Posted on 01/04/2005 12:15:41 AM PST by nickcarraway
We're told that random sobriety checkpoints used to identify and catch "drunk drivers" make the roads safer -- but there's little, if any, hard data to
What we do have is an attempt to correlate the number of people arrested for driving with at least some alcohol in their bloodstream (no matter how little) with a reduction in alcohol-related motor vehicle fatalities.
That's quite a different thing.
In fact, the practice of herding drivers like cattle through these "checkpoints" hasn't put much of a dent in the total number of drunk driving deaths that occur annually in the U.S.
Depending on whose numbers you believe, roughly half of the 48,000 or so motor vehicle fatalities reported to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) each year are listed as "alcohol-related" -- that is, attributed in some way to the consumption of alcohol and the involvement of a motor vehicle.
But these figures are themselves deceptive because, for one thing, "alcohol-related" means fatalities that don't necessarily involve a drunk driver are lumped in with those that do. For example, the death of a drunk pedestrian who wanders into a busy street and gets run over is listed as "alcohol-related" fatality -- even though the driver of the car was completely sober. Similarly, if a car runs off the road and it is later determined that a passenger had some alcohol in his system, the death of that passenger is likewise reported as "alcohol-related" -- even though the passenger's consumption of alcohol had absolutely nothing to do with the accident itself. In this way, the actual number of "drunk driving" deaths can be distorted -- and is reported -- as being a much higher percentage of the total than is in fact the case.
The more relevant fact as regards the usefulness of sobriety checkpoints, however, is that while there is some slight year-to-year fluctuation in motor vehicle fatalities attributed to drunk driving, there has been no major downward trend that coincides with the increased use of roadside sobriety checkpoints -- which have become commonplace around the country, especially during the holiday season.
But if the checkpoints are effective at catching dangerous drunks, then there should be an obvious statistical downtick in drunk driving deaths that coincides with the expanded use of these checkpoints.
Problem is, there isn't.
This suggests that while sobriety checkpoints have been very effective at criminalizing social drinkers -- that is, otherwise law-abiding and responsible people with slight trace amounts of alcohol in their system who would otherwise have gone unnoticed and probably made it home without incident -- they aren't doing so well at nabbing the truly dangerous heavy drinkers who are responsible for the majority of the drunk driving deaths and accidents.
It's a fact, for example, that the majority of drunk driving deaths involve a person with a Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) of .10 percent or higher, a point reached after a bout of pretty heavy drinking -- not the glass or two of wine over dinner that puts a person in peril of a DUI citation as a result of running afoul of ever-lower maximum allowable BAC levels.
Most states now have BAC thresholds for "drunk driving" set at the .08 BAC level, significantly below the .10 BAC level (and higher) that used to obtain -- and at which point it's been shown a person is most likely to actually be involved in (or the cause of) a motor vehicle accident.
Having had a drink or two is not the same thing as being "drunk" -- but advocates of ever-lower BAC thresholds and the aggressive use of sobriety checkpoints do not seem to appreciate the distinction. Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), to cite the most notorious example, continues to push for BAC thresholds to be lowered to .06, even .04 -- a level so low that a person could be legally considered "drunk" after having consumed as little as a single glass of beer or wine.
But "habitual offenders" with BAC levels of .10 and higher are not only responsible for most of the drunk driving problem, they tend to go out and drive drunk again and again and again. They are not deterred by sobriety checkpoints -- and are often cagey enough to avoid them entirely, because (for example) many hard-core alcoholics drive drunk in the daytime -- and for the most part sobriety checkpoints are set up in the evening hours.
The best way to catch these habitual and hard-core drunk drivers, according to experienced law-enforcement officers, is not by the use of dragnet-style "checkpoints" -- but the old-fashioned way: by patrolling the streets, looking for drivers displaying evidence of serious impairment such as weaving, wandering across the center line, or driving too slowly.
Instead, police resources have been concentrated on static checkpoints -- leaving the roads open to the bad guys while over-punishing people who aren't really the problem.
Like the airport practice of screening middle aged hausfraus at the gate, this may be politically correct -- but it's demonstrably ineffective at identifying and dealing with the real culprits.
Eric Peters is a Washington, D.C.-based automotive columnist and the author of Automotive Atrocities: The Cars You Love to Hate (Motor Books International).
I believe this. A couple of experienced officers can make as many arrests of DUI's in one shift as a whole roadblock.
A couple of years ago the local liberal rag actually came out against the .08 standard and said it should be set back at the .10 standard. (I suspect that someone on the editorial board had family or friends who were arrested and registered .08).
Wrong question.
Should be: "Are random checkpoints and searches Constitutional?"
Answer - no.
Checkpoints DO tie up lots of personnel. In MD, the only people detained more than 30 secs are probable cause DUI's...folks who seem drunk. Usually between 1% and 3% of drivers get cited for DUI. And the checkpoints are operated between 2300-0300 only. So there are no mass impoundments, no license checks, etc. If the driver doesn't show some signs of intoxication, he/she is sent on without having to produce a license or anything else. BTW, most BAC's were .20 and up.
Yeah, different locatalities have different operating rules. If a roadblock is set up to check for DUI's, then logically, there shouldn't be vehicles being impounded if the driver shows no sign of drinking. But, this is Kaleefornia, and logic doesn't apply here.
