PD: Cracking down on drunken drivers (DUI CHECKPOINTS) [Archive]

Barry

08-25-2009, 12:00 AM

HEADS UP! More DUI checkpoints are coming! Be careful and safe!:drink4:

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/images/logo2.gif

Cracking down on drunken drivers

By LAURA NORTON ([email protected])https://www.pressdemocrat.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=SR&Date=20090823&Category=ARTICLES&ArtNo=908239985&Ref=AR&Profile=1033&MaxW=250&border=0
CRISTA JEREMIASON / The Press Democrat
Petaluma police officer Kerri Azevedo checks
the license of a driver at a DUI checkpoint on
East Washington in Petaluma on Saturday.

THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

Published: Sunday, August 23, 2009 at 8:20 p.m.

At the end of summer, as nights turn cool and families and friends gather for final get-togethers and barbecues before fall, local police officers are getting together, too.

For the next two weeks cops are working overtime on drunken driving checkpoints and patrols, keeping an eye out for those driving drunk after end-of-summer parties in Sonoma County — and cautioning those driving sober to stay that way.

On Saturday night, checkpoints in Petaluma and Santa Rosa netted three suspected drunken drivers, and stopped a total of 2,120 drivers.

Officers also cited 13 people for driving without a license and five people for driving with a suspended license. Sixteen cars were impounded.

The crackdown comes at a time when arrests for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs are at an all-time high for many agencies.

Sebastopol police have doubled the number of people arrested on suspicion of DUI this year over last. Sonoma police have nearly doubled their arrests. Petaluma traffic Sgt. Ken Savano anticipates breaking 700 drunken driving arrests before the year is over; his department had already made 397 before Saturday's checkpoint. Breaking 700 would be a record for the agency.

“We're arresting a lot more drunk drivers, but they're still driving drunk,” Savano said.

Police hope the DUI checkpoints help get drunken drivers off the roads and remind motorists of the devastating problems that inebriated drivers can cause.

“Thousands and thousands of cars and occupants come through,” Savano said. “We may not make many arrests but we don't know how many (collisions and fatalities) we prevent.”

DUI checkpoints are highly choreographed policing efforts. Traffic cones funnel motorists into a single lane. A line of officers at the front of the checkpoint approach the line of cars.

Their interaction is scripted: officers are instructed to tell the driver who they are and that they are doing a driver's license and DUI checkpoint. They request the license and then ask if the driver has had anything to drink.

If the license is valid, the driver hasn't been drinking and no other circumstances are suspicions, the interaction should take about 20 to 30 seconds, said Sgt. Doug Schlief, with the Santa Rosa Police Department.

But if a driver does not have a valid license, has been drinking, or is suspected of breaking another law — not wearing a seatbelt, for example — they are directed into a nearby screening area for further evaluation.

DUI checkpoints typically net fewer drunken drivers than drivers suspected of other crimes, including driving without a license.

On Saturday, that brought protesters to checkpoints in Petaluma and Santa Rosa.

“Turn around here, checkpoint,” the protesters' signs read in Spanish.

They were targeted to unlicensed drivers who stood to lose their cars at checkpoints Saturday night.
“People without drivers' licenses need to drive to work, to school, to the grocery store,” Ruben Sandoval said as he held one of the signs in Petaluma. “We want them to turn around, not go to the checkpoint.”

Sandoval, part of a loose-knit group of volunteers that gathered spontaneously a block away from the East Washington Street checkpoint, said he approved of the intention to remove drunken drivers from Petaluma streets. But he said it should be done in a way that does not also penalize those driving without licenses.

“People make mistakes and they have to pay for them,” he said of drunken drivers. “If someone is on drugs or alcohol I'm happy that the police are getting them.”

More checkpoints are scheduled in Sebastopol and Rohnert Park over the next two weeks. A multi-agency task force will meet in Santa Rosa this week also to serve DUI warrants, make probation checks and patrol for suspected drunken drivers.

“We're serious about drunk driving and getting them off the roadways,” Schlief said. “The more people you have out doing DUIs, the more results you're going to have.”

bodegahead

08-25-2009, 08:45 PM

Thos ckeckpoints have a massive number of officers manning them, probably at least 30. There are the initial ones, the secondary ones, a command center and a mini jail with jailers plus the cops on motercycles all over the place. . The effort spent to pull over over2000 cars for a miniscule 3 arrest, seems like a waste. I would guess that if all 30 of those officers were out patrolling, each officer or two could probably nab one or two DUI`s over the course of an evening. Do the math.

Barry

08-26-2009, 12:03 PM

Those checkpoints have a massive number of officers manning them, probably at least 30. There are the initial ones, the secondary ones, a command center and a mini jail with jailers plus the cops on motorcycles all over the place. . The effort spent to pull over over2000 cars for a minuscule 3 arrest, seems like a waste. I would guess that if all 30 of those officers were out patrolling, each officer or two could probably nab one or two DUI`s over the course of an evening. Do the math.

:felix:I think the checkpoints accomplish more than the just the arrests they generate. They serve as a very visible, dare I say sobering, reminder that if you are under the influence, not only are you at risk for causing an accident, but you are also at risk to lose your license and have a severe, expensive hassle!

justme

08-26-2009, 08:19 PM

If 30 officers can stop one death from a drunk driver, I say it is time and money well spent.... Human life is priceless....

Braggi

08-26-2009, 10:16 PM

If 30 officers can stop one death from a drunk driver, I say it is time and money well spent....

Unless five other lives are lost because they aren't on the job.

This sounds more like a power trip than anything sensible. i think there are other good ways to remind the community to stay off the road if they're under the influence. I find it intrusive and insulting.

-Jeff

theindependenteye

08-26-2009, 11:55 PM

>>This sounds more like a power trip than anything sensible. i think there are other good ways to remind the community to stay off the road if they're under the influence. I find it intrusive and insulting.

I agree, Jeff. But I'm also stumped, as probably the cops are too: what *are* those other good ways? We all know stories -- maybe very personal -- of people wiped out, or within a lady's whisker, by drunken drivers. We, many of us, anyway, have been on the road when we shouldn't have been. We demand that we rid ourselves of ourselves, yet object when the cops try to do it for us.

So let's assume that you and I, plus anybody else who wants to join in with wisdom, have absolute responsibility for coming up with how to make this better, and we can forward our collective ideas to the county, the town, the state, and turn this around. Whatta we do?

I'm rehearsing a show, so you first. And ye out there, let's put forth our collective weird ideas. Can we do any better than the status quo?

Peace & joy--
Conrad

Sara S

08-27-2009, 06:16 AM

The number of cars impounded (30? I forget) compared to the three DUI arrests make me wonder whether there's some "arrangement" with the towing/storage company...

:felix:I think the checkpoints accomplish more than the just the arrests they generate. They serve as a very visible, dare I say sobering, reminder that if you are under the influence, not only are you at risk for causing an accident, but you are also at risk to lose your license and have a severe, expensive hassle!

Braggi

08-27-2009, 06:41 AM

... But I'm also stumped, as probably the cops are too: what *are* those other good ways? ... Can we do any better than the status quo? ...

If the status quo is a trap where uniformed officers shine flashlights in your eyes and ask "Where are your papers?" as if they were the Gestapo terrorizing innocent people, yes, we can do better. The answer was found in one of the posts above. Those cops involved should be out on the streets looking for erratic drivers. Probable cause. That's one of the foundations of our system of law enforcement. Harassing and intimidating the citizenry isn't necessary or productive, as their own statistics prove. 2,000 cars stopped for three arrests? There is something else going on here in addition to drunk driving enforcement and it's taking resources away from true law enforcement.

-Jeff

Ronaldo

08-27-2009, 11:43 AM

It seems that your condoning driving without a license.
I facetiously ask should there be a caveat at these checkpoints that allows those without licenses to go on their way. Perhaps lanes marked "Drunk Drivers Here" and another "Illegal Immigrants and Others Without Licenses Here"?
There are solid reasons that necessitate having a drivers license. What would you suggest to remove those without them from our roads?

Ron

Cheingrand

08-27-2009, 03:13 PM

Those cops involved should be out on the streets looking for erratic drivers. Probable cause. That's one of the foundations of our system of law enforcement.
-Jeff

In two other threads on this board about people getting speeding tickets, many folks wanted law enforcement officers to stop looking for speeders and get back to solving real crimes like drunk driving. I believe they should continue "...looking for erratic drivers" like those who speed, tailgate, make unsafe turns, cross double lines, etc. Some of these drivers violating posted regulations are intoxicated and we need to get them off the road. Others are driving unsafely and their behavior needs to be corrected. Law enforcement has plenty of 'probable cause' to stop unsafe drivers.

