I do not think that anyone is advocating that "driving drunk or buzzed is OK."
This thread is about the checkpoints.
This thread is about the checkpoints.
DUI checkpoint
- Thread starter Stelth
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: MalfunctionProne
I do not think that anyone is advocating that "driving drunk or buzzed is OK."
This thread is about the checkpoints.
And the checkpoints are about catching those driving drunk and/or buzzed so what is the point you are making?
I do not think that anyone is advocating that "driving drunk or buzzed is OK."
This thread is about the checkpoints.
And the checkpoints are about catching those driving drunk and/or buzzed so what is the point you are making?
The wine festival I go to every year has "courtesy checks" at the exits. Those are manned by the county sheriff deputies. Some times of the day they are quite thorough about checking every driver, while other times they wave cars on through if the car is driving fine. I've seen a fair number of folks waved over to the side of the road to sober up. No DUI/DWI for being waved over since the checkpoint is still on private property well back from the public roads. The sheriff's department also runs an optional BAC checkpoint inside the festival so folks can decide if they want to drive or not.
That one specific checkpoint I'm okay with since it's preventing driving drunk, and it's all technically optional since it's on private property.
That one specific checkpoint I'm okay with since it's preventing driving drunk, and it's all technically optional since it's on private property.
Along the lines of checkpoints:
We have rights against general profiling.
I feel that if ANY of these folks were suspected of drinking, they would not be free to go.
We have rights against general profiling.
I feel that if ANY of these folks were suspected of drinking, they would not be free to go.
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
Originally Posted By: MalfunctionProne
I do not think that anyone is advocating that "driving drunk or buzzed is OK."
This thread is about the checkpoints.
And the checkpoints are about catching those driving drunk and/or buzzed so what is the point you are making?
Some checkpoints (like those in broad day) are more about harassment or revenue generation than public safety.
I live in an area where "ticket then tow" is done.. for cars parked in street sweeping zones. That means: Write a ticket, THEN tow it. THAT, my friend, is a double-dip, questionably legal (it is one or the other) extortion by a city. And they double-down, and do it blatantly.
Checkpoints can be similar harassment when there are no drunks at high noon on a main city street driving, but a minivan with a family gets towed because an inspection sticker expired last week. Think im joking. East Orange has done it. Newark tickets and tows. Then my car got stolen. Where were the checkpoints asking for proof of ownership? (Registrations, etc?) Where? What about the public safety from car thieves? Rapists? Drug dealers?
Originally Posted By: MalfunctionProne
I do not think that anyone is advocating that "driving drunk or buzzed is OK."
This thread is about the checkpoints.
And the checkpoints are about catching those driving drunk and/or buzzed so what is the point you are making?
Some checkpoints (like those in broad day) are more about harassment or revenue generation than public safety.
I live in an area where "ticket then tow" is done.. for cars parked in street sweeping zones. That means: Write a ticket, THEN tow it. THAT, my friend, is a double-dip, questionably legal (it is one or the other) extortion by a city. And they double-down, and do it blatantly.
Checkpoints can be similar harassment when there are no drunks at high noon on a main city street driving, but a minivan with a family gets towed because an inspection sticker expired last week. Think im joking. East Orange has done it. Newark tickets and tows. Then my car got stolen. Where were the checkpoints asking for proof of ownership? (Registrations, etc?) Where? What about the public safety from car thieves? Rapists? Drug dealers?
Originally Posted By: WobblyElvis
In my opinion..
You have to fight for your freedom everyday, or one day you will wake up and you will have none.
It amazes me how people are ok with giving up rights. If we give up a little every time they take, eventually, we'll have none.
In my opinion..
You have to fight for your freedom everyday, or one day you will wake up and you will have none.
It amazes me how people are ok with giving up rights. If we give up a little every time they take, eventually, we'll have none.
In this state, DUI laws apply everywhere, not only on public roads and apply to all mobil conveyances.
You could be cited for operating your lawn tractor drunk.
You don't even have to be driving to be cited.
Sitting in a car with the keys in your pocket is sufficient since you're deemed to have control of the vehicle.
Is that not the case in NY?