Over the summer, I got roped into going to dinner with several co-workers and a European vendor with a taste for fine wine. Over 2 hours I had one beer and one glass of wine. I was not feeling even a buzz when I left to go home. On leaving, I popped some cinnamon gum in my mouth as I always do after having a drink. It was fortunate, since I ran into a DUI checkpoint in the downtown area of a neighboring town (this was a Wednesday night at 8 PM in a commercial district with no nearby bars or restaurants). I got off the highway at my usual exit and ran straight into it - set up in FRONT of the police station. The officer was quite pleasant and asked if I'd been drinking that evening - I lied through my teeth!
Had I admitted to the sin of having two drinks with dinner, I'd have been pulled over, Breathalyzed, and made to say the alphabet backwards while pointing to my nose and balancing on one foot. If I'd been unlucky, I'd have been deemed impaired and arrested for DUI even though I'd have definitely blown well under 0.08. So I smiled at the officer, called him "Sir," and motioned towards the backpack in the passenger seat and told him I was on my way home from my night class. He bought it and I went on my way.
My fiance and I have a rule that when we go to a nice dinner or out with friends, whichever of us is driving is limited to one drink per hour (2 drink max). It tends to put a damper on things, particularly since friends and family have no such compunction. But better to be safe than sorry...I know too many people who have been arrested for DUI despite blowing under the legal limit, simply because a cop felt they were "impaired!"
These dumb checkpoints to little other than to harass and intimidate responsible social drinkers and the general public. The police would be better off having experienced cops patrolling and watching for drivers who are genuinely impaired.
I was on my way to Taco Bell on New Years and was stopped at a sobriety check point. Did not have a drink so I was safe, but they made me miss TB before they closed. I think sobriety checks are well-intentioned but seem more intrusive than anything. We also have camera's at our intersections (VA Beach).
These 'folks you know' who were arrested for DUI despite blowing under the limit would have been immediately found not guilty in court. Not to mention the LEO looking, to the judge and the public, like even more of a fool than usual. Not to mention exposing him/her/selves and their jurisdiction to suit for improper prosecution. Makes you wonder why he/she would make such an arrest, especially more than once!
I was on my way home from work after the bar rush when I noticed the truck ahead of me was weaving consistently for about 5 miles. In fact, he almost sideswiped the car next to him on several occasions. I called 911 to report this b/c I thought he was gonna kill someone. I described the vehicle but couldn't get the full license plate number. I stayed behind him for another 5 miles until my regular turnoff but I NEVER saw the beat cop they were supposedly sending to check him out. Guess saving lives wasn't really a priority for them that night.
There was some lawyer who had a group called DAMM, Drunks against Mad Mothers. He said that the laws were excessive and made by lawyers to make money.
.....wonder what happened to him....?
My brother saw a drunk guy from Ohio on our way home from a Metallica Concert in Barrie, Ontario a few years ago, speed varying between 40 and 100 mph. He called the OPPs, and they had 2 cruisers waiting at the next ramp. They followed for about a mile, then pulled him over. The cop came up to us and said "Well, we don't need you - he's plenty drunk" and thanked us for our help.
Back home in Buffalo, the checkpoints are always at the same spots - and easy to avoid.
My husband was stopped last year.
His Bronco backfired as he was climbing a hill on the way home. Several police cars were on the road as well.
The local law(yer) enforcement thought my husband shot at him (no gun & going 55 with the windows rolled up) and radioed all his buddies.
Six of them pulled my husband over with guns drawn & told him to keep his hands where they could see them & get out of the truck. Hubby REPEATEDLY yelled "I'm buckled in - I can't keep my hands up & get out at the same time!"
When he finally got out, they THREW him to the ground with guns to his head.
Then they discovered he had an open beer, & the FUN began.
(A little background - Hubby had stopped & got a six pack on the way home. He had maybe half a beer and was all of 5 minutes from our driveway).
They gave him the roadside test, which he passed. THAT just made them mad, so another officer tested him with the same result. FOUR different officers tested him before they finally gave up, and while he was being 'tested' the others were DESPERATELY looking in the truck for whatever they could find!
It wound up costing us about $300, and that doesn't include wages lost because he had to take time off work to deal with our *justice* system!
Suspected DWB?
Open beer in the car, huh?
C'mon Appy. Even FR's governmental drum-bangers know 'open container' is a synonym for 'revenue generation'.
It has NOTHING to do with safety - either you've had enough to be intoxicated, or you haven't.
If you are, we already have laws to deal with it.
More *laws* don't do anything but make more *criminals*.
They were arrested, not convicted. As soon as they (very wisely) lawyered up, charges were dropped in both cases. Still had to pay court fees and the lawyer's retainer, though...and one guy had his car towed while he was being hauled off to jail, and had to pay the fee to get it back from the impound lot.
Both were college age men driving alone late on weekend evenings, and got caught in DUI checkpoints run by local police, not state troopers. The two incidents were in different towns, several months apart.
I wouldn't believe it either if it hadn't happened to two friends of mine! I wouldn't expect it from state troopers, but some town cops are a different story...
It should be put back at the .10 standard. The consequences are so horrible that we shouldn't be financially crippling people who are not a danger. We have cops now that are tossing people in jail for .03, even though the standard is higher. They get arrested for driving under the influence rather than driving while intoxicated. Why even have a standard?
Don't know, maybe the Mad Mothers had him whacked.
Exactly, Ive come to the rather cynical conclusion that most traffic laws as applied today are less about public safety and more about legalized extortion on the part of every po-dunk town and county. :P
(Maybe Im bitter because of too many run-ins with racist state troopers and incompetent justice court workers).
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.