Some of the same people who are against DUI checkpoints are also against getting stopped and ticketed for vehicle code violations. I am grateful that our officers are out and about doing their best to ensure public safety. Law enforcement officers have a difficult job that they generally do well. They are highly-trained and their actions are subject to intense review. I welcome their efforts.

someguy

08-27-2009, 06:14 PM

Does anyone know exactly where these checkpoints are in SR and Petaluma?

justme

08-27-2009, 06:56 PM

:hmmm: :rofl2:

If the status quo is a trap where uniformed officers shine flashlights in your eyes and ask "Where are your papers?" as if they were the Gestapo terrorizing innocent people, yes, we can do better. The answer was found in one of the posts above. Those cops involved should be out on the streets looking for erratic drivers. Probable cause. That's one of the foundations of our system of law enforcement. Harassing and intimidating the citizenry isn't necessary or productive, as their own statistics prove. 2,000 cars stopped for three arrests? There is something else going on here in addition to drunk driving enforcement and it's taking resources away from true law enforcement.

-Jeff

Braggi

08-28-2009, 09:57 AM

It seems that your condoning driving without a license. ...
There are solid reasons that necessitate having a drivers license. What would you suggest to remove those without them from our roads? ...

Those who drive without proper "papers" are found out eventually. We don't need Gestapo like tactics to find them. This program never would have flown in the decades immediately following World War II. But the current population of the US doesn't remember what totalitarianism looks like.

Hint: it creeps up on the unsuspecting.

Can't resist another hint: it always sells "law and order" as the justification for its existence and the necessity for its application. It's greatest promoters are usually religious fundamentalist zealots. "If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear."

Unconstitutional searches shouldn't be embraced by our population. We should be smarter than that.

-Jeff

Cheingrand

08-28-2009, 01:12 PM

Unconstitutional searches shouldn't be embraced by our population. We should be smarter than that.

It's greatest promoters are usually religious fundamentalist zealots.

-Jeff

A quick trip to Wikipedia shows that sobriety checkpoints are both constitutional and effective while being more strongly opposed by civil liberterians and conservatives. This confuses me because I've heard many say that conservatives are "...religious fundamentalist zealots" (and the quote above claims they promote these checkpoints):

"The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Thus the Constitution would appear to prohibit people from being stopped without a search warrant or at least without probable cause that they have committed a crime; however, the warrant requirement only attaches should the search be unreasonable and the Supreme Court, as shown below, decided that such stops are not unreasonable under certain circumstances.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
The Michigan Supreme Court had found sobriety roadblocks to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, by a 6-3 decision in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990), the United States Supreme Court found properly conducted sobriety checkpoints to be constitutional.

Although acknowledging that such checkpoints infringed on a constitutional right, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued that the state interest in reducing drunk driving outweighed this minor infringement.
<o:p></o:p>
Dissenting justices argued that the Constitution doesn’t provide exceptions. "That stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving...is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion", dissenting Justice Brennan insisted.
<o:p></o:p>
Chief Justice Rehnquist argued that an exception was justified because sobriety roadblocks were effective and necessary. On the other hand, dissenting Justice Stevens countered that "the findings of the trial court, based on an extensive record and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals, indicate that the net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative."
<o:p></o:p>
Although the U.S. Supreme Court has found sobriety checkpoints to be constitutionally permissible, eleven states have found that sobriety roadblocks violate their own state constitutions or have outlawed them.

Opposition to sobriety roadblocks is generally stronger among civil libertarians, conservatives and libertarians.

<o:p></o:p>
In approving "properly conducted" checkpoints, Chief Justice Rehnquist implicitly acknowledged that there must be guidelines in order to avoid becoming overly intrusive. In other words, checkpoints cannot simply be set up when, where and how police officers choose. As often happens in Supreme Court decisions, however, the Chief Justice left it to the states to determine what those minimal safeguards must be, presumably to be reviewed by the courts on a case-by-case basis.
<o:p></o:p>
In an effort to provide standards for use by the states, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration subsequently issued a report that reviewed recommended checkpoint procedures in keeping with federal and state legal decisions. ("The Use of Sobriety Checkpoints for Impaired Driving Enforcement", DOT HS-807-656, Nov. 1990) An additional source of guidelines can be found in an earlier decision by the California Supreme Court (Ingersoll v. Palmer (43 Cal.3d 1321 (1987)) wherein the Court set forth what it felt to be necessary standards in planning and administering a sobriety checkpoint:<o:p></o:p>
<LI class=list_spacer><LI class=list_spacer>Decision making must be at a supervisory level, rather than by officers in the field. <o:p></o:p><LI class=list_spacer>A neutral formula must be used to select vehicles to be stopped, such as every vehicle or every third vehicle, rather than leaving it up the officer in the field. <o:p></o:p><LI class=list_spacer>Primary consideration must be given to public and officer safety. <o:p></o:p><LI class=list_spacer>The site should be selected by policy-making officials, based upon areas having a high incidence of drunk driving. <o:p></o:p><LI class=list_spacer>Limitations on when the checkpoint is to be conducted and for how long, bearing in mind both effectiveness and intrusiveness. <o:p></o:p><LI class=list_spacer>Warning lights and signs should be clearly visible. <o:p></o:p><LI class=list_spacer>Length of detention of motorists should be minimized. <o:p></o:p>
Advance publicity is necessary to reduce the intrusiveness of the checkpoint and increase its deterrent effect. <o:p></o:p>Effectiveness<o:p></o:p>
The Centers for Disease Control, in a 2002 Traffic Injury Prevention report, found that in general, the number of alcohol related crashes was reduced by 20% in states that implement sobriety checkpoints compared to those that do not." <o:p></o:p>

Braggi

08-28-2009, 01:38 PM

A quick trip to Wikipedia shows that sobriety checkpoints are both constitutional and effective ... Chief Justice Rehnquist argued that an exception was justified because sobriety roadblocks were effective and necessary. ...

"... an exception ..." from the mouth of the Chief Justice. So it's unconstitutional and he admitted it. I rest my case.

I think the "effectiveness" notion is disproved by the statistics mentioned earlier in this thread.

On the comment regarding right wingers, I was definitely painting with a broad brush (which I often fault others for doing) and I apologize for the inaccuracy. I'm recalling that it was politicians across the board that supported the loss of rights the citizenry of the US suffered in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. There were very few brave enough to stand up and say it was wrong.

-Jeff

Cheingrand

08-28-2009, 05:16 PM

"... an exception ..." from the mouth of the Chief Justice. So it's unconstitutional and he admitted it. I rest my case.

I think the "effectiveness" notion is disproved by the statistics mentioned earlier in this thread.

On the comment regarding right wingers, I was definitely painting with a broad brush (which I often fault others for doing) and I apologize for the inaccuracy.
-Jeff

Risking a two person (me vs Mr. Braggi) dialogue that may have to end with an agreement to disagree, I have to admit being baffled by the logic that says sobriety checkpoints are unconstitutional even though the majority of the US Supreme Court has ruled them constitutional. If they had indeed been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, they would be prohibited. But they were ruled constitutional even though the Chief Justice said it was an exception.

Similarly, I'm baffled by the logic that local anecdotal statistics "...mentioned earlier in this thread" disprove a national study that concluded that states using sobriety checkpoints saw a 20% reduction in alcohol related crashes.

I don't know how I can provide more concrete logical facts to show that sobriety checkpoints are constitutional in the US and that they are effective in ensuring our public safety.

Sara S

08-31-2009, 07:16 AM

It seems as if the subject here got waylaid; Jeff's original sentence was about searches, not stops:

"Unconstitutional searches shouldn't be embraced by our population. We should be smarter than that."

Big difference, I think, legally and otherwise.

Risking a two person (me vs Mr. Braggi) dialogue that may have to end with an agreement to disagree, I have to admit being baffled by the logic that says sobriety checkpoints are unconstitutional even though the majority of the US Supreme Court has ruled them constitutional. If they had indeed been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, they would be prohibited. But they were ruled constitutional even though the Chief Justice said it was an exception.

Similarly, I'm baffled by the logic that local anecdotal statistics "...mentioned earlier in this thread" disprove a national study that concluded that states using sobriety checkpoints saw a 20% reduction in alcohol related crashes.

I don't know how I can provide more concrete logical facts to show that sobriety checkpoints are constitutional in the US and that they are effective in ensuring our public safety.

justme

08-31-2009, 09:27 AM

The original post was by Barry about checkpoints, not searches.... You go through a DUI checkpoint..If you appear intoxicated, you do a sobriety test..If you fail, you get searched and arrested... If you pass any of the screenings, it stops there...This really doesn't sound too unconstitutional or Gestapo to me.

Similar to airport screening but less intrusive... Are the airport's searches of your luggage unconstitutional?

There are unethical cops as there are not-so-good people everywhere. But in my opinion these checkpoint's sole purpose and intent is to get Drunk Drivers off the road. Also, if someone has a suspended license and get caught at a checkpoint, it is only because they were totally ignorant. No sympathy and no whining about it please. :hmmm:

Barry

08-31-2009, 09:39 AM

The original post was by Barry about checkpoints, not searches.... Also, how do you conduct a search without a stop? :hmmm:
The checkpoint is a de-facto low-intensity search. They will immediately look in your car, check your eyes and breath.