You could be cited for operating your lawn tractor drunk.
You don't even have to be driving to be cited.
Sitting in a car with the keys in your pocket is sufficient since you're deemed to have control of the vehicle.
Is that not the case in NY?
Many interesting viewpoints here, and some things I hadn't thought of. I did see them turn one guy loose, after the "field sobriety" test. And yes, the tow companies are really licking their chops at one of these events.
Originally Posted By: whip
Originally Posted By: WobblyElvis
In my opinion..
You have to fight for your freedom everyday, or one day you will wake up and you will have none.
It amazes me how people are ok with giving up rights. If we give up a little every time they take, eventually, we'll have none.
+1
Originally Posted By: WobblyElvis
In my opinion..
You have to fight for your freedom everyday, or one day you will wake up and you will have none.
It amazes me how people are ok with giving up rights. If we give up a little every time they take, eventually, we'll have none.
+1
I would rather they enfoce the current DUI laws instead of enacting new one. So checkpoints are a good thing.
Obligatory Micheal Phelps reference.
Obligatory Micheal Phelps reference.
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
In this state, DUI laws apply everywhere, not only on public roads and apply to all mobil conveyances.
You could be cited for operating your lawn tractor drunk.
You don't even have to be driving to be cited.
Sitting in a car with the keys in your pocket is sufficient since you're deemed to have control of the vehicle.
Is that not the case in NY?
In theory riding a bike while drunk is an infraction. Having said that, it's almost impossibile to actually ride a bike while drunk.
In this state, DUI laws apply everywhere, not only on public roads and apply to all mobil conveyances.
You could be cited for operating your lawn tractor drunk.
You don't even have to be driving to be cited.
Sitting in a car with the keys in your pocket is sufficient since you're deemed to have control of the vehicle.
Is that not the case in NY?
In theory riding a bike while drunk is an infraction. Having said that, it's almost impossibile to actually ride a bike while drunk.
Originally Posted By: John_K
She said checkpoints are just a publicity stunt to make it look like cops are "doing something."
Excellent! I agree. Just because someone exceeds the legal limit in a breath test does not mean they are impaired. The cops I asked always said that the ones that cause the accidents are the ones that can barely walk a straight line to the car. Those will generally have brain damage from years of abuse. I take DUI quite seriously, especially after my daughter barely escaped death at the hands of a wrong-way drunk driver. But still, I find things like this to be an abuse of authority and a big show to the public. The ones who will be deterred from drinking and driving are not the ones we need to worry about.
She said checkpoints are just a publicity stunt to make it look like cops are "doing something."
Excellent! I agree. Just because someone exceeds the legal limit in a breath test does not mean they are impaired. The cops I asked always said that the ones that cause the accidents are the ones that can barely walk a straight line to the car. Those will generally have brain damage from years of abuse. I take DUI quite seriously, especially after my daughter barely escaped death at the hands of a wrong-way drunk driver. But still, I find things like this to be an abuse of authority and a big show to the public. The ones who will be deterred from drinking and driving are not the ones we need to worry about.
Originally Posted By: DBMaster
Originally Posted By: John_K
She said checkpoints are just a publicity stunt to make it look like cops are "doing something."
Excellent! I agree. Just because someone exceeds the legal limit in a breath test does not mean they are impaired. The cops I asked always said that the ones that cause the accidents are the ones that can barely walk a straight line to the car. Those will generally have brain damage from years of abuse. I take DUI quite seriously, especially after my daughter barely escaped death at the hands of a wrong-way drunk driver. But still, I find things like this to be an abuse of authority and a big show to the public. The ones who will be deterred from drinking and driving are not the ones we need to worry about.
+1
Originally Posted By: John_K
She said checkpoints are just a publicity stunt to make it look like cops are "doing something."
Excellent! I agree. Just because someone exceeds the legal limit in a breath test does not mean they are impaired. The cops I asked always said that the ones that cause the accidents are the ones that can barely walk a straight line to the car. Those will generally have brain damage from years of abuse. I take DUI quite seriously, especially after my daughter barely escaped death at the hands of a wrong-way drunk driver. But still, I find things like this to be an abuse of authority and a big show to the public. The ones who will be deterred from drinking and driving are not the ones we need to worry about.
