Police: Twitter used to avoid DUI checkpoints

Sacramento Bee / McClatchy Newspapers ^ | 28 Dec 2009 | Brad Banan

[relictele]

FRESNO, Calif. -- In a ritual nearly as familiar as Santa Claus and crowded stores, police agencies have again stepped up enforcement of drunken-driving laws this holiday season.

Studies have found sobriety checkpoints reduce alcohol-related crashes because they create awareness about the risk of arrest.

But some public-safety officials say that message might be lost on the group most at risk - young drivers. Trying to elude arrest for drunken driving, young people use technology to keep each other informed about the location of sobriety checkpoints, said Sgt. Dave Gibeault, head of the Fresno Police Department's traffic unit.

[wbill]

I agree with a lot of what you said, except that where I am, the newspapers run the checkpoint notifications prominently.

They still nab a whole lot of people, and not just for drinking and driving. Most of them are, erm, "undocumented workers", who likely can't read the paper to begin with. One of our counties has a zero tolerance policy towards illegals, and they get put on the first boat home.

Just sayin'. There are advantages, too.

And as far as "twittering" about them is concerned, how would that be different from Joe giving Bob a call and saying "Hey, take a different route home!" ? Just a different technology to beat up on, is all this is.

[Puppage]

Police: Twitter used to avoid DUI checkpoints

Pretty much the same as flashing your headlights to alert oncoming traffic of a radar trap coming up, no?

[B Knotts]

I am not convinced that Sitz and Martinez-Fuerte were correctly decided. Indeed, I rather doubt that the Framers of the Fourth Amendment would have considered “reasonable” a program of indiscriminate stops of individuals not suspected of wrongdoing.

     --Justice Clarence Thomas, in his dissent to Indianapolis v. Edmond

[Niuhuru]

Note how the people who concentrate perpetually on their victimization are usually the greatest victimizers themselves.

[IYAS9YAS]

You waive you rights when you sign your driver liscense.

Um, no. But thanks for playing.

Do you have specific law you can cite to show that, by signing a driver's license, in any state, I now waive any constitutionally protected rights?

What about out-of-state drivers?

[chrisser]

It is interesting how quickly we lovers of freedom tow the statest propaganda line whenever emotional subject matter is involved

Some dead white guy once said something about trading liberty for security that would seem to apply.

I'm absolutely against drunk driving.

I'm also absolutely against the random detention of otherwise law abiding citizens by the state.

If you can justify it for drunk driving, then you can justify it for anything. Heck, lets just put random checkpoints everywhere. We can test for drugs, alchohol, verify you paid your taxes and your child support, make sure you aren't on any terrorist watch lists, verify you have no outstanding parking tickets. Oh, and we'll check your vehicle for moving violations too.

It'll only take an hour out of your day every once in awhile, a small price to pay for your safety, Comrade.

[Stevenc131]

Trapster will send alerts to smartphones and some GPS systems. You mark a location when you pass it (assuming you have Trapster), and for the next couple of hours anyone who also has Trapster will get an alert when they get near the marked location. It’s usually used for speedtraps, but I’m sure some are using it for checkpoints as well.

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

It’s all part of the national suicide we’re committing. The concept of “police checkpoints” should make every free man’s skin crawl. But they don’t. Most people are more than willing to trade off their liberty for the illusion of security these ineffective blockades provide them.

It all started with seatbelt laws. Once we accepted that indefensible infringement, we were going to accept anything.

[LuvFreeRepublic]

There is nothing emotional about my statement. We are given a divers license and when it is given, we are expected to follow the rules that maximize the safety of all drivers. You know, stop at red lights, speed limits, not driving impaired, etc. These rules and others are currently in place. Our Constitution does not afford those that do not like the rules to simply disobey them. Also, it is well documented that alcohol and drugs impair ones ability. "You" getting drunk and being on the road may also infringe on my right to life, liberty and the pursue of happiness. Not a tough choice for me and nothing emotional about it. I like my life and I especially like the life of my kids. No one needs to drink and drive. Everyone is free to get $hit-faced anytime they want, just don't drive.

