When I'm working I'll occasionally talk to someone who has been drinking. They could drink only one beer and not be inebriated at all, but man, you can sure smell it

Sometimes I wonder if those "checkpoints" are for ensuring public safety or gleaning revenue.

It's a way of keeping the MADD mothers happy, and they do impound a lot of illegal aliens' cars. I don't have anything against them.

I think it  has more to do with revenue. Has anyone on here ever been following a drunk, or possibly been falling asleep at the wheel, and called 911 so an officer could check them out. The few folks that I know that have, said an officer never shows up. You'd think that once in awhile you'd hear someone say that after they placed the call, they saw the person get pulled over down the road.

This reminds me of something. One night, when my husband and I returned home from work, we were behind a driver who was obviously impaired in some way. He was driving very slowly on the 58, weaving, and nearly hit a semi on his right. We copied the license number and when we exited the freeway we flagged down the first cop we saw, a KC sheriff's deputy. (We had been driving in a dead zone where our cell phones did not work.) He took our number and went off down the freeway after the guy. To our surprise the deputy called us the next day. Apparently, he caught up with the guy where he had pulled over on the roadside near the next exit. He was not drunk; he had been having a heart attack! He had also tried to call 911 from a dead cell phone. He was trying to get to the hospital but had to pull over just before he passed out. Thanks to the cop finding him, he was okay. He had to have a quad bypass, but he was expected to recover. Wild, huh?

ghostriter, Good ending to that story. He may well have died had that Sheriff not been there for you to flag down. The person weaving in front of you are not always drunk, but none the less need to be tended to in one way or another. Seems a bit strange to me though that he took time to take your number. That could have been precious seconds lost.

Great account, ghostriter! It is wild, but a really good reminder for people when they see really eratic behavior on the roads to involve themselves and make the call.

Great story ghost~ you never know do you? 

I wonder how many more DUI offenders they'd get if they put officers on the side streets leading up to the check point? Many get away. As was posted here, SteveE noticed the car behing him braked suddenly and turned left. It would also help if they didn't announce it to the world that they are going to have check points out. I've always thought that was counter productive.

Proam, I think the deputy probably took down the number because in this case the witness was providing the deputy with probable cause to make a stop on the vehicle.  He may have thought that he may need the witness to corroborate that at a later date. 

As for putting officers on the side streets ahead of a DUI checkpoint, I saw BPD do exactly that on White Lane about a month ago.  Motor officers were sitting on either side of the street at the last two intersections before the checkpoint.

I agree that these checkpoints are helpful in removing unlicensed (and usually uninsured) vehicles from the street as well as removing impaired drivers.  I'm all for it.

I was driving East on White Lane during checkpoint night last month.  The police were checking West bound drivers.  There were police at several intersections leading up to the stop, but the flashing lights are a dead give away to those who want to by pass the inspection.  If the police take 1 DUI off the street, then it is worth it.  They take many unlicensed drivers off each time they have a check point so I'm all for it.

Seems a bit strange to me though that he took time to take your number

We asked why he needed our information; it was in case it became necessary for us to testify as to what we had witnessed. It was part of the initial report. Remember, we all, the cop included, were under the assumption that the driver of that car was intoxicated. It was only when the deputy found that car that it became apparent that the driver was ill, and not simply intoxicated.

Sometimes I wonder if those "checkpoints" are for ensuring public safety or gleaning revenue

they arent after DUI's per se....  look at the numbers...the # of impounds and citations written for driving without a license??

what population drives the most without a license??  illegal aliens....

safety check

Check Points!

What purpose do they serve?

How many dui's where charged compared to the number of those stopped and looked at with a flashlight ( just a little demeaning).

Does anyone feel safer, now? We have patrol officers paid to conduct traffic patrol duty already.

What...? They need help? 

Think About it! We pay for this Crap!  Do We like it?

--virgil  

Considering I have a teen driver, I feel safer when a couple more drunks are off the streets.  I just would like to see them hit the streets with like 3 or 4 going on at the same time. 

You like that kind of stuff, don't you?

--virgil

UMMMM...... yeah Virgil, I like to keep our streets safe, don't you?  Or do you stay locked in all day and are oblivious to the world around you?

Michele,

not in the least...

Neither, do I live on the dole or off the contrived criminalization of others..

--virgil

That's good  Virgil.   Well, I'm all for the check points, drug busts, impounding illegal cars and so on and so forth. 

One more report on action taken when reporting a possible DUI.  On our way to Primm NV we saw a guy chuga lug a 40 at a  rest stop and immediately got back in his car and took off.  We reported him.  We stayed behind the car in question and sure enough he was pulled over by a CHP.  I don't know the outcome but if the guy was ok no harm done.  If he was impaired then it was taken care of.

