The New “Highway Robbery”: Money-Making DUI Roadblocks Growing

Maricopa County Courts ^ | February 14, 2010 | Lawrence Taylor

[dcwusmc]

Oh, gee, what an original idea. Flash for you: the instances of DUI had been declining long before these checkpoints got started. These are all about nothing but fundraising and getting the sheep used to presenting our papers.

[Deaf Smith]

"Any bets as to the outcome?"

They might require you to fill out a 4473 for your firearms and then do the background check.

[Republic of Texas]

In my early youth as na'er do well, I was arrested for a controlled substance. The detective wanted to confiscate my car. He asked what it was worth, about $1000. He asked what I owed, about $1500. End of conversation.

[Erasmus]

The horozontal gaze nystagmus is routinely striken and excluded from evidence because it is so easily manipulated.

Proposed scene for some movie:

1. Cop holds his two index fingers up, touching, side by side, directly between him and you.

2. Cop says "Follow my fingers with your eyes."

3. Cop moves both fingers to the right.

4. Cop moves both fingers back to the center.

5. Cop moves both fingers to the left.

6. Cop moves both fingers back to the center.

7. Cop moves right finger to right and left finger to left until they are two feet apart.

8. Cop says "Buddy, I'm taking you in."

[Munz]

There are a few things I would like to comment on but first.

I went to the link and got this error:
>The page you are looking for no longer exists. Perhaps you can find what you are looking for by searching the site archives by page, month, or category:<

You said in the beginning of your post:
>So why are cops using more and more DUI roadblocks? Simple: They are goldmines.<

Cops don’t make money off this and probably would prefer not to stand out on the street and do this type of work. They are given orders to do so. The way it is phrased could easily be construed that the police profit from and make the decisions to do this. They don’t. They are given directives from politicians who tell the chief / Sheriff to do it and they are deployed.

It is kind of unfair to paint police as the aggressors in all this. What can they do? Refuse to do the road block as ordered?

>1. It is illegal to stop a citizen without probable cause to believe they have violated the law.<

Incorrect. Reasonable suspicion is all that is necessary under the law. A person may be stopped and questioned as to their identity if a crime has been committed or is believed to be “afoot” (in the process of being committed) according to the USSC last time I checked.

>2. A roadblock constitutes a stop without probable cause.<

I disagree, it is being applied uniformly, no different than any road check for any other activity. Be it inspections, bald tires, invalid registrations, or “informational” stops as road checks. (Ie a crime is committed on a certain evening on a desolate stretch of a county back road where there are residential traffic. No leads are produced. the police may institute a check and stop every vehicle at the same time the next evening to see if any passer bye’s may have seen anything, if that is a course of regular travel at that time for them)

Perhaps there is even more reason to do this since you are checking the welfare of drivers as they pass. certainly no law against checking to ensure safety is being complied with onthe road for all drivers.

>So…A cop can’t stop you to check for registration or license, possible equipment violations, open containers, seat belt checks, etc.<

This is serious news to me. Maybe someone should tell the State of New York because it is perfectly acceptable to do so. even on the tickets the type of “arrest” has a number on it to indicate how the violator was found and “road check” is one of the numbers.

I wouldn’t believe so much coming out of Berkley California reporters myself.

[Munz]

>Are there any instances of innocent and totally sober people failing these tests and having property taken?

Not playing devil’s advocate here, just curious.<

I myself do not agree with the statutory limit of intoxication. People have been arrested for being “over the limit” based almost solely upon an “alcosensor”. They may have passed their field sobriety tests but have “blown” something above what is considered “impaired”. Yet to arrest on that is ridiculous IMO. Now when someone falls down getting out of the car, can’t follow simple directions. Find their license and hand you their library card instead .. well now we are talking about another animal.

[Munz]

That is disgusting and criminal. I hope they got caught and lost their jobs.

[Munz]

>How long before police are on commission? Or are they already.<

Actually it is illegal to get extra pay for doing your job unless your a federal agent. the FBI regularly gives it’s agents cash bonuses for cases they worked.

Most cops see a dead kid or two from DWI and really want to stop it believe it or not. Maybe if you saw a few mangled kids where you couldn’t tell the pizza that had flipped out of the box from the kid who was bringing it home, you would take a different view too.

[RandallFlagg]

BUMP FOR TRAPSTER!

It works GREAT!

[Munz]

Firstly, and this may not apply to you in your state, but it is true in NY. You do not have a “right” to drive. It is a privilege which can be taken away by the state.
Second you give implied consent when you accept your license that you will obey the rules of the road and that you will not be dwi.
You give the right for your blood to be taken if you are unconscious if probable cause exists that you are or have been dwi.

Lastly, you make your statement as if traffic related deaths and dwi have not been significantly reduced by the push to stop it. It has in fact been dramatically reduced.

