Posted on 02/17/2010 8:16:37 AM PST by granite
I’ve commented repeatedly in the past about how DUI roadblocks (MADD prefers the less oppressive term "sobriety checkpoints") are inefficient at apprehending drunk drivers. See Do DUI Roadblocks Work?, Do DUI Roadblocks Work (Part II), As a means of apprehending drunk drivers, even law enforcement admits they are only effective as a deterrent — i.e., keeping people off the streets. See DUI Logic: Roadblocks Effective – Because They’re Inefective, Purpose of DUI Roadblocks: "Shock and Awe".
So why are cops using more and more DUI roadblocks? Simple: They are goldmines. See DUI: Government’s Cash Cow, What if the Cash Cow Goes Dry? and How to Make a Million in the DUI Business.
A quick refresher:
1. It is illegal to stop a citizen without probable cause to believe they have violated the law.
2. A roadblock constitutes a stop without probable cause.
3. The US. Supreme Court ruled in Michigan v. Sitz that although a DUI roadblock does constitute a violation of the Fourth Amendment, the governmentalal interest in reducing drunk driving fatalities outweighs the "minimal intrusion" into a citizen’s constitutional rights.
4. Under the decision, roadblocks can only be for the purpose of arresting drunk drivers. However, as with any investigative detention, if the officer finds other violations of law during the roadblock stop, he does not have to ignore them.
So…A cop can’t stop you to check for registration or license, possible equipment violations, open containers, seat belt checks, etc. But if they throw up a DUI roadblock, they can screen hundreds of drivers for anything they can find. Result: citations, arrests, impounded vehicles — and an invaluable source of revenue for local governments. See, for example, DUI Roadblock: 1131 Stops, 114 Tickets, 0 DUI Arrests, Another "Successful" DUI Roadblock: 3000 Drivers Stopped, 0 DUIs.
The following is a story from yesterday’s news by investigative reporter Ryan Gabrielson, winner of the 2009 Pulitzer Prize for local reporting:
California Cops Exploit DUI Checkpoints to
Bring in Money for Cities, Police
California police are turning DUI checkpoints into profitable operations that are far more likely to seize cars from unlicensed minority motorists than catch drunken drivers.
Berkeley, CA. Feb. 13 – An investigation by the Investigative Reporting Program at UC Berkeley with California Watch has found that impounds at checkpoints in 2009 generated an estimated $40 million in towing fees and police fines – revenue that cities divide with towing firms.
Additionally, police officers received about $30 million in overtime pay for the DUI crackdowns, funded by the California Office of Traffic Safety…
In the course of its examination, the Investigative Reporting Program reviewed hundreds of pages of city financial records and police reports, and analyzed data documenting the results from every checkpoint that received state funding during the past two years. Among the findings:
• Sobriety checkpoints frequently screen traffic within, or near, Hispanic neighborhoods. Cities where Hispanics represent a majority of the population are seizing cars at three times the rate of cities with small minority populations. In South Gate, a Los Angeles County city where Hispanics make up 92 percent of the population, police confiscated an average of 86 vehicles per operation last fiscal year.
• The seizures appear to defy a 2005 federal appellate court ruling that determined police cannot impound cars solely because the driver is unlicensed. In fact, police across the state have ratcheted up vehicle seizures. Last year, officers impounded more than 24,000 cars and trucks at checkpoints. That total is roughly seven times higher than the 3,200 drunken driving arrests at roadway operations. The percentage of vehicle seizures has increased 53 percent statewide compared to 2007.
• Departments frequently overstaff checkpoints with officers, all earning overtime. The Moreno Valley Police Department in Riverside County averaged 38 officers at each operation last year, six times more than federal guidelines say is required. Nearly 50 other local police and sheriff’s departments averaged 20 or more officers per checkpoint – operations that averaged three DUI arrests a night…
With support from groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving, California more than doubled its use of sobriety checkpoints the past three years.
State officials have declared that 2010 will be the “year of the checkpoint.” Police are scheduling 2,500 of the operations in every region of California. Some departments have begun to broaden the definition of sobriety checkpoints to include checking for unlicensed drivers…
It’s probably just a coincidence that California, on the verge of bankruptcy, has decided to make this the "year of the checkpoint".
(Thanks to David Baker.)
It took me 2 years to recover my similar property after my son's DWI arrest.
Rescued the firearm 4 hours before it was due to be cut up and sold for scrap.
Good luck.
Yeah. I came home empty handed.
I had to lie to the officer because if I told him I had "a couple of beers", it was a guarantee I'd be going to jail because once you admit to an officer you'd been drinking, there's just no way they are going to let you go on your merry way. So I told him I hadn't been drinking and he waved me through.
Still, I was pissed that I was forced to tell a lie. Never should have been put in that position.
Revenue Enhancement Officer checking in.
“While I don’t care for police roadblocks (slows down traffic) has anybody ever tried....oh, I dunno, NOT drinking and driving?”
You have problems with reading comprehension, don’t you?
No, they don't. They only have to SAY it.
Excuse my French, but Bullsh@t!
I’ve been stopped in 4 of them and have thanked them for their service every time!
“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.”
Bullshit.
The state may claim it is so, but it is NOT.
I pay taxes in NY. Those taxes are used to pay for roads. They are MY roads as much as anybody’s. I have a RIGHT to use them as long as I don’t interfere with others rights to use them. Of course I must follow the law and must not endanger others. However, for the state to RIGHTFULLY take away my right to drive, they must use due process. But that is too much work so the dirty little weasels came up with this “privilege” ruse so that they can just do what ever they want WITHOUT due process.
Show me where it says in the Constitution that the Govt. can tell me I can’t use a publicly funded road.
Why are you proud to be a serf?
Oh no...in NJ cops frequently do random plate checks where they call in the plate numbers of passing motorists without any probable cause whatsoever in an attempt to "discover" lapsed registrations for which they then issue a ticket.
o;’m not, they are doing me a hugh service by getting human rubbish off the road!!!
You are only one dim license plate light away from being "rubbish" yourself there, sport.
Enjoy your Gulag.
Been there and back.
Understand it completely.
Sorry you don't.
Adios!
That was awkward.
Abusive, no need for that just because your bitter. But since you started.
Maybe next time, your son will kill himself, you know wrap the car around a tree really nice so you can’t even identify him. It’s all good with you I suppose.
me too at this point, as long as he doesn’t hurt someone else in the process.
>>No, they don’t. They only have to SAY it.<<
Nope. They have to prove it. This is not tax court. You really are innocent until proven guilty. It is about intent.
No attorney necessary. I have represented myself in court regarding much, MUCH more complicated matters and won. In this case law is very clear and black and white.
If a person LEGALLY changes the direction of their vehicle and they are unable to PROVE he did it to avoid a sobriety checkpoint, the person does not even need to defend themself. It is simpler than many believe. There are lots of good reasons to fear contact with the police. This is not one of them.
By “this” I mean LEGALLY changing your car’s direction to avoid a sobriety checkpoint coupled with a reason for doing it. If you are clearly sober, they cannot even prove intent or motive, for crying out loud. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.