While checkpoints do generate revenue that is NOT their purpose.

"That's good  Virgil.   Well, I'm all for the check points, drug busts, impounding illegal cars and so on and so forth."

Of course, you are, Michelle.  But I doubt you could tell me why.

--virgil

Virgil, it is illegal to drink and drive, do you agree?  It's illegal to drive on a suspended license and/or car tags, do you agree?   Please tell me you are just being a smart a**.

"illegal to drink and drive, do you agree?  It's illegal to drive on a suspended license and/or car tags, do you agree?" 

Michelle,

I agree. But, do we need check[points paid for by a special grant from the federal government to make sure people remember that?

You actually think checkpoints are about getting down on drunk driving?

--virgil

I believe it has to do with that as well as the unlicensed and un-insured out there. 

Hm... checkpoints to check papers and the whites of your eyes....paid for by the federal government (sometimes by the state of California) is a good thing in your opinion.

Has it reduced  violent crime?

--virgil

Maybe it has.  Maybe the man arrested didn't get the chance to rob the liquor store or smash his car into an innocent family.  Maybe the uninsured driver won't be able to pull off a hit and run.  There are a lot of maybes but you never know, so, yeah it's worth it and ok by me.

Michelle,

you can't show me where checkpoints actually reduce the incidence of crime or drunk driving. You can show an increase in citations and arrests etc. on a given night when those operations are performed, maybe.

Because the funding for that kind of police activity has no tangible benefits of reducing violent crime, I don't see those operations having benefits for the community in which they take place, either.  It's a waste of money.

One more thing, there's no democratic accountability as to when those kinds of police operations are to be performed. I'm uncomfortable with that, too.

--virgil

I am happy to hear Steve passed through the check point without any problems.  This is what happens to a law abiding citizen.  They have all of the state required documents, they are honest with the officers about prior activities, they get screened and sent on their way to enjoy the rest of their night after having contact with an officer.  Yes, there are those opposed to the check points and they can list a number of reasons why they are against them.  Funny how they seem to change their mind when their life is effected by an action which is a focus of a check point.  Sometimes it is just not enough to know someone elses life was effected.  An effort is being made to enforce laws and increase public awareness so fewer lifes will be changed by the actions of someone who would not make it through a check point without any problems.

We all know that there are a lot of mean drunks. Maybe getting that drunk off the road not only kept some of the motoring public safe that night, but maybe kept a wife or child from being beaten.  We don't know. I've been pulled over at a check point, and Thanked the officers afterward for having been there. I agree with the comment above. I wish they'd do several locations on the same night. Maybe if the fines were larger than what they are, we would see a drop in DUI's.

Reno said,

" I am happy to hear Steve passed through the check point without any problems.  This is what happens to a law abiding citizen..." 

Hm...Hm...

Everyone feel safer now ?    Your papers, please.

--virgil

Virgil, do you have proper registration and insurance on your vehicle?  You seem to really be against this.  Who cares!?!

Michelle,

Is that the best you can do? Or, you missed my point entirely.

Why not put a checkpoint at every major intersection in town? Does that make sense to you?

By the way, I care.

--virgil

Sorry, I didn't miss your point.  And quite frankly, maybe one day a DUI at every major intersection should happen. Can you imagine the revenue generated, the drunks and druggies, and the unlicensed arrests?  We would hae a field day on the BNT blog showing all the arrests. 

ugliness, michele.

--virgil

Call it what you will but what's REALLY ugly is when people can't follow the rules or obey the laws set in front of us. Now that's UGLY!!

What's really ugly is when people live their lives without thinking about the consequences of their public beliefs.

Now that's UGLY!!

--virgil

"what's REALLY ugly is when people can't follow the rules or obey the laws set in front of us."

Michelle,

By the way, Jim Crow Laws were considered to be within the "rules"...

--virgil

I use to dispatch for a towing service that is on 'police rotation' and we knew exactly where these checkpoints are located ahead of time...so that we may prepare for tow units to be staged and ready to do these impounds...and many vehicles do go unclaimed and are auctioned off from time to time...you would be surprised as to what gets auctioned off.....but yeah,,if you're straight up with these officers at the check points--they'll work with you---but give attitude--adios muchacho--and your ride...

Michele, half the time I don't think even virgil believes what he's saying.  For him it's fun to stir the pot and see what comes of it.

Nancy,

That's wrong.

How can you accept what michele is saying - she's okay with police check points at every major intersection, to make sure we follow the rules?

You think that's okay, too?

use your words, not what you think about  me.

--virgil

Virgil, again your anti-law enforcement bias comes through loud and clear. 

