- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 34,817
- Reaction score
- 18,576
- Location
- Look to your right... I'm that guy.
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
I could buy that if they were more productive... i.e. catch more people instead of 1 or 2 a night (if that).Yeah I disagree with all that. It is about public safety.
I could buy that if they were more productive... i.e. catch more people instead of 1 or 2 a night (if that).
Now, if you were to say that their presence is for awareness and to discourage people from drinking and driving... public safety in that vein... I think that's possibly legit. But also hard to quantify.
I could buy that if they were more productive... i.e. catch more people instead of 1 or 2 a night (if that).
Now, if you were to say that their presence is for awareness and to discourage people from drinking and driving... public safety in that vein... I think that's possibly legit. But also hard to quantify.
Potential deterrence is always hard to quantify. Take the "war on drugs". It's cited as a failure because there continue to be people who use but there's really no way to know who doesn't use due (at least partially) to not wanting to risk the consequences.
What is the real purpose of DUI checkpoints?
The number of arrests is pretty small. The locations and times are advertised in advance (usually by court decree, probably not by choice). I believe they would catch more drunk drivers through routine cruising. I don't buy into "...if they catch just one..." when they could catch more. Plus, I don't agree with virtually abandoning the rest of the city to focus solely on that one stretch of street. So, why even have them?
My theory is that they're almost 100% PR. It justifies their budgets and justifies them asking for more money in budgets and grants. It gives LE a high profile to justify themselves to the public.
"Hey, look at us. We're protecting you, but there's still a problem out there and we need to squash that problem, so we need more money."
My city does not often do them, but when they do, they catch more than 1 or 2 a night as DUI's are not the only thing they look for--they look for anything and everything. New Years is about the only night you can assume there might be one somewhere. They stopped doing them as often when they changed their patrol methodology--basically units are assigned to certain zones which are they are mostly required to stay on, while there are a handful of units that respond city-wide. The zones rotate.
What they will do which might be a little more obnoxious than checkpoints is if there is a bar/club/restaurant to which a lot of incidents like fights, drugs, drunk driving are being associated, they will set up regular heavy enforcement rolling checks in the area and pretty much drive that bar/club's business away by being all over people in the area who are seen at the place in question, including parking several units right in front of the joint. They usually give the business a fair warning to clean up its act in very short order before they do it though. They have been successful in completely shutting down a few clubs that way (clubs that really needed to be shut down BTW)
I don't oppose checkpoints. They serve a worthwhile purpose, in my opinion.
I've never understood, though, why patrol cars don't just hang out around taverns at closing time.
I was told many moons ago that that is actually illegal. I forget the reasoning, though.I've never understood, though, why patrol cars don't just hang out around taverns at closing time.
Thats true for the other side too. Its impossable to tell how many Drunk Drivers make it home safely with aboslutely NO infraction of law aside from drinking a driveing. They are not caught or counted. It's why people do it, most the time they make it back ok.
Which is why even with it being aginst the law and being caught once or twice some people will still Drink and drive. Because they have done it so many other times with nothing bad happening nothing bad should happen the next time too.
Up until about ten years ago, my mom's boyfriend (of 47 years) was an alcoholic. Until in his early 70's, every single night he went to "the tavern" and got loaded. Beer. He lived about 5 blocks from it. Never got caught. He fell numerous times after putting his car in the garage at home, most notably once on a freezing night in the deep snow. Ended up with two black eyes and bloodied face. Never got caught. He should have been in freakin' jail. How he didn't kill someone or someone's family? I'll never know.
DUI laws have absolutely nothing to do with public safety. They are all about extorting money from the people.
And they are also clearly a violation of the Bill of Rights because they are based on the assumption that just because someone had a few drinks that person is going to cause some unspecified damage or injury at some unspecified location to some unspecified person(s) or property, at some unspecified point of time in the future.
What is the real purpose of DUI checkpoints?
The number of arrests is pretty small. The locations and times are advertised in advance (usually by court decree, probably not by choice). I believe they would catch more drunk drivers through routine cruising. I don't buy into "...if they catch just one..." when they could catch more. Plus, I don't agree with virtually abandoning the rest of the city to focus solely on that one stretch of street. So, why even have them?
My theory is that they're almost 100% PR. It justifies their budgets and justifies them asking for more money in budgets and grants. It gives LE a high profile to justify themselves to the public.
"Hey, look at us. We're protecting you, but there's still a problem out there and we need to squash that problem, so we need more money."
I could buy that if they were more productive... i.e. catch more people instead of 1 or 2 a night (if that).
Now, if you were to say that their presence is for awareness and to discourage people from drinking and driving... public safety in that vein... I think that's possibly legit. But also hard to quantify.
DUI laws have absolutely nothing to do with public safety. They are all about extorting money from the people.
And they are also clearly a violation of the Bill of Rights because they are based on the assumption that just because someone had a few drinks that person is going to cause some unspecified damage or injury at some unspecified location to some unspecified person(s) or property, at some unspecified point of time in the future.
Thats true for the other side too. Its impossable to tell how many Drunk Drivers make it home safely with aboslutely NO infraction of law aside from drinking a driveing. They are not caught or counted. It's why people do it, most the time they make it back ok.
Which is why even with it being aginst the law and being caught once or twice some people will still Drink and drive. Because they have done it so many other times with nothing bad happening nothing bad should happen the next time too.
Because that would close down whatever tavern they chose to hang around.
DUI laws have absolutely nothing to do with public safety. They are all about extorting money from the people.
And they are also clearly a violation of the Bill of Rights because they are based on the assumption that just because someone had a few drinks that person is going to cause some unspecified damage or injury at some unspecified location to some unspecified person(s) or property, at some unspecified point of time in the future.
I could buy that if they were more productive... i.e. catch more people instead of 1 or 2 a night (if that).
Now, if you were to say that their presence is for awareness and to discourage people from drinking and driving... public safety in that vein... I think that's possibly legit. But also hard to quantify.
Excellent answer. Thank you.DUI Checkpoints are a part of an "awareness" program... its not the arrests that matter so much as (the idea is) that people will THINK before making bad decisions because they know there is a checkpoint. If a checkpoint causes several people to actually get a designated driver or a cab, they may realize its not so bad doing the DD or cab thing and decide it is better than the alternative after all. Basically, if its not as much of a hassle as people thought it might be, they will actually think more about their decisions prior to a night of drinking.
Also, setting up a checkpoint does not abandon the city. Often people who normally wouldn't be working during those hours are working the checkpoint.... Often alot of special teams guys who do various non-standard patrol functions work them, along with a few officers from the area where the checkpoint is, or even officers from other divisions who don't absolutely NEED all the strength they have that night can volunteer to work a checkpoint in another area.
No, they aren't as effective as patroling areas where you know DWI's are a problem when it comes to being able to make an arrest. But not EVERYTHING law enforcement does (or at least not everything SHOULD be ) is focused on the "numbers". It is about helping people to think and make better decisions about their safety awareness.
I would agree with this. The public is way too infatuated with statistics, which is why DAs run on their conviction rates, which is why we have a problem with wrongful convictions. (Slightly OT)It is that type of attitude from the public that turns Police Administrators to altering case reports to create a false picture that crime is lower than it is.
The public is too focused on the statistics, which makes Administrators focus on stats rather than real results.
Legally, on paper, yes. Just try it and see how far you get.I've heard of dozens being caught in a single night at a single check point. Which amazes me when you consider that by law you don't have to pull up to these check points and you can legally turn around or turn to avoid them altogether. If I've had more than a beer or two and I'm driving (Something I haven't done since college really) then you can be sure I'm not driving right through a DUI check point.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?