That is more twisted than a strand of DNA.
You imply then that a DUI checkpoint is some sort of money making scheme and that the end point is revenue.
No implication required. I know it is. The money trail is well-marked and easy to follow.
No, the end point is to arrest drunk drivers.
Well then any claim of 'success' is fallacious. The numbers state this unequivocally.
who do in fact kill people.
An absurdly broad categorical statement. Yes it happens but in what quantity or percentage? At what levels of BAC? What other conditions contributed? Weather? Time of day? Traffic volume? Topography? Number of lanes?
Far too much nonsense about 'alcohol-related crashes' has been printed and swallowed by far too many. See third item at: http://www.duigulag.com/facts.htm
That one-size-fits-all argument has been used by the TSA, anti-gun groups, zero-tolerance schools and so on. Existence of a societal problem is not sufficient justification for the imposition of a police state on the whole of society.
One could argue that if no arrests were made, then the campaign was successful.
You yourself state that the objective is arresting drunk drivers, NOT keeping DUIs off the road. Two very different things. But there are tons of obvious and/or current methods for doing so. Off the top of my head there are taxis, safe ride groups, services that drive your vehicle and stow a scooter in your trunk for their return trip from your home. Regardless of the source of the funds, why isn't an equivalent amount spent on shuttle service between bars and restaurants? The same objective is achieved AND commerce within municipal borders takes place thus generating tax revenue. In many locales there are government vans of 12-15 seats used for transportation of senior citizens at taxpayer expense during the day. Why not use this existing equipment? 'Oh the city/state can't be in the business of transporting drunks.' Why not? It achieves the desired result without a load of court cases. We both know the reason why.
Sorry but the Pollyanna stuff about DUI checkpoint working as intended ignores the realities of the program's true intentions. DUI has become big business as fines skyrocket and cronies establish 'traffic schools' with large attendance fees (some of which is kicked back to government). There is scant scientific support for lowering BAC levels to .08 and now states - and the feds - are agitating for a .05 level with even less science applied. The rapidly shifting definition of 'impairment' means that the term was arbitrary to begin with.
A stone cold sober driver approaches the checkpoint and turns away to use another route home to avoid being delayed. For this laudable common-sense action he is pursued with vigor by police who ignore the 'escape route' letter of the law. Why? What on earth does this have to do with deterrence and/or apprehension of drunk drivers?
The grants that supply the so-called Governors' Highway Safety Fund are not derived from fines since the federal government does not receive those fines, the states do via their court systems. Federal grants have the inevitable strings attached: police overtime to be reimbursed must be spent only on DUI enforcement. Prevention and arrests for rape, murder, arson and other unpleasantries will have to wait.
Why is MADD entitled to de facto direct participation in our government? They are a group with an opinion and a fax machine, nothing more.
In the end, people may have their own opinion on the constitutionality of traffic stops that, by the admission of the police and the courts, lack probable cause, but to believe that the state has purely altruistic motives given the PR and straight cash value of such checkpoints is to be terminally naive.
My answer is what happens in San Francisco Bay Area, of which I have knowledge. The police department makes no money when someone is arrested. In fact, each arrest costs more to make than is ever recovered by any fine for traffic or criminal arrest. Any money that might be recovered goes to several entities including the courts; victims recovery funds and to the State and county.
I have no knowledge of other parts of CA, but it was our policy that DUI checkpoints were well publicized many days prior and were usually around national holidays. In fact, they were the subject of public service announcements and were broadcast on radio and local television. On the roadway, one mile before the checkpoint, there were flashing road signs warning of the upcoming checkpoint. There were many side streets to turn off of and no one was stopped for taking that option and by taking that side street, drivers could go parallel to the same street the checkpoint was working and therefore, would not be delayed.
And, the “Governor’s Fund” is for state highway enforcement and the money for the checkpoints comes from grants funded by fines. I do realize that money is fungible, but when we used to report back to the state and we received funds from the OTS program to cover some of our costs.
Now your experience may be more than mine, but what I have stated above is what happens in police agencies in the SF area.
As far as your other comments on the TSA etc, you get no argument from me. However, your comments about DUI being big business etc, is really hard to fathom. No one goes to “traffic school” for DUI and the ‘kick backs’ etc, are something of which, I have no knowledge and if you do, I would advise you to make a criminal complaint to the local DA. (that is if you trust the DA is not part of the cabal)