I won't waste my time asking if you have ever been through a DUI checkpoint.  That would be a direct question requiring a "yes or no"  answer and my experience tells me that you would put on your Fred Astaire shoes, the music would start and four posts later the question would remain unanswered. 

My opinion is that DUI checkpoints serve a legitimate purpose.  You asked if they (checkpoints) reduce violent crime.  Maybe, maybe not......but they reduce violent accidents that kill and maim.  Good enough for me.

Watch this standing back flip.

--Hugh

Hugh,

I'm going to try some two-stepp'n....

Tell me how many checkpoints, in your opinion since there is not accessible data regarding crime reducing and other benefits to the community from such police activity, are necessary to reduce violent accidents? At the latest check point how many DUI arrests were made?

One more thing, a critical view of law enforcement is just that - critical. That is not anti-law enforcement.

B-town likes its checkpoints - there's room to be critical.

--virgil

I'd say, in my opinion, that it may take ONE DUI checkpoint  to reduce violent accidents.  As far as how many are necessary to reduce violent accidents, we both know that is an unknown number.

The first vehicle in line may be removed from the street taking away the potential for a major accident.  I like the odds.

The alternative is no DUI checkpoints. (Or fewer)  Would you feel safer then? 

--Hugh

P.S. My mistake in confusing your "critical" view of law enforcement as being "anti" law enforcement.  Until you pointed it out it was impossible to tell the difference.

Maybe if the fines were larger than what they are, we would see a drop in DUI's.

The fines are already through the sky. It is not about money; it is often about addiction. 

but give attitude--adios muchacho--and your ride...

That in itself is disturbing. Cops can do whatever they want. If they don't like the way you look at them or if you don't say "sir" at least five times while speaking to them, you're screwed. They have too much power. I was once given a ticket for going six miles over the speed limit. The reason? The cop stopped me for a broken taillight. He was in a bad mood and was not very polite. My teenage daughter commented from the back seat that he must have missed his daily dose of donuts. Her joke and his nasty mood cost me $180.

If the checkpoints were just to screen for DUI, I would have no problem. Shine a light, ask a couple questions, take a sniff or two to make sure the car doesn't smell like the bathroom in a bar; that is reasonable. But just randomly stopping someone and demanding that they produce paperwork and prove that they are in compliance stomps all over the concept of probable cause. It used to be that cops had to have a good reason to stop and search someone. Now, they can do it whenever and whyever they choose. "Guilty until you prove yourself innocent" is not the way it was meant to be.

And by the way, Steve, glad things turned out for you. Guess your cop was in a GOOD mood! ;P And good to see you back; hope you're feeling well.

"The first vehicle in line may be removed from the street taking away the potential for a major accident.  I like the odds."

And what are the odds?? We just throw money at that kinda stuff with the sense of security that something good is about it.

That's dooh dooh, Hugh. 

What do you think has changed more in the last hundred years Human Beings or Americans?

An example, I don't remember police check points when I was a kid to check papers and  the whites of my eyes. Think about it, the person who is caught on a DUI at a check point is most likely impaired enough to be stopped by a PD patrol, anyway. 

--virgil

P.S. It is our Democratic obligation to be critical of activities that impair appreciation of  civil Liberties and the Bill  of Rights with the uncritical use of law enforcement in our everyday lives.

Virgil,

"Dooh dooh" or not, that's my opinion.  You asked. 

Human beings or Americans?  Hmmm. Those are not interchangeable?

I still say that other than being delayed when I get stuck in a checkpoint I'm all for it.

I hear music.

--Hugh

Well, Hugh

agree to disagree (eventhough you're wrong), I'm satisfied for now.

Until later....

--virgil

ghostriter, Even if it were for the sole purpose of getting unlicensed, and uninsured drivers off the road, I'd be fine with that. Seeing as though there are laws that mandate we all pay insurance, registration on our cars, smog checks, and be licensed, it should apply to all of us, not just the citizens that see fit to obey the law. If someone without insurance runs into you, your insurance has to pay up. Ultimately your insurance premiums go up because that uninsured driver didn't have proper coverage. It is just not right, period! As for getting the drunks off the road, No doubt it is about addiction. Get some dang help. Stop endangering innocent people because of your addiction. I have a Brother that is close to 60, is an alcoholic. He keeps getting busted for DUI's, and or hurting whatever girlfriend, or wife he may have at the time. Alcoholism is an ugly thing. I have another Brother that is also an alcoholic, a recovering alcoholic of 12 years. He is a success story, goes around to speaking engagements for AA, and NA. I was married to an alcoholic. My Father was a functioning alcoholic. Was a truck driver by profession, and to my knowledge never got behind the wheel intoxicated. They do not need to get behind the wheel of an automobile drunk. For NO reason.

So, do you see driving as a "right" or a "privilege"?