DeyDurkie5;1628591 wrote:I'm sure you don't mind. being military, they would just give you a get out of jail free card and probably buy you outback.

I should get to choose where.

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.

If they infringed on rights, they would be illegal and that's it. individual judges say a lot of things, that's why there are higher courts, checks and balances etc. and even if an exception is created, that still means, as long as they are within that exception(reasonable), they are not infringing on your rights. just because people feel their rights are infringed on doesn't make it so. that would be one hell of a legal system if that is how it worked.

sherm03;1628581 wrote:I'm a 29 year old male who looks younger than that. I have never NOT been stopped at a DUI checkpoint because my demographic frequents bars/parties. The additional time waiting in line, and then additional time talking to an officer...even if it is 1 extra minute...is bullshit. If there is no reasonable reason to stop me, they should not be allowed to do so.

And technically...as lhs pointed out...it DOES infringe on rights. You don't always have to toe the police line Glory Days. It's OK to admit when they are wrong. This is one of those times.

but its not wrong, that's my whole point.

Here are the opinions from the supreme court ruling upholding DUI checkpoints as constitutional.

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/15/us/excerpts-from-supreme-court-s-decision-upholding-sobriety-checkpoints.html

^^^

Have you read about the ABC case in Charlottesville, VA? To my knowledge none of the officers involved in the assault and battery of a vehicle of young ladies that did nothing more than buy bottled water have been punished at all, let alone fired. And some of the officers already had previous records of malpractice.

The issue is the same with other government employees - read: teachers. The vast majority are very good, and work hard and do good jobs. But when it comes to the bad actors you can't get rid of them or punish them because of your idiotic unions.

i would be very happy to educate you on what happened in C'ville. If that happened to my daughter I'd freaking go ape on the idiots that terrorized them. But there is no accountability in public union jobs anymore.

Manhattan Buckeye;1628632 wrote:^^^

Have you read about the ABC case in Charlottesville, VA? To my knowledge none of the officers involved in the assault and battery of a vehicle of young ladies that did nothing more than buy bottled water have been punished at all, let alone fired. And some of the officers already had previous records of malpractice.

The issue is the same with other government employees - read: teachers. The vast majority are very good, and work hard and do good jobs. But when it comes to the bad actors you can't get rid of them or punish them because of your idiotic unions.

i would be very happy to educate you on what happened in C'ville. If that happened to my daughter I'd freaking go ape on the idiots that terrorized them. But there is no accountability in public union jobs anymore.

So this discussion is about the actions of individual government employees or DUI checkpoints? corrupt people will be corrupt in whatever situation you put them in. maybe police officers should just sit at the police station so they don't interact with the public because one of them might do something corrupt, we cant take that chance you know. maybe teachers should just teleconference with their students.

And I just read an article about that case. it wasn't a DUI checkpoint. they were in the parking lot of a store. and yes, those cops were a tad bit too aggressive obviously.

The discussion is about accountability. Government employees appear to have none. So DUI checkpoints, like all other abuses of power can't be challenged. If you don't like your reputation, challenge your union and make a difference. Until then you are part of the problem for not standing up to the corruption and deserve all the grief you get.

i don't want to deal with cops if I've done nothing wrong in the even 1% chance I get involved with an asshole who isn't accountable....and it is happening more frequently from what I've seen.

Manhattan Buckeye;1628634 wrote:The discussion is about accountability. Government employees appear to have none. So DUI checkpoints, like all other abuses of power can't be challenged. If you don't like your reputation, challenge your union and make a difference. Until then you are part of the problem for not standing up to the corruption and deserve all the grief you get.

i don't want to deal with cops if I've done nothing wrong in the even 1% chance I get involved with an asshole who isn't accountable....and it is happening more frequently from what I've seen.

DUI checkpoints have been challenged though. I put up the link for the case that was decided by the US Supreme Court. I'd say that's a pretty good challenge since not all cases make it that high. not only that, given this great country you have, you can challenge it when you have your day in court.

Also, I am not in a union and have no problem with the reputation my agency has. I really don't care what most people think because most people don't have a clue about their constitutional rights, how they apply to them, or the rules that police have to operate by because of those rules. but either way, there will also be some amount of corruption in every job. its human nature. you cant stop that. well you can, I mean traffic cameras don't lie, cheat, steal, etc, yet no one likes them either. so its lose lose.

Maybe its just the places I have lived or the places I frequent, because I have never been through a DUI checkpoint. and that is working late nights in Cleveland and living in LA.

Glory days and scarlet buckeye are even dumber than Gut. I'm absolutely shocked by the lack of intelligence found here.