People drink far less and drive today than they did some 20 years ago. There were more fatalities that were alcohol related and BAC’s were much higher than they are today on the average.

Again, I do not agree with lowering the BAC to arrest for DWI. That I think is a money maker. But if someone is drunk, I have no pity for them. I pity the person and their family that they may kill by being drunk and driving.

[RobRoy]

>>Enjoy your tasing, pepper spray, beating, and charge for resisting arrest.<<

If I legally turn around, and stop when the lights are flashed, I’m pretty safe. One of the reasons is my age. I’m 56. Another reason is that it is pretty obvious that I don’t do drugs, etc. They would be wasting their time with me and they would know it. I also think the risk of litigation would be apparent. I have argued (loudly) with cops that have pulled me over for speeding, etc. and got off with a “warning”.

Now, if I did an illegal U turn, all bets are off.

[SkyDancer]

They didn’t ... they were also targeting Hispanic drivers and even confiscating their cars ....(not Missouri but another state - I think Arizona)

[Munz]

>They didn’t ... they were also targeting Hispanic drivers and even confiscating their cars ....(not Missouri but another state - I think Arizona)<

I am not understanding, if it was known that they were planting evidence how could they NOT have been arrested for it?

[SkyDancer]

It came out later that the cops were doing it ... stop the car, have the people step out then drop a baggie in it, call the sniffer dog ..... the point is they were doing rolling vehicle checks ....

[I_Like_Spam]

How long before police are on commission? Or are they already.
________________

Although you’re being sarcastic, the answer is “sort of, in a way”.

Police officers get a chance to earn overtime around here for court appearances and it can be pretty lucrative.

[granite]

http://maricopacountycourt.net/maricopa-county-courts/maricopa-criminal-court/dui-arizona/the-new-%E2%80%9Chighway-robbery%E2%80%9D-money-making-dui-roadblocks-growing/

[Skooz]

Avoiding a “DUI checkpoint” is illegal around here. You will be ticketed for driving to avoid one. Really.

[RobRoy]

>>Avoiding a “DUI checkpoint” is illegal around here. You will be ticketed for driving to avoid one. Really.<<

They have to prove you are, in fact, avoiding it.

We used to have HOV lanes here that were on the right side. I used to use them to pass traffic where there was an exit (you are allowed to use the lane if the line is dashed, in order to exit the freeway) and then pull back in to traffic.

Once I got pulled over for an HOV violation after doing exactly that. I told the cop I realized that I was getting off one exit too early and so I merged back in. I got no ticket.

Same here. If one LEGALLY makes a U turn or otherwise avoids a sobriety checkpoint, there is nothing the cops can do, unless they can PROVE your sole reason was for avoiding the checkpoint.

And in all honesty, many times in my life I have done exactly that because I forgot something or changed where I wanted to go. It would be absurd to suggest that if there is a checkpoint ahead it would be illegal to do so.

Without evidence, all they can do is harass you, and if it merely wastes their time, they’ll have to get back to the job at hand - shaking down drivers that can be shaken down with the least amount of effort. That’s how robbers and burglars work too.

[Munz]

thanks.

[DariusBane]

“Firstly, and this may not apply to you in your state, but it is true in NY. You do not have a “right” to drive. It is a privilege which can be taken away by the state.
Second you give implied consent when you accept your license that you will obey the rules of the road and that you will not be dwi.”

The two tiers upon which the whole premise of traffic enforcement rests are implied consent, and the licensing process. Once that was agreed to a long long time ago due process went out the window. It is simply how much risk are you willing to take on and how much do you want to transfer. Most Americans will give anything to be safe. I will not. I am willing to assume risk upon myself and my family in return for living in a free United States. I object vehemently to saturation patrols, road blocks etc. I think BAC dui should be at .10 not .8. The people killing people in cars are not at .8. Again, you have to be willing to recognize that we live a world that is not controllable. We can’t control the weather ala globull warming, and we can’t create zero risk. I will take my medicine in return for freedom. But that is a conscious choice that most Americans will not take. But why expect otherwise. 90% of Americans went to public schools the first 14 years of life. In that highly controlled environment the bell and the clock rule their life. Risk is minimized. Everything is predictable and controlled. The bell rings, you can get up, the bell rings it’s time to eat lunch, the bell rings it’s time to go home. The text books have orderly little chapters, followed by orderly questions that follow the text sequentially, predictably. The Test questions follow the end of chapter questions as an outline. Very safe, very predictable. So is it any wonder that Americans go into the world as voters and they demand their world to be very safe very predictable. No cost is too high. Fog the streets with cops shining flashlights into your car from the median. That’s OK because the objective is providing a safe and predicable environment.

I reject your model sir. I despise the simpletons who demand safety at any cost. SHAME ON YOU for forgetting what it is like to be free and unfettered.