And I agree with Jeff and others that this does seem a bit like a police state. I suppose if its confined to peak DUI times (Sat night and holidays) I could deal. The recent Sebastopol checkpoint started at 6pm, which seems early, but I don't know the stats on when DUIs/alcohol related accidents peak.

Braggi

08-31-2009, 10:06 AM

Obviously, I have to respond to Cheingrand, who became baffled reading his own post and my quote of his own post. I'll reiterate.

... I have to admit being baffled by the logic that says sobriety checkpoints are unconstitutional even though the majority of the US Supreme Court has ruled them constitutional. If they had indeed been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, they would be prohibited. But they were ruled constitutional even though the Chief Justice said it was an exception. ...

No, they weren't ruled "constitutional." Read carefully from your own post: The Michigan Supreme Court had found sobriety roadblocks to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, by a 6-3 decision in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990), the United States Supreme Court found properly conducted sobriety checkpoints to be constitutional.

Although acknowledging that such checkpoints infringed on a constitutional right, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued that the state interest in reducing drunk driving outweighed this minor infringement.

Dissenting justices argued that the Constitution doesn’t provide exceptions. "That stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving...is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion", dissenting Justice Brennan insisted.

Chief Justice Rehnquist argued that an exception was justified because sobriety roadblocks were effective and necessary. On the other hand, dissenting Justice Stevens countered that "the findings of the trial court, based on an extensive record and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals, indicate that the net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative."

So the Court ruled that there was a state interest in ruling for increased police powers even though it was unconstitutional.

... Similarly, I'm baffled by the logic that local anecdotal statistics "...mentioned earlier in this thread" disprove a national study that concluded that states using sobriety checkpoints saw a 20% reduction in alcohol related crashes. ...

What else was going on in the states mentioned at the same time those reductions in crashes were reported? That's an incomplete statistic. The Supreme Court did not agree with your statistic, as quoted above.

... I don't know how I can provide more concrete logical facts to show that sobriety checkpoints are constitutional in the US and that they are effective in ensuring our public safety.

I don't know either. It's "baffling."

-Jeff

Cheingrand

08-31-2009, 10:12 AM

The checkpoint is a de-facto low-intensity search. They will immediately look in your car, check your eyes and breath.

In search and seizure legal precedent by our highest courts, the ruling for law enforcement officers is "...the eye cannot commit a trespass". If the police have a legal right to conduct sobriety checkpoints (Supreme Court decision gives this right), then anything seen by the officer is admissable in court. The police can look into your car from the outside, they can observe your eyes and speech, and they can ask for license and registration (we agree to this when we get a driver's license). None of this is considered a search, only legal observation in a legal situation. All of this has been tested in courts and there is nothing unconstitutional about it. We do not live in a police state.

Barry

08-31-2009, 12:30 PM

In search and seizure legal precedent by our highest courts, the ruling for law enforcement officers is "...the eye cannot commit a trespass". If the police have a legal right to conduct sobriety checkpoints (Supreme Court decision gives this right), then anything seen by the officer is admissable in court. The police can look into your car from the outside, they can observe your eyes and speech, and they can ask for license and registration (we agree to this when we get a driver's license). None of this is considered a search, only legal observation in a legal situation. All of this has been tested in courts and there is nothing unconstitutional about it. We do not live in a police state.
Legal or not, it is a search on some level, and not different from police states asking to see "your papers" at any moment.

justme

08-31-2009, 12:50 PM

Legal or not, it is a search on some level, and not different from police states asking to see "your papers" at any moment.

Geez.... At some times whether for suspicion of drunk driving, immigration violations, background check, traffic stop, the police need to verify identification. What is with the Gestapo, Socialist, conspiracy theory....

"your papers" is overused...How about "ID"..... So much paranoia in one county and so much suspicion of "wrong thinking".....Politically correct sucks.....

Clancy

08-31-2009, 01:28 PM

...What is with the Gestapo, Socialist, conspiracy theory... So much paranoia in one county and so much suspicion of "wrong thinking"...

With more than 2.3 million people behind bars, the United States leads the world in both the number and percentage of residents it incarcerates, leaving far-more-populous China a distant second, according to a study by the nonpartisan Pew Center on the States.
New High In U.S. Prison Numbers - washingtonpost.com (https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/02/28/ST2008022803016.html)

justme

08-31-2009, 01:38 PM

So...we should ignore all the non-violent crimes???? Bull shit...

justme

08-31-2009, 01:40 PM

BTW...China kills there dissidents.... bad example

With more than 2.3 million people behind bars, the United States leads the world in both the number and percentage of residents it incarcerates, leaving far-more-populous China a distant second, according to a study by the nonpartisan Pew Center on the States.
New High In U.S. Prison Numbers - washingtonpost.com (https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/02/28/ST2008022803016.html)

Cheingrand

08-31-2009, 02:02 PM

However, by a 6-3 decision in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990), the United States Supreme Court found properly conducted sobriety checkpoints to be constitutional.
-Jeff

On this subject it is clear that Mr. Braggi and I will not be arm-in-arm singing Kumbaya. I don’t see him suddenly slapping his forehead and saying, “Now I get it, how could I have been so wrong?” We will continue to see the same set of facts yet come to different conclusions.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
It is similar to the polarized, partisan discussions taking place in our halls of government where each party believes that they are right on any given subject.
<o:p></o:p>
I’ll step away from arguing this issue. The points have been made and further discussion will likely not change any minds.

Braggi

08-31-2009, 02:52 PM

So...we should ignore all the non-violent crimes???? Bull shit...

This is certainly getting off topic, but do you think we should be incarcerating people for prostitution/pimping? ... growing pot? ... gambling? ... possession of illegal drugs, no matter how relatively harmless? ... drinking a beer if a person is on probation or parole? ... any number of relatively harmless violations if you're on probation or parole?

Justcurious,

-Jeff

Braggi

08-31-2009, 02:58 PM

On this subject it is clear that Mr. Braggi and I will not be arm-in-arm singing Kumbaya. I don’t see him suddenly slapping his forehead and saying, “Now I get it, how could I have been so wrong?” We will continue to see the same set of facts yet come to different conclusions. ...

Heh heh. Well done. So it's constitutional and also not constitutional and I said so. How 'bout that? Those darn Supreme Courts are supposed to evaluate laws, not make them, so I think they should stick with what they were hired to do. Yes?

I'm agin' stopping innocent drivers who have shown no reasonable cause to be stopped. That's pretty clearly, in MY opinion, a violation of the constitution. That's not about "exceptions." It's about constitutional law.

Besides that, checkpoints suck. Remember that next time you're waiting in line to get the flashlight shone in your eyes. You'll probably agree with me at that moment. Eh Cheingrand?

Cheers!

-Jeff

Clancy

08-31-2009, 04:55 PM

BTW...China kills there dissidents.... bad example

The point is that we imprison far more people than any other country in the world, making it a very good answer to your question, whether you understand it or not.

We also execute far more people than most countries in the world, in fact, only China, Iran and Saudi Arabia execute more people than we do, and that is our national shame. Most countries in the world have abolished capitol punishment altogether.

We are a mostly christian nation, it's no coincidence that we are obsessed with punishment or that our citizens fear authority.

justme

08-31-2009, 05:30 PM

What does this have to do with Drunk Drivers and checkpoints?

Once again the thread has been turned into a personal agenda.....

The point is that we imprison far more people than any other country in the world, making it a very good answer to your question, whether you understand it or not.

We also execute far more people than most countries in the world, in fact, only China, Iran and Saudi Arabia execute more people than we do, and that is our national shame. Most countries in the world have abolished capitol punishment altogether.

We are a mostly christian nation, it's no coincidence that we are obsessed with punishment or that our citizens fear authority.

justme

08-31-2009, 05:37 PM

Clancy

08-31-2009, 06:20 PM

What does this have to do with Drunk Drivers and checkpoints?

Try re-reading your own question;

"...What is with the Gestapo, Socialist, conspiracy theory... So much paranoia in one county and so much suspicion of "wrong thinking"

People are afraid of authority for the reasons I cited. We are a nation obsessed with punishment and incarceration.

soulsk8ter77

08-31-2009, 09:25 PM

The checkpoint is a de-facto low-intensity search. They will immediately look in your car, check your eyes and breath.

And I agree with Jeff and others that this does seem a bit like a police state. I suppose if its confined to peak DUI times (Sat night and holidays) I could deal. The recent Sebastopol checkpoint started at 6pm, which seems early, but I don't know the stats on when DUIs/alcohol related accidents peak.

This is the first time I have joined in after lurking for a couple of years.
:hmmm:
For what it is worth I can't help but feel like these DUI check points
are coming right about the time of the *Other* harvest of the green
leafy nature and I am not talking about grapes.

Think about that Petaluma traffic stop that when they smelled the pot they found a bunch under the floor board which lead to them finding a huge amount of cash in a safe.

