Sobriety check point, whadda think??

[midlf]

Speed tickets on toll roads are nothing new. Ohio and Indiana were doing it years ago based on the time on the toll ticket you picked up when you got on. Since we were going almost end to end when we traveled we just threw the ticket out cause we were flying low.

On one trip we forgot to dump the ticket and the driver, being a bit punchy from lack of sleep, handed it over when we got to the end. Toll booth person said "this time doesn't seem right", punchy driver said "well yeah but it was because we stopped a lot". Toll taker just looked baffled and waved us on. (We were in college and used to drive to NYC from Milwaukee for the weekend for hoots and grins.)

 

[RayH]

You know originally toll roads were privately owned. Individual corporations would fund the construction and charge a toll to recoup their $$$. Eventually the states got into the act and saw an opportunity to make some $$$$. This is why it doesnt matter anymore if the road is completely paid off, you wont see the booths come down. Once a toll road, always a toll road.
Personally I think there should be a day agreed upon by the masses that everyone gets together and just stops paying. Maybe not on the newly constructed roads but on the ones that have been paid off for years.

States tax you for owning a vehicle, they tax you for registering it, they tax your fuel, they charge for smog tests and inspections, Really, enough is enough. At least let me use the roads that I helped pay for without charging me again or stopping me and searching me just for being there.

 

[mwechtal]

Well, I haven't read the whole thread, but I'll state that I'm against checkpoints for anything other than looking for escaped convicts or other criminals likely to hurt someone. I don't see checkpoints set up in NY much, and from objections I've heard on the news, most people think they're illegal. That opinion may be why we don't see many.

For your information, I drink very little, and don't drive if I've been drinking. I also have never been stopped at a checkpoint. I just think it's a civil liberties issue.

One thing about breath testing that most people don't know. The amount of alcohol in your breath varies about 50% up or down from the average person. What does that mean? The equipment is set up to read correctly for the average person. So, if you're average, it reads correctly. For example if the limit is 0.08%, some people with an actual blood alcohol level of 0.04% will get arrested, and some people with an actual level of just under 0.16% will not get arrested.

Then again, someone on Dr. Atkins diet that is in ketosis, will register as drunk, and many other substances can also affect the reading. They're not reading alcohol. They're reading hydrocarbons.

A radio transmitter being used in the area can affect the results.

So, those people that think the checkpoints are OK, how do you feel now that you know you could be arrested for dieting, siphoning gas, having spilt paint thinner, having a police officer transmitting nearby, etc.?

Mike

 

[Bulldog160]

Remember this, especially in NY. It is a privilege not a right to drive. Check points are very much legal and if you think they are intrusive then you have the right not to drive.

Also any police officer that makes an arrest only on a pre-screen breath analysis without administering standardized field sobriety tests is an idiot. I don't even use a pre-screen anymore. After giving the tests I can tell whether or not you are intoxicated and make the arrest based on that. 8 yrs as a police officer and I've never lost a DWI arrest in court or arrested someone who was not legitamitly intoxicated.

A person's size, dieting practices etc. all play a factor in how much you can drink and function including BAC but none can make you "drunker" than you really are.

 

[rfawkes]

Murders and robberies go unsolved while we catch these vicious seat belt violators. In Illinois they do 100% stop and check licenses while they visually "rape" your private space in the interior of the car. Last week they made 27 X $75.00 in a couple of hours, according to the local paper. They also found a tail light with a broken lens, and an expired license. Six officers in six cars were used for this serious crime stopping.

 

[greatrandini]

I think as a rule folks have a "right of privilage" here in the U.S.A. or we ought too......Oh I do think check points are intrusive. I have a right to let law makers know I feel this way. U work for citizens. I mean u r talking to the people U work for with out showing respect. These r the folks U R suppose to be protecting not bullying with statements like "you have a right not to drive". Just my opinion.....Sir.

