: This is the traditional application of the word 'gay'. Not intended to be construed otherwise.)

And would it be cost effective, or cost affective. I think the latter myself, and not in a good way either!

Blessings,
M-Taliesin

ManInBlack · Aug 7, 2011

M-Taliesin said:
And would it be cost effective, or cost affective. I think the latter myself, and not in a good way either!

Touche, good sir.

Citizen · Aug 7, 2011

Gunslinger said:
You're missing his point, M-. Checkpoints, roadblocks whatever you want to call them are an infringement on our right to peaceful passage. That DUI checkpoints have been allowed by the SC is outrageous. Why should I be detained with no RAS, to say nothing of probable cause, for even 2 minutes because maybe, someone will have been drinking? Cops on the road are a far better way to get drunks off of it--which I support 100%. And while they were running this crap, maybe a serious crime was being committed elsewhere and X number of cops were not available to respond to it. Citizen is dead on in his comments. Just a little bit more of our freedom slipping away...

Thanks for the assist, Gunslinger.

It seems our socialist friend, of all his maunderings, never conceived the simplest explanation--avoid supporting the government's infringements by calling these things what they really are: roadblocks. No sense in letting the government have the initiative on terminology.

But, its nice to know our little friend is all worked up and defensive, can't let the previous exchange go, and has a small vindictive streak. Not really as refined and mature as his screen persona might be intended to convey. Nevermind that self-policing/moderation makes it entirely appropriate to ask him for descriptive thread titles. Hee hee. I guess we know where he stands, now. Maybe he'll man up a bit.

Citizen · Aug 7, 2011

mahkagari said:
SNIP I'd need to see the numbers on whether "more cops on the road" catches more DUIs versus occaisional checkpoints.

Oh, you're not going to believe this. The proof that DUI roadblocks are not effective was in evidence to the US Supreme Court for the very decision which approved the damned things. Meaning, they already knew it at the time they wrote the damned decision.

The case is Michigan vs Sitz. The beginnings of the data are in Justice Steven's dissent:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0496_0444_ZD1.html

Separately, using a utilitarian justification is dangerous. The courts can and have smashed probable cause into bits by way of their sophistry about "balancing", "reasonable", etc. They can always come up with enough justification if the "statistics" support them--note that they shot a giant hole in the 4th Amendment in Sitz when the statistics did not support them.

Citizen · Aug 7, 2011

mahkagari said:
SNIP Again, I don't know what it's like in the other states whence people come into our forum with an attitude of "....................." because the idea of even smiling at a LEO is an invasion of basic civil rights and will get you slammed to the pavement, but every time the gods have granted me a "practice encounter" I haven't had an opportunity to "stand up for my rights" because they're not being directly attacked. But if it'll make y'all feel better. I won't respond to anything next time. Actually, I won't even roll down my window. Actually, ya know what? I'm not even gonna stop. I'm just going to drive right around it, even if I have to go into oncoming traffic. These are my basic constitutional righst we're talking about! They have no right to stop me and driving around them is simple civil disobedience that was like, you know, handed down to us by our forefathers or something. Yeah, me refusing a DUI checkpoint and Washington crossing the Delaware. They'll be right next to eachother in the history books!

WTF! is all this whining about? Nobody attacked you on this thread. Nobody said, "Jeez, you're such a communist pissant for going along with this. You *****, stand up for your rights." I can't even characterize the comments as definitely critical.

This all intended to be educational. From my end anyway. Nobody here showed up on this forum knowing everything there is to know about rights (well, excepting maybe Gunslinger and a few others). Why not just take the info and learn? And, if you have a disagreement, say why. That's how we learn around here (because we're damn sure not gonna learn it from government schools or the lamestream media).

Citizen · Aug 7, 2011

mahkagari said:
SNIP Yeah, me refusing a DUI checkpoint and Washington crossing the Delaware. They'll be right next to eachother in the history books!

Why not?

It was one guy--James Otis--who forced the government's hand about Writs of Assistance in 1761.

It was one guy--William Penn--who set the stage for religious freedom (actually he was co-defendant with another). His case also reinforced the power of juries to ignore bad laws.

It was one guy--John Lilburne--who helped get rid of the Star Chamber.

It was one woman--Rosa Parks--whose disobedience gave focus to the civil rights movement.

Now, most of those were part of a bigger picture, and don't really apply. I'm just using them here to help you not sell yourself short.

But, there is one thing to consider. As long as Americans do not exercise their rights, police will keep reaching for more. A right unexercised is a right lost, as the saying goes.

Look how bad its gotten. If you politely decline to answer questions, too many police do not immediately respect it. Too many cops reply something like, "If you have nothing to hide, why don't you want to talk to us." Huh? That isn't observing rights. That's trying to trick somebody into waiving a right they just frickin' asserted.

Of course, a fella has to judge each situation and the cop in front of him with regard to whether and how he is going to exercise his rights. But, if a fella does exercise them, he's reminding cops where the line is. And, maintaining his legal position in case the cops get out of hand.

mahkagari · Aug 7, 2011

ManInBlack said:
Oh yeah, having a whole detachment of tax-feeders on overtime is certainly cost effective to the taxpayers...