IMHO these DUI's are a cover for other things. How many traffic stops in the
last 2 weeks have lead to other types of busts. :idea: Let's face it there is more
than one harvest going on right now.

justme

08-31-2009, 10:26 PM

Well, the quote was in response to another comment.....

Anyway, I agree that some are afraid of authority....and yes, some are obsessed with punishment and incarceration....

Personally I am not in fear of authority itself. Fear of authority makes authority (abusive) stronger. I do not have respect for ABUSE of authority or excessive punishment and I speak up if I see it when possible.

So my question is, what about the checkpoints and drunk drivers? If someone is driving drunk, shouldn't they be punished and maybe a day or two of incarceration? If drunk drivers won't control their habit, maybe a stronger chance of getting caught might make them think twice about driving when drinking. Obviously the chance of them killing or injuring others doesn't matter.

It seems a lot of comments are against the checkpoints... Ok then, how to catch drunk drivers before they kill? Just have the police drive around and hope they catch them?

How about a solution to the DUI problem from some that are against the checkpoints! I'm open to any alternatives as long as they are feasable and legal... :thumbsup:

Try re-reading your own question;

"...What is with the Gestapo, Socialist, conspiracy theory... So much paranoia in one county and so much suspicion of "wrong thinking"

People are afraid of authority for the reasons I cited. We are a nation obsessed with punishment and incarceration.

Clancy

08-31-2009, 10:58 PM

It seems a lot of comments are against the checkpoints... Ok then, how to catch drunk drivers before they kill? Just have the police drive around and hope they catch them?

How about a solution to the DUI problem from some that are against the checkpoints! I'm open to any alternatives as long as they are feasable and legal... :thumbsup:

As long as a drug as incapacitating and addicting as alcohol is legally served just about everywhere, and is available in almost every store, we will never catch all the drunk drivers before they kill. Obviously, the threat of jail time doesn't deter many drunks, or the bartenders who serve them.

In only a few decades, smoking has gone from being completely accepted everywhere to making one a social pariah now. I think our best hope of dealing with alcohol abuse might be along the same lines.

Yubajeff

08-31-2009, 11:27 PM

This guys has Got to be a cop!

What does this have to do with Drunk Drivers and checkpoints?

Once again the thread has been turned into a personal agenda.....

Clancy

08-31-2009, 11:45 PM

This guys has Got to be a cop!

Naw, sounds like a kid to me.

justme

08-31-2009, 11:52 PM

As long as a drug as incapacitating and addicting as alcohol is legally served just about everywhere, and is available in almost every store, we will never catch all the drunk drivers before they kill. Obviously, the threat of jail time doesn't deter many drunks, or the bartenders who serve them.

In only a few decades, smoking has gone from being completely accepted everywhere to making one a social pariah now. I think our best hope of dealing with alcohol abuse might be along the same lines.

I agree.....except the social pariah comment. I smoke and I don't feel like one.. Must be nice to be perfect and without fault...Not me.. I am human...

justme

08-31-2009, 11:55 PM

This guys has Got to be a cop!

No I am not a cop. Are you a drunk driver? :rofl2:

Just because I have a different opinion than yours you label me?

justme

09-01-2009, 12:00 AM

Naw, sounds like a kid to me.

and no Clancy I am not a kid either.... It always amazes me the put downs, insults, belittling, labeling and general rudeness some constantly throw at others with a different opinion as theirs.... Too bad...I sometimes might get rude, but not to intentionally make someone feel lesser than me.

But I will continue to post my comments and opinions whether popular with the masses or not...or any other "authority" :rofl2:

Clancy

09-01-2009, 12:08 AM

I agree.....except the social pariah comment. I smoke and I don't feel like one.. Must be nice to be perfect and without fault...Not me.. I am human...

You're addicted to one of the most addicting drugs known to man and you think that makes you human? No, it just makes you a sad addict to a disgusting, lethal habit that will take years off your life.

And if you don't feel like a social pariah, go ahead, try smoking in the library, restaurant or even the bar that's serving alcohol and see what happens.

justme

09-01-2009, 12:14 AM

You're addicted to one of the most addicting drugs known to man and you think that makes you human? No, it just makes you a sad addict to a disgusting, lethal habit that will take years off your life.

And if you don't feel like a social pariah, go ahead, try smoking in the library, restaurant or even the bar that's serving alcohol and see what happens.

I don't smoke in the library, restaurant or my home...That would be rude to others..

How about we get back to the subject of the thread instead....

Clancy

09-01-2009, 12:24 AM

I don't smoke in the library, restaurant or my home...That would be rude to others..

How about we get back to the subject of the thread instead....

Um... the rudeness of smoking in public would be the pariah part.

Drunks are addicts, just like cigarette smokers.

We have had dramatic success decreasing the number of nicotine addicts in this country in the last several decades. You asked for suggestions for dealing with drunk drivers, I suggest we look at the way we've successfully dealt with nicotine addiction to see if we can apply it to the problem of drunk drivers.

justme

09-01-2009, 12:27 AM

Drunks are addicts, just like cigarette smokers.

We have had dramatic success decreasing the number of nicotine addicts in this country in the last several decades. You asked for suggestions for dealing with drunk drivers, I suggest we look at the way we've successfully dealt with nicotine addiction to see if we can apply it to the problem of drunk drivers.

Definitely worth a try! :thumbsup:

Braggi

09-01-2009, 07:14 AM

Well, lets see...

1. Prostitution/Pimping? Yes, if women are being exploited
2. Gambling? Yes, if the habit is out of control and their family suffers
3. Illegal drugs? Depends on the drug
4. Drinking a beer on probation/parole? If the offense was alcohol related, of course...

The violations you mention are harmless on the surface. Unless they were the cause of a more serious problem. We can't just categorize certain offenses as harmless.... There may be deeper related problems...

You are proposing the legal system consider gray areas, and the law is about black and white, and increasingly so. We used to allow judges a lot of power when it came to sentencing, and now we recall or replace judges that are deemed "too liberal" or we take away their power with "mandatory minimum sentences."

One psychiatrist who worked at Sonoma County jail who was from Iceland complained that most of the people in that jail wouldn't have been incarcerated in his home country. He couldn't believe we jailed people for such slight infractions. We could learn a lot by observing other countries.

I'm hearing right now the debate on early release of prisoners on the radio. The politicians sound like a bunch of preachers. Instead of doing their jobs they're grandstanding. "Tough on crime" certainly isn't smart on crime.

OK, back to our regularly scheduled programming ...

-Jeff

PS. justme, I generally agree with you, but our system doesn't allow for that kind of flexibility, and cost cutting over the last few decades has removed almost all attempts at "rehabilitation" or actual improvement of any situation involving habitual law breakers. I wish we had social workers and half-way houses and work training programs so we could break the recidivism cycle. But the voters of California removed all that from the system quite a while ago. Our system is about punishment, not rehabilitation and that's all there is to it. It's pretty sick, really.

PPS. I've known a lot of prostitutes (as friends, not as a customer) and I didn't know a single one who didn't choose the work. None that I knew were forced or pressured into it by a controlling person. That's certainly not the situation with all of them, but it is with the vast majority. Prostitution should just be legalized and that would do away with most of the problems with it.

tezor

09-01-2009, 07:47 AM

As a volunteer firefighter, I'll tell you I've pulled drunks out of wrecked cars at every time of the day over the last 29 years, many at 8am, so time may be meaningless to dedicated drunks, get em off the road.

:2cents:

The checkpoint is a de-facto low-intensity search. They will immediately look in your car, check your eyes and breath.

And I agree with Jeff and others that this does seem a bit like a police state. I suppose if its confined to peak DUI times (Sat night and holidays) I could deal. The recent Sebastopol checkpoint started at 6pm, which seems early, but I don't know the stats on when DUIs/alcohol related accidents peak.

Tars

09-01-2009, 07:48 AM

Drunk drivers help the local economy

Why use so many resources to set up and operate police checkpoints? One reason I haven't seen mentioned here, is that it's an income opportunity for the city and county governments. Plus, if there were no DUI vehicle seizures, there'd be fewer tow companies, lawyers, and bail bonds businesses. We have jobs depending on this, people!

A DUI driver pays hundreds of dollars initial fee to get their car out of impound. To get their car out of impound they first need to pay an "administrative fee" to the police dept. with jurisdiction. As likely as not the driver also paid several hundred dollars for a bail bond. Then the driver has to go to court. If s/he thinks a lawyer will help their cause (usually not), add a couple of thousand $$. With a simple guilty plea a first-time DUI driver can expect over two thousand $$ in fines, plus court administrative fees. Then, they will have to attend DUI courses, which they have to pay for (credit cards gladly accepted!). Lost worktime and income varies. If it's felony drunk driving (anyone, including the drunk, gets injured at all), add several thousand in fines, plus the various costs of jail time.

OK, the powers that be are looking out for our safety by rooting out drunk drivers. But they're also generating income to cover their own growing salaries. Last PD article I saw which addressed local police payrolls mentioned several police officers who were making well in excess of $100k. That money has to come from somewhere.