 

[turnkey4099]

If they are not searches are they then arrests without probable cause? The checkpoint absolutely serves the function of detaining you, making it at least a de facto arrest. If not an arrest, then detention? We will have to have differing opinions on this, as I don't really care how one terms it or what one makes of the semantics....I think it is wrong and I think it is anathema to a free society for police to be able to stop citizenry with no probable cause specific to the individual.

No, they are not without probable cause. The 'probable cause' is whatever is seen or found after the stop.

The stop is a detention, not an arrest, and the courts have said they are legal as long as rules are followed. As someone else said it must be uniform, all cars, every 4th car, etc but that must be rigidly adhered to.

The stop does not have to be 'specific to the individual' if the above rule is followed and any evidence discovered can be used for probable cause.

The days of unlimited individual freedom never existed, was always limited to some degree, and as population builds that freedom has to be limited more and more in the interests of civil peace. I don't like it but that is the reality.

Harry K

 

[turnkey4099]

Well, I haven't read the whole thread, but I'll state that I'm against checkpoints for anything other than looking for escaped convicts or other criminals likely to hurt someone. I don't see checkpoints set up in NY much, and from objections I've heard on the news, most people think they're illegal. That opinion may be why we don't see many.

For your information, I drink very little, and don't drive if I've been drinking. I also have never been stopped at a checkpoint. I just think it's a civil liberties issue.

One thing about breath testing that most people don't know. The amount of alcohol in your breath varies about 50% up or down from the average person. What does that mean? The equipment is set up to read correctly for the average person. So, if you're average, it reads correctly. For example if the limit is 0.08%, some people with an actual blood alcohol level of 0.04% will get arrested, and some people with an actual level of just under 0.16% will not get arrested.

Then again, someone on Dr. Atkins diet that is in ketosis, will register as drunk, and many other substances can also affect the reading. They're not reading alcohol. They're reading hydrocarbons.

A radio transmitter being used in the area can affect the results.

So, those people that think the checkpoints are OK, how do you feel now that you know you could be arrested for dieting, siphoning gas, having spilt paint thinner, having a police officer transmitting nearby, etc.?

Mike

DUI cases are not taken to court on the basis of the roadside tests, those tests give the 'probable cause' to arrest but it is the BAC machine that makes the case. Anyone who disputes what the machine says, has the right to request a blood test. I have never seen a blood test that materially affected the truth of the machine unless the machine itself was defective.

Harry K

 

[mwechtal]

Bulldog, and Turnkey,
Hmm, my information is that the machines are not very accurate. Does this mean that people that might be right at or just over the limit are not usually charged?

By the way, don't get me wrong. I am positively against DUI. Shoot, a lot of the sober people on the road shouldn't be there. I just think some of the methods we use (Legal or not) are violations of our freedoms.

>>A person's size, dieting practices etc. all play a factor in how much you >>can drink and function including BAC but none can make you "drunker" >>than you really are.
True, but from what I've seen, they can make the breath analyzers READ high. That said, it's been a few years since I read this, so I'm willing to believe that the newer machines address these problems.

Mike

 

[LMTC]

For all those who keep replying that the courts say this and the courts say that...I think those of us opposed to the checkpoints KNOW what the dadblamed courts say. The thread title is "...whadda think" What do you think....not what do the courts say. And that's what some of us are saying....we think they are wrong. If you wish to make a case for them, or state your reasons in support, please go for it. I enjoy reading pro/con on a lively subject. But I hereby acknowledge that I KNOW what the courts say. What the courts say is not the basis for what I think. If that's all you have to counter, then I offer the following.

As I recall about 60+ years ago the courts said it was ok to essentially imprison citizens of Japanese descent. In that same time frame and earlier the courts said it was ok to make non-caucasians sit in the back of the bus and go to school in different facilities. A century and a half ago it the courts said it was ok to own slaves in certain states. None of those things would have ever changed if everyone had monlithically droned "The courts have said they are legal".