gut;1628031 wrote:That's interesting. Can't say I disagree with you. And it begs the question if cops wouldn't arrest more DUI's if the manpower was instead out patrolling for clearly impaired drivers. And I'd think the outstanding warrants is usually "trivial" stuff...those people typically aren't that tough to find if the cops/DA really want to.

All of which really just adds up to a waste of resources and taxpayer dollars, 4th Amendment issues aside.

vdubb96;1627801 wrote:Tiernan

Zoltan;1628084 wrote:In my experience, most DUI arrests typically aren't from "clearly" impaired drivers. They are often the result of normal speeding, a tail light out, a license plate light out, a missed turn signal, etc. The problem with normal patrolling for DUI's is you probably have to pull over 10 sober people to catch one drunk person. This results in lots of people pissed off in the community. It's a tough situation to handle correctly.

sherm03;1628108 wrote:So instead of pulling over 10 sober people to catch one drunk person, you'd rather they pull over 100's of sober people to catch a handful of drunk people?

sherm03;1628108 wrote:So instead of pulling over 10 sober people to catch one drunk person, you'd rather they pull over 100's of sober people to catch a handful of drunk people?

Classyposter58;1628237 wrote:Just fucking turn around when you see like 4-5 cop cars and go another direction. It's not that hard to spot, I think the other day in Toledo they caught like 25 of them off Woodville Rd

Midstate01;1628241 wrote:If you're dumb enough to drink and drive and put other people's lives at risk, then you deserve to get pulled over and busted.

sherm03;1628247 wrote:The point isn't about protecting the people that are dumb enough to do that. I agree with you. The point is, if you're smart enough NOT to drink and drive...why do you have to be subject to being stopped for no reason whatsoever?

Midstate01;1628255 wrote:And I get it...we have rights. But if you're sober...what's really the problem.

Classyposter58;1628237 wrote:Just fucking turn around when you see like 4-5 cop cars and go another direction. It's not that hard to spot, I think the other day in Toledo they caught like 25 of them off Woodville Rd

sherm03;1628256 wrote:The problem is that it infringes on your rights. Why should I have to plan my route around the most direct way just because there is a checkpoint?
And using the logic you presented...if you have nothing to hide, then what's really the problem if the police come to your house and say they are going to look around? It's the same premise.

Manhattan Buckeye;1628257 wrote:"then what's really the problem if the police come to your house and say they are going to look around? It's the same premise."

This is a very good point.

I understand the concept that if you choose to drive on publicly-funded roads you are subject to their rules and regulations. But on the other hand for the vast majority of that own a house and owe real estate taxes, is it that much different? As long as we are taxed on our houses we never truly own it outright. So if the government can use its influence to conduct a search on a government owned property, is it that much of a stretch to think they can do so on a property that is subject to forfeiture if government taxes aren't paid?

And no one needs to read my e-mails, regardless of how innocuous they are. i don't expect the USPS to open my letters and read my personal correspondence, and our government isn't just a single entity, but rather composed of individuals that can be incompetent and self-dealing. With all of the scandals involving the NSA, VA, IRS, etc. it should be obvious that we can't trust them to choose the correct path.

then what's really the problem if the police come to your house and say they are going to look around? It's the same premise."

SportsAndLady;1628258 wrote:You know nothing about everything.

It baffles me how wrong/stupid you sound when you talk about pretty much anything on here.

sherm03;1628256 wrote:The problem is that it infringes on your rights. Why should I have to plan my route around the most direct way just because there is a checkpoint?
And using the logic you presented...if you have nothing to hide, then what's really the problem if the police come to your house and say they are going to look around? It's the same premise.

Manhattan Buckeye;1628541 wrote:"Well technically it doesn't infringe on your rights, the courts have said so."

Individual judges have said so, and they can be overturned. I don't care if it is 5 minutes or 5 seconds, if I've done nothing wrong I shouldn't have to talk to a cop, and I'm generally pro-LE. But there are plenty of bad apples out there (see the Virginia ABC debacle or all of the SWAT animal shootings). If DUI's are so prevalent then there are better ways to enforce rather than imposing an unreasonable burden on law-abiding Americans that shouldn't be subject to a police-militarized state.

Glory Days;1628540 wrote:Well technically it doesn't infringe on your rights, the courts have said so. second, why do you have to plan your routes differently when there is a checkpoint? not every car is stopped, so you already have a small chance of having to spend an extra minute or two talking to a cop. maybe 5 extra minutes to your destination on average?

Midstate01;1628255 wrote:And I get it...we have rights. But if you're sober...what's really the problem.