As local municipal budgets shrink, we can most likely expect even more DUI checkpoints as the police look out for our well being. Gee, thanks.

Oh, yeah...as most know, the legal line for driving is .08%. That's set to go down to (I believe) .06%. At .06%, many people, who don't weigh in excess of say, 240 lbs, will be legally intoxicated if they have a beer with lunch. They could be arrested anyway, with any blood alcohol content, for driving "wet and reckless". Although they weren't legally drunk, they still get to donate to all the worthy businesses and government departments which depend on them.

tezor

09-01-2009, 08:03 AM

As a volunteer firefighter, I'll tell you I've pulled drunks out of wrecked cars at every time of the day and night over the last 29 years, many at 8am, so time may be meaningless to dedicated drunks, get em off the road. Not to mention that driving is NOT a right, it is a action that endangers all in the area if not done correctly. So pay attention, focus, you are in a device that is governed by the laws of physics, the law of the land, and can be only influenced by intention. I hope we never meet through my avocation. Peace, b

:2cents:

The checkpoint is a de-facto low-intensity search. They will immediately look in your car, check your eyes and breath.

And I agree with Jeff and others that this does seem a bit like a police state. I suppose if its confined to peak DUI times (Sat night and holidays) I could deal. The recent Sebastopol checkpoint started at 6pm, which seems early, but I don't know the stats on when DUIs/alcohol related accidents peak.

Braggi

09-01-2009, 08:26 AM

... I do not have respect for ABUSE of authority or excessive punishment and I speak up if I see it when possible.

So my question is, what about the checkpoints and drunk drivers? If someone is driving drunk, shouldn't they be punished and maybe a day or two of incarceration? If drunk drivers won't control their habit, maybe a stronger chance of getting caught might make them think twice about driving when drinking. ... It seems a lot of comments are against the checkpoints... Ok then, how to catch drunk drivers ... I'm open to any alternatives as long as they are feasable and legal...

Have you been reading this thread? The alternative is to have the police in their cars, on the road, observing driving patterns. No, you won't catch all the drunks with this method anymore than funneling all the cars in a tiny area into checkpoints will catch all the drunks everywhere else in the county.

The problems with checkpoints are many and previously mentioned, but the greatest problem is that it pulls cops off their true job, law enforcement, and puts them into the roll of intimidators of innocent people. There is no way that all those officers from all those agencies would have caught only three drunks had they been doing the work we hired them to do. They would have caught far more.

Again, I'd like to hear from a police officer comparing the number of drunks caught, per officer per hour, at the checkpoint vs. normal patrol.

-Jeff

PS. The implication that those of us against the checkpoints are against taking drunks off the road is insulting.

Braggi

09-01-2009, 08:30 AM

As a volunteer firefighter, I'll tell you I've pulled drunks out of wrecked cars at every time of the day and night over the last 29 years, many at 8am, so time may be meaningless to dedicated drunks, get em off the road. ...

So what are you saying tezor? We have no idea where you stand on the checkpoints.

I could read into your statement that you agree with me that the checkpoints are a waste of manpower, or just the opposite.

-Jeff

Braggi

09-01-2009, 08:46 AM

... Last PD article I saw which addressed local police payrolls mentioned several police officers who were making well in excess of $100k. That money has to come from somewhere.

As local municipal budgets shrink, we can most likely expect even more DUI checkpoints as the police look out for our well being. Gee, thanks.

Oh, yeah...as most know, the legal line for driving is .08%. That's set to go down to (I believe) .06%. ... they still get to donate to all the worthy businesses and government departments which depend on them.

Tars, the cops making in excess of $100k are working a ton of overtime. I don't think any of them make that kind of money on a standard salary. I wouldn't trade jobs with them for five times that.

I agree there's a huge industry preying on drinking drivers (and I don't mean drunk since not everyone with a .08 is drunk, IMO), but I think checkpoints are a very inefficient way to collect customers. I don't think that's what the checkpoints are about. It think they exist to let the people know who's boss and what they can expect in the future: that is, more police intrusion into their lives. The checkpoints are about intimidation of the population at large much more than about nabbing drunks. You catch drunks by pulling over people who drive badly. A lot people driving badly have been drinking. You can't tell how someone drives by funneling them into a checkpoint.

-Jeff

justme

09-01-2009, 04:54 PM

You are proposing the legal system consider gray areas, and the law is about black and white, and increasingly so. We used to allow judges a lot of power when it came to sentencing, and now we recall or replace judges that are deemed "too liberal" or we take away their power with "mandatory minimum sentences."

One psychiatrist who worked at Sonoma County jail who was from Iceland complained that most of the people in that jail wouldn't have been incarcerated in his home country. He couldn't believe we jailed people for such slight infractions. We could learn a lot by observing other countries.

I'm hearing right now the debate on early release of prisoners on the radio. The politicians sound like a bunch of preachers. Instead of doing their jobs they're grandstanding. "Tough on crime" certainly isn't smart on crime.

OK, back to our regularly scheduled programming ...

-Jeff

PS. justme, I generally agree with you, but our system doesn't allow for that kind of flexibility, and cost cutting over the last few decades has removed almost all attempts at "rehabilitation" or actual improvement of any situation involving habitual law breakers. I wish we had social workers and half-way houses and work training programs so we could break the recidivism cycle. But the voters of California removed all that from the system quite a while ago. Our system is about punishment, not rehabilitation and that's all there is to it. It's pretty sick, really.

PPS. I've known a lot of prostitutes (as friends, not as a customer) and I didn't know a single one who didn't choose the work. None that I knew were forced or pressured into it by a controlling person. That's certainly not the situation with all of them, but it is with the vast majority. Prostitution should just be legalized and that would do away with most of the problems with it.

Well Jeff, we have found common ground. I do agree with what you have posted. We have, as a society, created the monster. I do hope that social programs do re-gain the funding they need. We all actually benefit from it (the programs).

Some feel that I am a ultra-conservative or something similar... I am actually very liberal in most areas. Some issues, though, I do have a differing opinion than most. This has just come from many years of looking at both sides of the issues. I am not totally narrow-minded. I listen to differing points of view, and sometimes embrace them.... Sometimes not...:wink: Anyway, thanks for the constructive and friendly comments..

Personally, I think our whole social services programs went out with Reagan as the Gov and then as the Prez...

justme

09-01-2009, 05:01 PM

Califoon

09-01-2009, 07:04 PM

Clancy

09-01-2009, 07:43 PM

I'll bet Jaycee Lee Dugard wishes a checkpoint of some kind was in her path 18 years ago...This stuff isn't all about freedoms, rights and convenience. Those guys are doing a job most of us wouldn't touch but we need it done.

If being intrusive is not an issue, then assigning one cop each to watch people leave popular taverns all over the county would catch far more drunk drivers than checkpoints that use 30 or 40 cops to stop 2,120 drivers and net only 3 drunk drivers.

I think something else is going on, like practice or rehearsal.

justme

09-01-2009, 08:14 PM

Have you been reading this thread? The alternative is to have the police in their cars, on the road, observing driving patterns. No, you won't catch all the drunks with this method anymore than funneling all the cars in a tiny area into checkpoints will catch all the drunks everywhere else in the county.

The problems with checkpoints are many and previously mentioned, but the greatest problem is that it pulls cops off their true job, law enforcement, and puts them into the roll of intimidators of innocent people. There is no way that all those officers from all those agencies would have caught only three drunks had they been doing the work we hired them to do. They would have caught far more.

Again, I'd like to hear from a police officer comparing the number of drunks caught, per officer per hour, at the checkpoint vs. normal patrol.

-Jeff

PS. The implication that those of us against the checkpoints are against taking drunks off the road is insulting.

No, I didn't say those against checkpoints were against taking them off the road.... And nothing insulting was said.... Just looking for possible solutions from those most against checkpoints... Thats all..... No hidden agenda...

Tars

09-02-2009, 08:49 AM

Tars, the cops making in excess of $100k are working a ton of overtime. I don't think any of them make that kind of money on a standard salary. I wouldn't trade jobs with them for five times that.

OK. Yet, the total cost to the community is there. The funds for their pay has to come from somewhere. Looks like they're shaking citizens down for at least part of it. Have a pint glass of beer with dinner, get stopped in a drunksweep, pay $5000+ to various public "servants".

I don't think that's what the checkpoints are about. It think they exist to let the people know who's boss and what they can expect in the future: that is, more police intrusion into their lives. The checkpoints are about intimidation of the population at large much more than about nabbing drunks. Hmm....I don't see nefarious plots by power hungry cops. More like, department chiefs who're responsible for finding the funds to keep their department staffed, and hence to keep their own job. Public administrators & politicians too, demonstrating that they're doing something on their watch to keep us defenseless citizens safe. The main goal of bureaucracies is to make themselves bigger, and to keep bureaucrats' paychecks rolling in. In this case in the form of rolling (in more ways than one) drivers as income opportunities.

