Possibly an end to DUI Checkpoints.

[Brian Renville]

Pretty big margin.

https://www.grandforksherald.com/ne...l-outlawing-dui-checkpoints#.XGNd3MegL6M.link

 

[eyexer]

That's a bad idea actually. At least I think so. If there weren't so many drunk drivers out there it would probably be ok. But there are far too many.

 

[riverview]

i dont think leo should be able to just stop everybody and use dui as an exuse to do it.

 

[Brian Renville]

I'm inclined to agree with you but at the same time we are usually touting our states that emphasize personal rights and privacy pretty much at all costs. The basic argument though is do our personal freedoms extend to public property when in personal property? Anyway nothing that would have any effect on me, I have no problem taking a cab if I'm on the sauce.

 

[BrokenBackJack]

I don't drink so i have no skin in the game. My opinion is i hate check points unless it is for a very serious crime. But i can also see the advantages of it. Tough call and glad i don't have to make the decision.

 

[BDub]

I believe that part of the reason for the bill is to free up law enforcement. So they can concentrate on bar traffic.

 

[Sum1]

Isn’t that a form of discrimination?!? Why is it OK to discriminate against drunks? Let’s be a little more open minded here folks.

 

[Allen]

Good, while I understand the public benefit from having fewer drunks behind the wheel, I have always maintained that they violate the spirit of the Constitution. Checkpoints are for communists and nazis.

We have a good number of LEO's in my area that will absolutely pull you over for anything dangling from your rearview mirror, snow on your license plate (no shit, saw that just a couple weeks ago), dim (but not out) headlight, taillight, or whatever lightbulb, or doing 16 in a 15. Law enforcement should have a valid reason for pulling someone over in America.

Yeah, they may all be against the letter of the law but I call them conversation starters.

- - - Updated - - -

I believe that part of the reason for the bill is to free up law enforcement. So they can concentrate on bar traffic.

I believe they are usually done with officers on OT as a part of a federal (maybe state) grant. Point being, the LEOs staffing the checkpoints tend to be extras for the evening. Perhaps one of our LEO members can clear that up for me if I'm mistaken.

 

[fj40]

Check points are an inefficient use of resources. Take those officers and place them on the road with an emphasis on DUI's and you will have better results. Checkpoints are a public relations action bringing awareness to the problem. The time and date are always publicized prior. Not the location, however. I'm not sure if the NDHP receives additional funds for their officers but most county/city cops are pulled off other duties for the time the checkpoint takes place. I was never a fan of checkpoints and very seldom supplied deputies for that purpose.

 

[DirtyMike]

Good, while I understand the public benefit from having fewer drunks behind the wheel, I have always maintained that they violate the spirit of the Constitution. Checkpoints are for communists and nazis.

We have a good number of LEO's in my area that will absolutely pull you over for anything dangling from your rearview mirror, snow on your license plate (no shit, saw that just a couple weeks ago), dim (but not out) headlight, taillight, or whatever lightbulb, or doing 16 in a 15. Law enforcement should have a valid reason for pulling someone over in America.

Yeah, they may all be against the letter of the law but I call them conversation starters.

- - - Updated - - -



I believe they are usually done with officers on OT as a part of a federal (maybe state) grant. Point being, the LEOs staffing the checkpoints tend to be extras for the evening. Perhaps one of our LEO members can clear that up for me if I'm mistaken.

Lincoln cops do indeed suck.

 

[Rowdie]

I think I read somewhere that we have the right to travel public roads without being impeded. I'e always wondered how they can just set up a checkpoint. I've seen some U-tube videos where people just keep their window cracked and keep asking I'm I being detained, over and over that's all they ask, then they're let go.

 

[Walleye_Chaser]

While I hate drunks on the road, I've always thought it to be unlawful. What is the different between a check point and putting all street addresses into a hat and randomly selecting 50 homes to search? Serious question. I think there would be complete outrage.