DUI checkpoints are wrong and should be outlawed.

http://www.whio.com/news/news/crime-law/sobriety-checkpoint-weekend/ngRWR/

Devils Advocate;1627710 wrote:I understand the importance of getting drunks off of the road, But on the other hand check points are a crock of shit. They pull over 5 or 6 hundred cards and issue a couple DUI's, a dozen seat belt violations, and one or two "outstanding warrants".

Is it worth pulling over that many people using that much police/man power to write a couple Tickets?

Here is a link for a guy in Parma that held up a sign warning of a check point, and he was sited for "obstructing police business". SMFH.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/18/douglas-odolecki_n_5509155.html?utm_hp_ref=weird-news&ir=Weird%20News

Two weekends ago in I think it was Gahanna there was an actual orange sign like you see at construction zones that warned of the DUI checkpoint ahead.


I think they are FN stupid. I know the local sheriff told us they get more people by patrolling around the checkpoint for people turning off beforehand than at the actual checkpoint.

I think they were found to be OK if they are announced ahead of time

thavoice;1629497 wrote:
I think they are FN stupid. I know the local sheriff told us they get more people by patrolling around the checkpoint for people turning off beforehand than at the actual checkpoint.

So if the checkpoint wasn't there, they wouldn't have caught those people trying to avoid it. So directly or indirectly those were the results of the checkpoint being there.

Glory Days;1629710 wrote:So if the checkpoint wasn't there, they wouldn't have caught those people trying to avoid it. So directly or indirectly those were the results of the checkpoint being there.

Seriously? You're going to use this as justification for the checkpoints? You've got nothing.

Glory Days;1629710 wrote:So if the checkpoint wasn't there, they wouldn't have caught those people trying to avoid it. So directly or indirectly those were the results of the checkpoint being there.

If they had the twelve or sixteen cops on patrol, they would probably catch even more. Hell, I'm sure they would even write more seat belt violations.

^^^^Hell, Yes!....gotta nail those seat belt violators!

Glory Days;1629710 wrote:So if the checkpoint wasn't there, they wouldn't have caught those people trying to avoid it. So directly or indirectly those were the results of the checkpoint being there.

The local officer I know said when they have checkpoints they have other units patrolling the roads adjacent to it for people who turn off ahead of the checkpoint and issue more tickets from those cars. Would they have caught them without the checkpoint? PRobably not as a good chance the units would be patrolling as heavy on that road and probably not catch them.

Granted...many people will take the road around it just to avoid the headache of getting stopp

thavoice;1629883 wrote:Granted...many people will take the road around it just to avoid the headache of getting stopp

And I'm sure they pull those people over without probable cause, violating their rights.

Checkpoints are bullshit.

TedSheckler;1629832 wrote:Seriously? You're going to use this as justification for the checkpoints? You've got nothing.

Clearly you have more but just don't feel the need to express your opinion I see.

Devils Advocate;1629837 wrote:If they had the twelve or sixteen cops on patrol, they would probably catch even more. Hell, I'm sure they would even write more seat belt violations.

of course if they have 30 cops on patrol they would catch more even more than the 12 to 16.....

TedSheckler;1629889 wrote:And I'm sure they pull those people over without probable cause, violating their rights.

Violating rights is actually part of the police academy now. instructors challenge students on how best to violate someone's rights.

I'm one of the worst people I know, but I don't think even I could stomach waking up every day knowing my job would consist of ruining people's day. Speeding tickets, seat belt violations, all that shit can't be enjoyable for anyone other than those desperate to have power they could never attain organically.

HelloAgain;1630829 wrote:I'm one of the worst people I know, but I don't think even I could stomach waking up every day knowing my job would consist of ruining people's day. Speeding tickets, seat belt violations, all that shit can't be enjoyable for anyone other than those desperate to have power they could never attain organically.

What does it have to do with being a terrible person or being desperate for power? If a person is breaking the law, then they have it coming. By giving someone a speeding ticket, maybe it prevents an future accident where an innocent is hurt/killed. Say what you will about DUI checkpoints, but let's not label cops as awful people who ruin the lives of otherwise innocent people.

friendfromlowry;1630836 wrote:What does it have to do with being a terrible person or being desperate for power?

Just don't think I could handle waking up each day to the thought of "ahh, another day of giving people speeding tickets and seatbelt violations!!!"

HelloAgain;1630842 wrote:Just don't think I could handle waking up each day to the thought of "ahh, another day of giving people speeding tickets and seatbelt violations!!!"

is that all cops do?

Pick6;1630851 wrote:is that all cops do?

Do most officers view traffic tickets as a necessary evil to allow them to do the "real" police work? That has generally not been my experience.