Lorrie

09-02-2009, 11:08 AM

justme

09-02-2009, 06:00 PM

Well, guess what I am not going to do in Sebastopol, well everywhere I actually...Is drink and drive. I have pool league on Weds, sometimes in Sebastopol. Some of us have drinks, comradery,(sp) laughs, great games of pool, and go home.

It is just too scary, too expensive, and too long. I have been through it.
How many others out there have? I'll bet more than you think.

So I won't be busted by a check point even if I have to go through one.
I might have one beer early on. It takes about two-three hours for a match in its entirety.
Make the beer last through the whole time or just have one in the beginning. Or not drink at all. It varies. By the time I leave (takes about a hour for one beer to be out your system from the time you finish it.) I would be sober. That is what I do.
No more contributing to city hall.

I got pulled over and "ticketed" in the mid-seventies for what they called back in 1974 "DWI" in Arizona. I received a ticket, sheriff called my wife at the time to pick me up and didn't tow the car....Cost of the ticket...$100....

My point is twofold..... First, I was damn lucky :thumbsup: Second... it was a deterrent for me because of the possibility of jail.... But would this easy and friendly treatment have deterred others? :hmmm:

I don't know...Just putting this experience out there... Any comments?

theindependenteye

09-02-2009, 06:28 PM

I feel strange posting anything that's remotely pro-cop, but strangely moved to do so.

Thus far, on this thread, I've seen the following motives ascribed to the police in operating alcohol check-points:

1. Too lazy to go out and patrol individually.
2. Wanting to make money.
3. Asserting authority.
4. Preparing us for a police state.
5. Running a present-day police state.

I do recall a couple of posts that suggested that perhaps they were actually motivated by a societal imperative to stop drunken driving, but it seems those have been pretty much discounted.

Now, I'm not arguing the issue of whether that tactic is effective or not effective; there are probably studies on this from other localities, but I haven't seen'em and don't have time to research it. Nor am I suggesting that any of the above suspicions are necessarily unfounded. Nothing surprises me.

But, well, I guess the one thing that does surprise me is that in this community, where as a general rule we're not to extreme police brutality or overt corruption, there's such a widespread mistrust of motives, such a disconnect between the community and the police. There appear to be no cops on this forum, nor anyone who even knows a cop they might ask about it all.

Odd, don't you think? if someone were to call massage therapists a bunch of charlatans who love jabbing our deep tissue, there'd be vigorous defense. But cops? Are they all lazy, money-grubbing, power-mad goons? Just curious.

Peace & joy—
Conrad

Clancy

09-02-2009, 08:21 PM

I know several cops pretty well, I played poker with them for years. They're all fairly bright, honorable, and would risk their life without hesitation to help a stranger, but to a man they seemed politically very naive, including the liberal one. On the other hand, the average wacco seems even more politically naive IMO.

But - since America imprisons FAR more of it's citizens than any other country in the world (by percentage or sheer number - 2.3 million), I don't think our mistrust of the authorities motives is unfounded.

When 30+ cops stop over 2,000 cars to catch 3 drunk drivers, I have to wonder if there isn't something else going on. One cop could easily catch 3 drunk drivers a night if he watched cars driving away from a bar.

I feel strange posting anything that's remotely pro-cop, but strangely moved to do so.

Thus far, on this thread, I've seen the following motives ascribed to the police in operating alcohol check-points:

1. Too lazy to go out and patrol individually.
2. Wanting to make money.
3. Asserting authority.
4. Preparing us for a police state.
5. Running a present-day police state.

I do recall a couple of posts that suggested that perhaps they were actually motivated by a societal imperative to stop drunken driving, but it seems those have been pretty much discounted.

Now, I'm not arguing the issue of whether that tactic is effective or not effective; there are probably studies on this from other localities, but I haven't seen'em and don't have time to research it. Nor am I suggesting that any of the above suspicions are necessarily unfounded. Nothing surprises me.

But, well, I guess the one thing that does surprise me is that in this community, where as a general rule we're not to extreme police brutality or overt corruption, there's such a widespread mistrust of motives, such a disconnect between the community and the police. There appear to be no cops on this forum, nor anyone who even knows a cop they might ask about it all.

Odd, don't you think? if someone were to call massage therapists a bunch of charlatans who love jabbing our deep tissue, there'd be vigorous defense. But cops? Are they all lazy, money-grubbing, power-mad goons? Just curious.

Peace & joy—
Conrad

justme

09-02-2009, 08:34 PM

broadbandersnatch

09-02-2009, 08:41 PM

So far from what I have read I am not convinced they are yielding much in the way of results. it seems to me patrols on the look out for erratic behavior do a better job. As far Dugard, the police admitted to doing a lousy job. In a oerfect world all child molestors and predators would never get the chance to act, but it isn't a perfect world. And checkpoints in the Real World are not going to catch these people, In fact, it could just as easily be argued that checkpoints take time away from focusing on suspicious behavior and doing investigative work. I think your point is not a strong one. If you read Phillip K Dick, his dystopian novels nearly always include these sorts of police checkpoints, where papers are a prerequisite to staying out of jail. I'm not saying this is a step towards the liberal paranoic's idea of a police state. I am glad we have law enforcement. I just agree with other posters who think this is an inefficient way to get the job done.

I'll bet Jaycee Lee Dugard wishes a checkpoint of some kind was in her path 18 years ago...This stuff isn't all about freedoms, rights and convenience. Those guys are doing a job most of us wouldn't touch but we need it done.

theindependenteye

09-02-2009, 10:54 PM

>>But - since America imprisons FAR more of it's citizens than any other country in the world (by percentage or sheer number - 2.3 million), I don't think our mistrust of the authorities motives is unfounded.

I'm all for mistrust of authorities. But I don't think our imprisonment stats are ascribable to over-zealous policing or even to lobbying by the prison industry. It's because the majority of people are scared of crime and elect the "authorities" who make the biggest promises to throw people in jail. And it may even, at times, have something to do with the fact that vast numbers of people have no respect for the laws.

Whether the laws deserve respect, that's another issue.

>>When 30+ cops stop over 2,000 cars to catch 3 drunk drivers, I have to wonder if there isn't something else going on.

Maybe. But the most immediate thought is that possibly there's been pressure from somewhere to "do something" about drunk driving, and just doin same-old same-old didn't look like "doing something."

>>One cop could easily catch 3 drunk drivers a night if he watched cars driving away from a bar.

Again, very possibly. But not long ago there was a rather vehement Wacco thread, many people objecting to the cops doing exactly that, i.e. "profiling" bar patrons as possible drunk drivers.

And next time there's a particularly gory accident, there'll be another chorus demanding that the cops "do something."

Anyway, my suggestion would be that those who object to these tactics should, after debating it in this forum, send a letter to the local police chief.

Cheers—
Conrad

Barry

09-03-2009, 12:06 AM

Tars

09-03-2009, 07:27 AM

So if any of you would like to ask respectful, thoughtful, and preferably specific questions, please post them here asap and I'll choose a few to present to him.

A friend said that he'd heard on KSRO, that in 2008 Sebastopol set a record for the highest number of DUI arrests, and that the goal in 2009 is to exceed that. Please ask the Chief.

Also please ask about personnel and pay trends in the police department. Is the number of officers growing, shrinking, what? If pay is increasing, where is the money coming from?

Thanks Barry, looking forward to it.

Yubajeff

09-03-2009, 11:30 AM

OK, I'm going to stop lurking on this thread, and share my experience.
I was arrested on a DUI as I was leaving Hopmonks last December. I went to hear my absolute favorite band, Blue Turtle Seduction. I danced all night, until ready to drop. I happened to be there alone, and new in town. As I was leaving at closing (always a dangerous time, as I have since learned from my legal expert friends), Hopmonk security called the cops on me, for reasons known only to them. I had offerred a fellow a ride home, to Forestville. He accepted without hestitation.
I was definitely NOT intoxicated. Breathalyzer was zero. My blood (taken against my will, I might add for those naive enough among you to think you actually have civil rights) alcohol was zero. I did not even have cannabis in my system. They detected a minute amount of a perscription drug I was taking at the time). It amuses me to think I may have been the only person in Hopmonks that night with zero alcohol and zero cannabis in their body. I'll add zero meth, zero opiates to that. Exhausted? Yes. Dehydrated? You Bet.
I was then arrested on a DUI charge before I even had a chance to put my car into gear in the Hopmonk parking lot. I realize this is a legal technicality, and I am not arguing that point here.
If the Sebastopol wanted to be helpful, they could have simply observed me actually driving. They would have seen I was in no way impaired. As it was, I was kept in a freezing cold jail cell all night, couldn't sleep due to the cold (this was last December), and I nearly fell asleep at the wheel driving home the next morning after I was released. Another driver saved my life, honking at me when I nodded off. I pulled over to the side of the road, took a brief nap, and drove back to where I was staying, the Jenner Inn (thank you Wacco) without difficulty. I won't bore you with the gory details of getting your car out of impound on a Sunday morning.
As if this wasn't absurd enough, I have had TEN court appearances in Santa Rosa, contesting this matter. The amount of money the county has wasted already is obscene. However, we are only getting started.
If the fail to drop all charges, I will be getting a full jury trial, and the money they are about to waste staggers the imagination. I am going pro per, and I fully intend to view this as a priceless learning experience. Guess what folks? They neglected to label my blood specimen. So I'll wind up getting off on a technically, sooner or later. Or if not, I'll get off on a jury decision. And if YOU, the jury of my peers, find me guilty, so what. If that is my karma, I will accept it. Such is life. Not fair. Never will be. You already knew that I bet.