[xrmusn]

Crush a stink bomb....etc...
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
I had always thought that an extra fermented Mason Jar full of Kimchi would be very effective....

My luck the officer that was checking me out would be Korean....

[LonePalm]

You waive you rights when you sign your driver license.

More accurately you agree to an implicit contract that you will not engage in certain behaviors in exchange for permission to operate a motor vehicle upon the public roadways.

Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

If you can justify it for drunk driving, then you can justify it for anything.

Can, will and do. New Jersey police set up a checkpoint between predominatly black Camden and predominantly white Pennsauken a few years ago... for the not-quite-stated purpose of searching the cars of black men from Camden to see if they'd stolen anything from white men in Pennsauken.

[jonno]

...Pretty much the same as flashing your headlights to alert oncoming traffic

or the old CB radio...

or - gasp - cellphones??

A non-story.

[jimt]

No one needs to drink and drive. Everyone is free to get $hit-faced anytime they want, just don't drive.

I don't think anyone disagrees with that point.

But some of the "rules" are not to maximize the safety of all drivers, but to put cash in some goobermint coffers. I drive a toll road daily that has at least 2 officers staked out for speed traps. You can weave in and out of traffic, tailgate, irresponsibly change lanes, etc., and they won't bug you. Drive 8 or 9 miles over and it's ticket time.

Were those two officers actually driving the toll road, I'd agree it was for safety.

It's not. It's "revenue enhancement" for the county.

[Labyrinthos]

Do you have specific law you can cite to show that, by signing a driver's license, in any state, I now waive any constitutionally protected rights?

Under New York Law, every driver involved in traffic accident that results in injury to person or property has consented to a blood- alcohol test even if there is no evidence whatsoever that alcohol was a contributing factor to the accident.

[BerryDingle]

Have you ever wondered why those ignition interlocks were never adopted. It's those devices you blow into before you can unlock the ignition. It keeps the offender off the road and local govt. loses potential big bucks, along with insurance companiies.

Most people killed by drunk drivers, were killed by repeat offenders. Quit giving them their license back during the second offense.

DWI, DUI is a big money making rackett.

[LuvFreeRepublic]

It is only revenue enhancement if a driver is violating a law that was passed with the intent of maximizing the safety of all drivers. Tough sell to say someone was speeding and they were not endangering other drivers. Do officers cherry pick? Absolutely. If you don't want to be a “victim” of the officer's actions, don't break the law. If the officer drives the road or sits and watches, he/she is still looking to “stick it to” drivers who are violating the law. Simple solutions, comply with the laws, get them changed, move to a third world country. OBTW, I am the type of person that doesn't need to drink to deal with life's challenges or have "fun". My parents lead by example and taught me that doing the right thing, is the best way. I like who I am.

[aSeattleConservative]

“Young people continue to be the most dangerous drivers,” he said. “They will continue to drink and drive until they have families and realize they have something to lose.”

Not only does law enforcement acknowledge this (by the # of traffic tickets they issue and auto accident reports they write), but insurance companies as well. There’s a reason young people’s premiums are higher than older drivers.

Police officers and fishermen have something in common: they both go to places where they can “catch” something. If DUI wasn’t a problem, the police wouldn’t be out there watching for it.

Besides that, our society WANTS a cop on every corner. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t tolerate irresponsible behavior (”Look at Heather, she’s so funny when she’s wasted!”).

As far as your sarcastic comment: “More ‘studies’ references without cites or statistics and the obligatory mention of the Silly Putty known as ‘alcohol-related crashes.’ “...you might be careful when you use the word “silly” around one of the thousands of MADD parents that have lost a child to an alcohol related accident.

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

Revenue enhancement, so the cops can drink their coffee in muscle cars:

[going hot]

They still nab a whole lot of people, and not just for drinking and driving. Most of them are, erm, "undocumented workers",

Wonder when the ACLU will check in and sue those papers for not printing the notices in more languages, just to be fair, you see.