+1
Originally Posted By: DBMaster
Excellent! I agree. Just because someone exceeds the legal limit in a breath test does not mean they are impaired.
Legally, they are, if they're above the arbitrary .08. What they don't publicize, and should, is that they can also prosecute from .04-.07 if there's additional evidence in most jurisdictions.
There's also hypocrisy: If you have a commercial license the limit is .04 and if under 21 .00-.02. If the limit is decided by science, why isn't it the same for all grades of license?
They should have a ticket level infraction under .08 that doesn't ruin your life but is enough to get someone on the straight and narrow. Maybe a year of probation and those brightly colored plates.
Excellent! I agree. Just because someone exceeds the legal limit in a breath test does not mean they are impaired.
Legally, they are, if they're above the arbitrary .08. What they don't publicize, and should, is that they can also prosecute from .04-.07 if there's additional evidence in most jurisdictions.
There's also hypocrisy: If you have a commercial license the limit is .04 and if under 21 .00-.02. If the limit is decided by science, why isn't it the same for all grades of license?
They should have a ticket level infraction under .08 that doesn't ruin your life but is enough to get someone on the straight and narrow. Maybe a year of probation and those brightly colored plates.
The portable handheld breathalyzer results are usually non-evidentiary. Their results cannot be admitted into evidence in a court of law.
The permanent mount models like the Intoxilyzer 8000 are spectrographic testers and they can be.
The cops here aren't really using the spectrographic testers anymore. If they feel that they have probable cause they take you into custody and have a blood sample drawn. If you refuse, they call in a judge, get a search warrant, strap you in a restraint chair and take it by force.
I have a lot of clients that were below the legal limit (.08) but were above "therapeutic levels" on perscription meds.
I don't know what "therapeutic levels" are on medications. If you have been taking a pain medication for over a decade, you probably need a lot more of it than I would to have any effect at all.
But then again, my last DUI client (50+ y.o female)admitted to me that she had taken 4 2mg bars of Xanax prior to her arrest.
If you have that much anxiety, maybe driving isn't your thing.
The permanent mount models like the Intoxilyzer 8000 are spectrographic testers and they can be.
The cops here aren't really using the spectrographic testers anymore. If they feel that they have probable cause they take you into custody and have a blood sample drawn. If you refuse, they call in a judge, get a search warrant, strap you in a restraint chair and take it by force.
I have a lot of clients that were below the legal limit (.08) but were above "therapeutic levels" on perscription meds.
I don't know what "therapeutic levels" are on medications. If you have been taking a pain medication for over a decade, you probably need a lot more of it than I would to have any effect at all.
But then again, my last DUI client (50+ y.o female)admitted to me that she had taken 4 2mg bars of Xanax prior to her arrest.
If you have that much anxiety, maybe driving isn't your thing.
Originally Posted By: Nate1979
Every new vehicle should be equipped with a breathalyzer starter device. The number of drunk driving would be almost zero. Cheat the system or drink after starting the car and face severe consequences.
Disagree. That puts even more cost on those who don't drive drunk. I'm sure someone could find a workaround, anyway.
How about death penalty for drunk driving homicides or life changing injury?
Every new vehicle should be equipped with a breathalyzer starter device. The number of drunk driving would be almost zero. Cheat the system or drink after starting the car and face severe consequences.
Disagree. That puts even more cost on those who don't drive drunk. I'm sure someone could find a workaround, anyway.
How about death penalty for drunk driving homicides or life changing injury?
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
What about forced blood draws by police?
What about them?
And NJ has an "implied consent" law. At its most basic: You get behind the wheel, you automatically consent to BAC test. No refusal is allowed and, after two verbal warnings and a Supreme Court cited case, you are taken into custody.
What about forced blood draws by police?
What about them?
And NJ has an "implied consent" law. At its most basic: You get behind the wheel, you automatically consent to BAC test. No refusal is allowed and, after two verbal warnings and a Supreme Court cited case, you are taken into custody.
- Status