My point here, is that even if these check-points are done in a proper fashion, they are going to generate a vast number of arrests that only serve to waste money and energy from all parties involved.
I submit the proper function of law enforcement is to actually OBSERVE drivers on the road who are actually DRIVING in an
irresponsible fashion. I notice plenty of that on the road, and can't imagine that a trained officer has any trouble spotting who is driving in an aberrant manner. THAT strategy is clearly the one that is most efficient and to the point, and in the best interest of everyone.
But, by all means, if you want to subject yourself to arbitrary search, seizure, and invasion of your sacred body just go ahead and give the nod to checkpoints.
Namaste,
Jeffree

Well, guess what I am not going to do in Sebastopol, well everywhere I actually...Is drink and drive. I have pool league on Weds, sometimes in Sebastopol. Some of us have drinks, comradery,(sp) laughs, great games of pool, and go home.

It is just too scary, too expensive, and too long. I have been through it.
How many others out there have? I'll bet more than you think.

So I won't be busted by a check point even if I have to go through one.
I might have one beer early on. It takes about two-three hours for a match in its entirety.
Make the beer last through the whole time or just have one in the beginning. Or not drink at all. It varies. By the time I leave (takes about a hour for one beer to be out your system from the time you finish it.) I would be sober. That is what I do.
No more contributing to city hall.

broadbandersnatch

09-04-2009, 12:26 AM

Excellent post. I think you make the strongest case I have seen against checkpoints. For anyone who thinks only the guilty get nailed, here's proof that isn't always the case. I think checkpoints are a slippery slope and may possibly lead to illegal searches and other dubious activities. I feel as this poster does , that the most effective way to nab drunks on the road is through observing erratic driving behaviors. it's a no brainer as far as I'm concerned. With checkpoints, cops are wasting far too much time on innocent drivers. Sorry you have to go through this Jeff. Hope this turns out well for you in the end. I am sure it will, one way or the other.

Good luck,

Brian

OK, I'm going to stop lurking on this thread, and share my experience.
I was arrested on a DUI as I was leaving Hopmonks last December. I went to hear my absolute favorite band, Blue Turtle Seduction. I danced all night, until ready to drop. I happened to be there alone, and new in town. As I was leaving at closing (always a dangerous time, as I have since learned from my legal expert friends), Hopmonk security called the cops on me, for reasons known only to them. I had offerred a fellow a ride home, to Forestville. He accepted without hestitation.
I was definitely NOT intoxicated. Breathalyzer was zero. My blood (taken against my will, I might add for those naive enough among you to think you actually have civil rights) alcohol was zero. I did not even have cannabis in my system. They detected a minute amount of a perscription drug I was taking at the time). It amuses me to think I may have been the only person in Hopmonks that night with zero alcohol and zero cannabis in their body. I'll add zero meth, zero opiates to that. Exhausted? Yes. Dehydrated? You Bet.
I was then arrested on a DUI charge before I even had a chance to put my car into gear in the Hopmonk parking lot. I realize this is a legal technicality, and I am not arguing that point here.
If the Sebastopol wanted to be helpful, they could have simply observed me actually driving. They would have seen I was in no way impaired. As it was, I was kept in a freezing cold jail cell all night, couldn't sleep due to the cold (this was last December), and I nearly fell asleep at the wheel driving home the next morning after I was released. Another driver saved my life, honking at me when I nodded off. I pulled over to the side of the road, took a brief nap, and drove back to where I was staying, the Jenner Inn (thank you Wacco) without difficulty. I won't bore you with the gory details of getting your car out of impound on a Sunday morning.
As if this wasn't absurd enough, I have had TEN court appearances in Santa Rosa, contesting this matter. The amount of money the county has wasted already is obscene. However, we are only getting started.
If the fail to drop all charges, I will be getting a full jury trial, and the money they are about to waste staggers the imagination. I am going pro per, and I fully intend to view this as a priceless learning experience. Guess what folks? They neglected to label my blood specimen. So I'll wind up getting off on a technically, sooner or later. Or if not, I'll get off on a jury decision. And if YOU, the jury of my peers, find me guilty, so what. If that is my karma, I will accept it. Such is life. Not fair. Never will be. You already knew that I bet.

My point here, is that even if these check-points are done in a proper fashion, they are going to generate a vast number of arrests that only serve to waste money and energy from all parties involved.
I submit the proper function of law enforcement is to actually OBSERVE drivers on the road who are actually DRIVING in an
irresponsible fashion. I notice plenty of that on the road, and can't imagine that a trained officer has any trouble spotting who is driving in an aberrant manner. THAT strategy is clearly the one that is most efficient and to the point, and in the best interest of everyone.
But, by all means, if you want to subject yourself to arbitrary search, seizure, and invasion of your sacred body just go ahead and give the nod to checkpoints.
Namaste,
Jeffree

soulsk8ter77

09-04-2009, 09:35 AM

Excellent post, as usual, Conrad!

:radio: I am planning on interviewing the Sebastopol Police Chief, Jeff Weaver, today, Thursday, or Friday. He has more-or-less agreed.:wink: I should be able to post an audio, and possibly even a video of his comments.

I plan to ask him questions and listen/record his answers. This is not a debate.

So if any of you would like to ask respectful, thoughtful, and preferably specific questions, please post them here asap and I'll choose a few to present to him.

Ask Chief Weaver his opinion on *Peace in Medicine* you might be surprised.

Missy :wink:

Suz

09-04-2009, 10:38 AM

Barry, one person, who posted here earlier, pointed to unusually high stats for alcohol-related offenses in Sebastopol in 2008, and implied they were due to over-zealous policing, wanting to know if the police were getting raises here, and whether their numbers were increasing. You might want to get a reality check on these issues.

Folks, this is Sebastopol you are talking about! Most of your law-abiding, respectful and 'conscious' neighbors want the City government to do whatever can be done, to keep it the pretty, quiet and safe little town we all love.

Excellent post, as usual, Conrad!

:radio: I am planning on interviewing the Sebastopol Police Chief, Jeff Weaver, today, Thursday, or Friday. He has more-or-less agreed.:wink: I should be able to post an audio, and possibly even a video of his comments.

I plan to ask him questions and listen/record his answers. This is not a debate.

So if any of you would like to ask respectful, thoughtful, and preferably specific questions, please post them here asap and I'll choose a few to present to him.

bodegahead

09-04-2009, 11:38 AM

The CHP and local police have what they call DUI Enforcement Activities or DUI Enforcement Events. There is a website detailing such events. This is the website. California AVOID (https://www.californiaavoid.org/releases_Cm.php?&county=9) I have found it to be fairly update and accurate regarding times of checkpoints in the San Francisco County and San Mateo County. Sonoma County is pretty much hit or miss for advance notice. You can look up regional events or local press releases.
There are two basic types of enforcement events/activites that the pollice are using. One is the rolling saturation, where teams spread out all over and patrol seaching for recless or possibly impaired drivers. Or maybe even someone with a license plate light out or doesn`t signal a turn.
The other type of enforcement event is the DUI checkpoint where all the officers converge in one spot and stop anyone.

I would be interested in the number of DUI caught in the rolling saturation as compared to the numbers caught at a checkpoint.
I would also be interested in the number of DUI in Sebastopol on a regular Saturday night as compared to the 3 arrested in the checkpoint.

bodegahead

09-04-2009, 11:50 AM

From what I undrestand Cheif Weaver has a positive outlook on Peace and Medicine. I worked security at the last harvest dance and apparently we had very good co operatin with the Chief and local police. Also a recent article in a local paper on Peace in Medicine quoted the police as having good things to say about Peace and Medicine and how it is run. That is one reason they have been ok`d to open anothet branch. I have heard they may have even been encouraged to open another branch by the city. The tax money is a good way to make up for some of the taxes lost when the car dealers closed.
Ask Chief Weaver his opinion on *Peace in Medicine* you might be surprised.

Missy :wink:

Barry

09-04-2009, 04:39 PM

Thanks for sending in some excellent questions for Chief Weaver! Unfortunately I didn't get to call him today, but I will next week. Promise! So keep your cards and letters (and questions) coming!

Tars

09-04-2009, 06:32 PM

Folks, this is Sebastopol you are talking about! Most of your law-abiding, respectful and 'conscious' neighbors want the City government to do whatever can be done, to keep it the pretty, quiet and safe little town we all love.

Whoa, this is a scary statement. I hope this person speaks only for herself. Such a willingness to give away your rights!