 

[BrokenBackJack]

When driving in town/city if i am following someone with a brake light or tail light out i try and get beside them to let them know they have a bulb burned out. Always thanked and never chewed out for letting them know. Just don't want someone pulled over on account of it and getting into more trouble.

 

[Up Y'oars]

I believe they are usually done with officers on OT as a part of a federal (maybe state) grant. Point being, the LEOs staffing the checkpoints tend to be extras for the evening. Perhaps one of our LEO members can clear that up for me if I'm mistaken.

You are correct. The funding usually comes from federal grant dollars and are used for OT hours for crew that would like to gather in extra dough. The normal schedule of folks patrolling are not affected by a checkpoint unless they are stationed a mile away to catch anyone doing a turn around and leaving the scene.

 

[eyexer]

SCOTUS says they’re constitutional. How do you guys feel about game checks. They’re the same thing. I can’t even tell you the last dui checkpoint I’ve seen

 

[onpoint!]

not a fan of checkpoints, but less a fan of drunk drivers risking lives of everyone on or near the road. driving is a privilege, not a right - (unlike your home-invasion scenario) this is one of the costs of exercising that privilege. I've driven 50 years, haven't gone through a checkpoint yet, so it isn't like they're on every corner making you late for your big date. sending officers out on a dui focus, looking for probable cause (no, they cant just stop you) to pull you over is not more effective. Neither are highly effective, for that matter; hence, it takes a combination of efforts to 1. educate the driving public, 2. tip the probability scale of being stopped if driving under the influence, and maybe convince a few knuckleheads to get a ride instead.

 

[deleted member]

not a fan of them either. i've always questioned the ruling(s) that found them constitutional. like a lot of instances with court rulings, it seems to me they had an end result in mind and reasoned their way to said result. i do actually disagree that they are any more effective than more officers on the street(s) for that particular night for something like "dui saturation" nights. when you look at the stats for most checkpoints they often get only a few dui arrests over the course of 3-4 hours. put those same officers on the road all over town over the same time frame (10 PM - 2:30 AM on a friday) stopping people for reasonable suspicion or PC for any offense they see and the results will be much better. i almost guarantee it.

 

[eyexer]

not a fan of them either. i've always questioned the ruling(s) that found them constitutional. like a lot of instances with court rulings, it seems to me they had an end result in mind and reasoned their way to said result. i do actually disagree that they are any more effective than more officers on the street(s) for that particular night for something like "dui saturation" nights. when you look at the stats for most checkpoints they often get only a few dui arrests over the course of 3-4 hours. put those same officers on the road all over town over the same time frame (10 PM - 2:30 AM on a friday) stopping people for reasonable suspicion or PC for any offense they see and the results will be much better. i almost guarantee it.

i agree with this. And they always announce the checkpoints. My kids a cop and he writes several dui’s every weekend. That’s why they don’t do them around here.

 

[Bed Wetter]

DUI is a victimless crime. Leave me alone, Mr. Officer.

 

[db-2]

Only check point i have gone through in the last few years was in Canada and in Canada one does not want to get a DUI as it is a felony.

However one time I was leaving Devils Lake late at night and yes I was at a bar.
Cop pull me over said I speeded up to 72 leaving town while in the 55 MPH zone.
Well it was in my Dodge Cummings with a 4.10 rear end in it and to get going 72 is not normally were I drive at due to the increase in RPMs let alone in that distance. And I do watch myself when I leave the bars at night. Yes guys it will go 72 but not where I normally go with it.

So I went through all the standing on one walk, ect and that damn flash light in my eyes forever. Finally he said I need to blow or else he was writing a DUI. So I blew. Was .04. I could tell he was upset and started walking away. I said what about the speeding ticket. He just kept walking to his car.
He used a made up reason to stop me to get me a DUI just like the check points do.

Just like leaving your receiver on your back hitch. That is illegal and a reason to stop you.
Never thought of this but would say no unless something is really serious going on. db