What are your thoughts on DUI check point

One thing a lot of people don't get is it isn't a bullcrap reason if they ticket you for an infraction.

The easiest way to avoid a ticket is to obey the law. Even if you think it's crap the law is clear on things like this, and if you are in the wrong stop whining like a little baby and take your ticket.

DUI stops aren't there to catch drunk drivers, they are there to dissuade people from driving drunk. Random patrols might catch people, but they are also random, and people know they stand a good chance of avoiding them. If there are a dozen cops in high visibility locations, people are aware of the chances of getting caught.

It also isn't a violation of any rights to engage you in conversation to judge your suitability to be behind the wheel of a car. What invasion of privacy is it to check your safety belt and your insurance? It's a legal requirement to use/have with you.

I'm still sitting on the fence on this one. However while I was reading I thought about something. There are many who believe that it is okay for the police to set up road blocks to stop an illegal activity like DUI.
However lets say they set up a roadblock and instead of checking for the illegal activity of drunk drivers, they were looking for illegal aliens? Or maybe seatbelt violations, proof of insurance, or whatever other violation you can think of? I don't know....it just sounds like something you read/see the Nazis doing back in the 40s.   The excuse of "its for your own good" is a weak argument at best.       

Skillet42565 wrote: carl_the_sniper wrote: Yes, it certainly must be where we are from. As a Canadain, I am concerned about saving lives. As an American, you are concerned about your rights possibly being violated so that you have something to complain about. Facepalm.

Is it really a facepalm moment?

I'm convinced that checkpoints are more of a PR and revenue generating thing than actually a useful deterrent. A more interesting statistic would be the average BAC of the violators. As I said before, in this state, checkpoints are usually held on weekend nights near college towns or entertainment districts. Blow a .09 after having three beers in a two hour period, get your car impounded and go to jail. In the meantime while the police are running the checkpoint, drunk retards are drag racing elsewhere in town.

I'm not sure about sobriety checkpoints, but in a normal stop in this state, you must first fail a field sobriety test before they breathalize you.  If you do fine on the field sobriety test, you should not be too impaired to drive no matter you BAC. Roving police patrols would be more likely to target abnormal driving behavior and would probably be a more efficient use of manpower. If I get stopped at a checkpoint an am not even intoxicated the police are probably going to find something wrong with my car to cite me for(ripped windshield wiper, registration sticker in wrong corner of the plate) in this state. I for one have a problem with getting stopped, searched, and interrogated about my nightly travels when I've done nothing wrong, and since these are usually held late at night, now I'm going to be late to go home and sleep. Driving when you are sleep deprived is worse than driving drunk.

carl_the_sniper wrote: Yes, it certainly must be where we are from. As a Canadain, I am concerned about saving lives. As an American, you are concerned about your rights possibly being violated so that you have something to complain about.

Facepalm.

I made this topic before

Shoulda used the search button n00b

carl_the_sniper wrote: Gatyr wrote: Bunkered wrote: I'll just throw a random speculation out that I bet just as many people get in car accidents NOT involving alcohol as the ones that do. What does that change? Exactly.

It doesn't change anything really.
But it underlines my point that alcohol isn't the only factor that caused those accidents. It's more about people being stupid than drunk.

I think the basic difference between our views on this is that you're Canadian, and I'm from the US.
I have no doubt in my mind that you can deter (or at least detour) drunk drivers with a roadblock. My problem is with the fact that it is an unwarranted search, a waste of police resources/taxpayer money, and a waste of everyone's time.

Get those police out watching for the drunk drivers. If you can't tell that they're drunk driving either:
A) They aren't (vast majority)
B) They are, but are doing a good enough job that it shouldn't matter IMO.


I've contemplated the idea of being able to take a road test drunk in order to be able to have a higher legal BAC. I am perfectly capable of driving after 1 beer thanks...

Bunkered wrote: The question isn't whether or not there are drunk drivers Carl, but whether I should be stopped when I'm not drunk and following all traffic laws. And I tend to agree with the idea that having a bunch of po's sitting in one place doesn't do anywhere near as much as having a bunch of po's roaming about seperately. Cover more ground that way, basic concept. There's no need to stop an entire road to check everyone. Chances are that if you can't see a guy swerving around, braking oddly, or driving extremely aggressively (even if he is drunk), he's not going to crash. If you think every drunk driver is going to automatically smash into someone you're wrong. LOTS of people drive drunk, and they usually don't get in accidents. But when they do it tends to get publicized a lot. I'll just throw a random speculation out that I bet just as many people get in car accidents NOT involving alcohol as the ones that do.

Above post is buried a bit.

Probably many more sober related accidents but does that make drunk driving allright? Of course there are many more sober people driving than drunk drivers but how does that make any point?

Is it wrong for it to be publicised alot? If you see a picture of a guy on the news who got his brand new car taken away, aren't you going to be more likely to think twich before driving drunk?

Having a road block that means you are 100% going to get searched is a much better deterrance than more cops on the road.

The question isn't whether or not there are drunk drivers Carl, but whether I should be stopped when I'm not drunk and following all traffic laws.

And I tend to agree with the idea that having a bunch of po's sitting in one place doesn't do anywhere near as much as having a bunch of po's roaming about seperately. Cover more ground that way, basic concept.
There's no need to stop an entire road to check everyone.
Chances are that if you can't see a guy swerving around, braking oddly, or driving extremely aggressively (even if he is drunk), he's not going to crash.
If you think every drunk driver is going to automatically smash into someone you're wrong. LOTS of people drive drunk, and they usually don't get in accidents. But when they do it tends to get publicized a lot.

I'll just throw a random speculation out that I bet just as many people get in car accidents NOT involving alcohol as the ones that do.