Sobriety check point, whadda think??

[Highbeam]

"If a sobriety check point is going to keep just one more from drinking before they get behind the wheel, then I'm all for it."

This is the biggest problem and something even a young person can see is a huge downhill slide in freedom. Kick it up a notch as they say and replace "sobriety check point" with any other loss of freedoms. If nobody is driving at all then it will keep "just one more" drinking driver off the road.

 

[greatrandini]

I think it is not proper to be asked where u r going etc... I would just answer though as I learned long ago not to argue with the police. I really don't drink so if I have beer I know it. I am large so leagally I can drink quite a few before I am over the limit but just a little effects my abiilties and attitude. Now I know folks who drink regualary and they seem to be able function (up to a point) when I know they are over the limit. I think the most dangerous is when folks are not experienced in either drinking or driving (teens) drink and drive. I also think that alot of alcohol related accidents are not the fault of the one who test above the limit but he/she gets the blame cuz they happen to have been drinking. If you drink everyday u r just "normal" with a buz on. I am not advocating drinking. I of course don't want anyone to drink and drive. I am just pointing out that the facts as we are told maybe slanted. I do not like being stopped and ask questions. I don't like being searched at the airport. I don't like to be killed by a drunk or a terrorist either. I think that people should get a card that says they are not a terrorist and bypass the screening process. Just go through the metal detector like in the old days.. I think that convicted drunk drivers should have to drive a car with big red spot on it. (or something) I think that commiting a driving violation while over the limit should get huge penalty.

 

[higgy]

Maybe we should give them all 74 veaga hitting on 3 cylinders. I think that is a good idea.

If it runs long enough you may get to the bar to do it again,

 

[schmism]

I think this is one of those "you cant ride any more of a fine line of being legal" topics.

I think they are barely legal (and not the good kind)

I find the idea that law enforcement can question me with out cause a bit troublesome, but thats the world i live in so i "deal with it".

 

[Ken_CT]

There was a billboard outside of Waterbury Ct that I wanted to take a pic of and post here, but it must have been replaced at the beginning of the month. It stated in large letters "NOT DRUNK". It was for a lawyer, or law firm, who specialized in DWIs. If you can afford it, then I guess you're not guilty. Just ask OJ.

 

[SPYDERLK]

The people that complain about this sort of stuff are the ones that get caught

No.
Larry

 

[SPYDERLK]

Quote:I think it is not proper to be asked where u r going etc... Correct
Quote:I would just answer though as I learned long ago not to argue with the police. - - You have been intimidated by bad police and bad law enforcement Dont you know you are supposed to respect them no matter how much they abuse their power? -- Seriously tho, they have to deal with a lot of severe stressors that are difficult to absorb in their psyche with equanimity. Absolutely, however, this does not excuse them acting in an intimidating or retributory manner. It may take a big person to be respectable in trying circumstances, but that is what it takes to gain respect. Absent this, interactions degrade to intimidation, abuse of power, force. It is a position in society that must be lived up to rather than succumbing to gut reactions when facing those who are neither sheep nor tactful.
Larry

 

[RayH]

Shame, I got to this thread kinda late in the game, I havent read every post.
Im against sobriety checkpoints.
The excuse the court system uses to indescriminately stop, detain and do a visual search is that its my "privilage" and not my "right" to use the public roads. Thats funny, think you have the option of paying or not paying a road tax? Try not paying a toll to use a road sometime. The point is, I feel that as long as Im required to pay tax to build and maintain that road, it IS MY RIGHT to use it just as its my RIGHT to live in my house as long as I pay my taxes and its your RIGHT to send your kids to public school because you pay taxes. I feel the same about any governent intrution. As long as Im following the rules, the government has no right to subject me to a search, interrogation or detention just for using a public roadway that Im paying to use.
I think the money spent to pay overtime to several officers to man a checkpoint would be better spent monitoring a DWI hotline that is dedicated to civilian drivers calling in to report DWI behavior. Have an officer monitor a number and a couple officers standing by to react to calls.

 

[Henro]

Well...sorry to say but I think this country is becoming what the Soviet Union used to be...a police state!

OK, I stretching things a bit I guess...

But honestly, I see streets where the speed limit had been dropped to 15 MPH (no school zone) and fresh lines painted to VASCAR people. The motivation is to collect money, nothing else.

I am against drunk driving, drugs and all related activities. But I see the legal limit being lowered and can't help but think it is so the "authorities" can collect more money, regardless of whether a driver is drunk or not.

Guess I am a cynic, if that is how you spell it.

I suppose I better join the less government croud...I want to think these police guys are looking out for us, but I'm not sure any more.

By the way, I got stopped at a check point for the first time ever a short time ago when coming home from work. The officer was nice and said "have a nice evening," even though I could not find my current registration among the ten or so I had in the car...

If I had the power to really say yes or no to check points I would probably say yes...but I think some are drunk at 0.08 while others are fine at that point.

Observing how the car is operated is probably the real answer, not an arbitrary breath reading that is applied across the board (even thought that is the only way to make a judgement that will certainly hold up in court).

 

[simonmeridew]

I say no to this questionalbly legal intimitating tactic. In Vermont it is legal to do a u turn and go back, supposedly, but what an imposition on 99.8% of the drivers(to quote another poster's figures). You go around a curve and suddenly you're emotionally assaulted by 5 patrol cars and probably 20 uniformed police, absolutely yukking it up with each other while a couple of them blind you by shining a flashlight in your face, asking "polite" questions of 99.8% totally innocent citizens; NO probable cause, absolutely no evidence of law breaking. No thanks. I understand poiice need to have an intimidating presence for potential lawbreakers, but for the normal citizen?If they had a check point outside the local bar or watering hole, OK I could be convinced of that, but not the type of "fishing expidition" we're talking about.
Same thing for those"safety checks" supposedly to make sure people are wearing seatbelts. Absolutely fishing expeditions. Do you think they should stop people on the street to see if they're carrying cigarettes if they're under 18?? The likelihood of death from cigarette smoking is many times greater I suspect than drinking and driving-Please I'm not in favor of either smoking or drinking and driving impaired
Anyway I would vote no, while I still can
simonmeridew.