The question is would having them on OT for an evening now and then be more cost effective and generate better deterrence over having more of them out there 24/7. I don't know. I'll have to review the stats and decide my opinion. If it's not generating the deterrence, EITHER is a waste.

FWIW, the effectiveness has little to do with whether its constitutional. There are many cost effective measures that are not constitutional.

See the peril there?

Is it like the peril of the hottie Evil W cashier in the other thread? Can I endure the peril just a little?

Citizen · Aug 7, 2011

Boy, talk about timing.

Here are links to an interview from last Thursday and a column about DUI laws, both by Radley Balko.

The column discusses some stats. And, points out something I didn't realize about DUI roadblocks: they might only catch 1-3 DUIs, but they'll write tons of tickets for broken tail-light, etc. Meaning, they're revenue generators.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/s...abolish-drunk-driving-laws/?playlist_id=87530

http://reason.com/archives/2010/10/11/abolish-drunk-driving-laws http://reason.com/archives/2010/10/11/abolish-drunk-driving-laws

Gunslinger · Aug 7, 2011

Citizen said:
Boy, talk about timing.

Here are links to an interview from last Thursday and a column about DUI laws, both by Radley Balko.

The column discusses some stats. And, points out something I didn't realize about DUI roadblocks: they might only catch 1-3 DUIs, but they'll write tons of tickets for broken tail-light, etc. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<Meaning, they're revenue generators. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/s...abolish-drunk-driving-laws/?playlist_id=87530

http://reason.com/archives/2010/10/11/abolish-drunk-driving-laws http://reason.com/archives/2010/10/11/abolish-drunk-driving-laws

You have hit the bullseye, my friend. The papers always talk about the insignificant number of drunks they found, and how many tickets they, oh-by the way, wrote. Get that maniac with a license plate light out off the roads before he can kill again...total, unmittigated BS.

Gunslinger · Aug 7, 2011

mahkagari said:
Yeah, I figured the conversation would go this way. I'd need to see the numbers on whether "more cops on the road" catches more DUIs versus occaisional checkpoints. Particularly on typical party weekends. And how what the cost to taxpayers.

Seriously? C'mon. The idea that PDs would divert their on-duty staff to "run this crap" is laughable. If the cops doing OT for an evening weren't "running this crap", they'd be at home watching the Broncos. Not being on-call for a "serious crime being committed".

I don't know why they picked this weekend to run a checkpoint. Don't know that I agree with it, unless there's been a rash of problems. If a checkpoint now and then is going to be more effective than stepping up patrols 24/7, that's one thing. I like the idea of a statute against suspicionless stops. But since the exchange took probably less than 10 seconds, certainly less than 30, I'm torn. Actually, I thought to myself that it wasn't worth shutting the engine off.

I was ready to get irritated for an overly invasive interrogation, actually, when he handed me the flyer I was going to get irritated with the line of questions having nothing do with DUI. But he took 10 seconds to look at me, not hear me slur or smell booze on me and we parted ways.

Again, I don't know what it's like in the other states whence people come into our forum with an attitude of "....................." because the idea of even smiling at a LEO is an invasion of basic civil rights and will get you slammed to the pavement, but every time the gods have granted me a "practice encounter" I haven't had an opportunity to "stand up for my rights" because they're not being directly attacked. But if it'll make y'all feel better. I won't respond to anything next time. Actually, I won't even roll down my window. Actually, ya know what? I'm not even gonna stop. I'm just going to drive right around it, even if I have to go into oncoming traffic. These are my basic constitutional righst we're talking about! They have no right to stop me and driving around them is simple civil disobedience that was like, you know, handed down to us by our forefathers or something. Yeah, me refusing a DUI checkpoint and Washington crossing the Delaware. They'll be right next to eachother in the history books!

No one has challenged your right to fully cooperate with the invasion of same. If it doesn't bother you, that's fine--no harm, no faul. But don't be surprised that this 'just, small erosion of our rights' bothers others. If you were a "full blooded" German in the 1930s and the Gestapo stopped you for a papers check, they probably smiled and said "have a good day" when they handed them back. Others, I've heard, weren't so lucky.

Citizen · Aug 7, 2011

Gunslinger said:
You have hit the bullseye, my friend. The papers always talk about the insignificant number of drunks they found, and how many tickets they, oh-by the way, wrote. Get that maniac with a license plate light out off the roads before he can kill again...total, unmittigated BS.

You jogged something for me, thanks.

I believe there is 4th Amendment case law limiting police to certain areas of inquiry, search, and seizure. You know, like a warrant has to have some level of particularity. And, questioning must be related to the suspected offense--can't go off into a fishing expedition. I'm saying the broad concept is present, not that any particular holding can be used.

What if the courts just said, "DUI only at a DUI roadblock. No other infractions"? These roadblocks would disappear in an instant, I'll bet. And, why not get a court or legislature to say that? They've already got all kinds of restrictions--supposedly--on these things: have to file a plan and stick with it, no officer discretion about which cars are stopped, etc. Well, if the government wants to pretend all those restrictions are necessary and appropriate to protect the 4A and prevent profiling, then it is only little step to only allow DUI violations to be pursued. The government couldn't legitimately argue its way out of that. Not that they have an allergy to using illegitimate arguments.

I wonder. Could that work?

DUI Checkpoint

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Founder's Club Member

Founder's Club Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member