A Founding Father sez:

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Memoirs of the life and writings of Benjamin Franklin (https://books.google.com/books?id=W2MFAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA270&lpg=PA270t#PPA270,M1) (1818)

Seems to me that being "conscious" should at least involve questioning the rights of those who strive for authority over our lives.

https://www.rriddle.com/Avatars/WaccoBBAvatar300.jpg

bodegahead

09-04-2009, 06:49 PM

Very scary statement, especially the underlined <b> whatever<b>

Barry, one person, who posted here earlier, pointed to unusually high stats for alcohol-related offenses in Sebastopol in 2008, and implied they were due to over-zealous policing, wanting to know if the police were getting raises here, and whether their numbers were increasing. You might want to get a reality check on these issues.

Folks, this is Sebastopol you are talking about! Most of your law-abiding, respectful and 'conscious' neighbors want the City government to do whatever can be done, to keep it the pretty, quiet and safe little town we all love.

justme

09-04-2009, 06:51 PM

Whoa, this is a scary statement. I hope this person speaks only for herself. Such a willingness to give away your rights!

A Founding Father sez:

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Memoirs of the life and writings of Benjamin Franklin (https://books.google.com/books?id=W2MFAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA270&lpg=PA270t#PPA270,M1) (1818)

Seems to me that being "conscious" should at least involve questioning the rights of those who strive for authority over our lives.

https://www.rriddle.com/Avatars/WaccoBBAvatar300.jpg

And the right to question those who disagree with our opinions too... In a civil way....

Tars

09-04-2009, 07:00 PM

Ask Chief Weaver his opinion on *Peace in Medicine* you might be surprised.

From what I undrestand Cheif Weaver has a positive outlook on Peace and Medicine.

As long as the Peace In Medicine customer doesn't have bloodshot eyes (for whatever reason), at the checkpoint, resulting in a DWI arrest. Any THC content in the blood is liable to cause DWI prosecution.

Interesting study:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION: MARIJUANA AND ACTUAL DRIVING PERFORMANCE (https://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/misc/driving/dot78_1g.htm)

One conclusion:

"A low THC dose (100 ug/kg) does not impair driving ability in urban traffic to the same extent as a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.04g%"

Even under the incoming tougher restrictions, it will still be legal to drive with an blood alcohol content of .04%. Not so with marijuana.

tomcat

09-05-2009, 10:59 AM

Driving is NOT a right. It is a privilege one retains by following rules and laws.
I am a professional class A truck driver and I have worked nights for 20 years.
To be on the road between midnight and 3 in the morning can be very scary with all the impaired drivers out there. I see lots of drivers pulled over by the CHP nightly, but I continue to see lots of obviously impaired drivers who don't get caught.
If the possibility of night time DUI checkpoints stops folks from impaired driving, then I'm all for them. In fact, we probably need MORE of them.

Our Founding Fathers did not have fast cars shaped like bullets with people inside.
Tom

Whoa, this is a scary statement. I hope this person speaks only for herself. Such a willingness to give away your rights!

A Founding Father sez:

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Memoirs of the life and writings of Benjamin Franklin (https://books.google.com/books?id=W2MFAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA270&lpg=PA270t#PPA270,M1) (1818)

Seems to me that being "conscious" should at least involve questioning the rights of those who strive for authority over our lives.

https://www.rriddle.com/Avatars/WaccoBBAvatar300.jpg

Tars

09-05-2009, 07:39 PM

Driving is NOT a right. It is a privilege one retains by following rules and laws.

Yep. But, how does that justify the checkpoints? As a citizen I am "privileged" to not be subjected to a casual search, without probable cause. Besides which, if If they used 30 police, as mentioned here, on patrol, instead of manning checkpoints, the roads would be safer.

To be on the road between midnight and 3 in the morning can be very scary with all the impaired drivers out there. I see lots of drivers pulled over by the CHP nightly, but I continue to see lots of obviously impaired drivers who don't get caught.See above.

If the possibility of night time DUI checkpoints stops folks from impaired driving, then I'm all for them. In fact, we probably need MORE of them.I've never seen anywhere, statistics demonstrating that sobriety checkpoints reduce the number of drunk drivers, especially compared to the same number of officers patrolling a wider area. Drunks will behave pretty much the same way they always do anyway. If reducing the number of drunks on the road is the goal, checkpoints are an innefficient boondoggle.

However, since I don't drink alcohol, my concern is not with DUI arrests, per se, but rather the invasion of my right to privacy.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Cops need to establish probable cause for stopping a driver - such as weaving or other bizarre behavior. Checkpoints stop everyone - out of the thousands stopped in the recent Sebastopol roadblock, there were three arrests for DUI. That miniscule result only reaffirms that it was an "unreasonable search".

Sadly, the Supreme Court of the U.S. ruled that police can operate sobriety checkpoints via an "exception to the Constitution". I didn't know they could do that! I thought the Supremes were just supposed to interpret it. What will the high court "except" from the Constitution next? Scary.

"Chief Justice Rehnquist had argued that violating individual constitutional rights was justified (https://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/DrivingIssues/1103163004.html) because sobriety roadblocks were effective and necessary. But dissenting Justice Stevens pointed out that "the findings of the trial court, based on an extensive record and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals, indicate that the net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative."

I'm with Stevens. I don't share Braggi's seeming distrust of authority figures. But I think drunksweep checkpoints are really just an excuse for "phishing" expeditions by local governments to "phish" law-abiding citizens, hoping for monetary gain. I think local politicians will say they're in favor of them, though their worth is highly questionable, because it's a simple visceral way to demonstrate to some citizens that "something is being done" to make them safer. Balderdash.

Our Founding Fathers did not have fast cars shaped like bullets with people inside.And your point? There was a much higher percentage of drunks in the Founding Fathers' time than there is now, and many of them carried guns and even swords. Drunks on horseback is safer? Your last part doesn't make much logical sense.

It's noted that you're willing to give up your citizen's rights, in hopes that you'll be "safer". Be careful what you ask for...

tomcat

09-06-2009, 08:28 AM

>>>Yep. But, how does that justify the checkpoints? As a citizen I am "privileged" to not be subjected to a casual search, without probable cause. Besides which, if If they used 30 police, as mentioned here, on patrol, instead of manning checkpoints, the roads would be safer.<<<

Like I said, if you knew their was a possibility of being stopped at a checkpoint, maybe you wouldn't drive impaired or unlicensed or have drugs or guns in plain sight or whatever, so IMO, checkpoints can be effective.

>>>I've never seen anywhere, statistics demonstrating that sobriety checkpoints reduce the number of drunk drivers, especially compared to the same number of officers patrolling a wider area. Drunks will behave pretty much the same way they always do anyway. If reducing the number of drunks on the road is the goal, checkpoints are an innefficient boondoggle.<<<

Maybe there just are not enough checkpoints to convince folks that they should follow the law.

>>>However, since I don't drink alcohol, my concern is not with DUI arrests, per se, but rather the invasion of my right to privacy.<<<

Driving a vehicle is a PUBLIC action, not a private one.

>>>"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."<<<

Does not seem to mention vehicles, does it. Again, driving a vehicle is a Public action and you are doing something you should not do in public and an officer sees it, you're BUSTED.

>>>Cops need to establish probable cause for stopping a driver - such as weaving or other bizarre behavior. Checkpoints stop everyone - out of the thousands stopped in the recent Sebastopol roadblock, there were three arrests for DUI. That miniscule result only reaffirms that it was an "unreasonable search".<<<

Maybe folks in the Sebastopol are getting the idea that it is NOT OK to drive impaired. Maybe checkpoints ARE working.

>>>Sadly, the Supreme Court of the U.S. ruled that police can operate sobriety checkpoints via an "exception to the Constitution". I didn't know they could do that! I thought the Supremes were just supposed to interpret it. What will the high court "except" from the Constitution next? Scary.<<<

Sad for you, OK by me.

>>>"Chief Justice Rehnquist had argued that violating individual constitutional rights was justified (https://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/DrivingIssues/1103163004.html) because sobriety roadblocks were effective and necessary. But dissenting Justice Stevens pointed out that "the findings of the trial court, based on an extensive record and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals, indicate that the net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative."<<<

Maybe because they just need more of the checkpoints to convince folks that they are serious.

>>>I'm with Stevens. I don't share Braggi's seeming distrust of authority figures. But I think drunksweep checkpoints are really just an excuse for "phishing" expeditions by local governments to "phish" law-abiding citizens, hoping for monetary gain. I think local politicians will say they're in favor of them, though their worth is highly questionable, because it's a simple visceral way to demonstrate to some citizens that "something is being done" to make them safer. Balderdash.<<<

If folks are Law-abiding, then they have nothing to worry about, do they.

>>>And your point? There was a much higher percentage of drunks in the Founding Fathers' time than there is now, and many of them carried guns and even swords. Drunks on horseback is safer? Your last part doesn't make much logical sense.<<<

I thought we were talking about checkpoints, not just Drunks.

>>>It's noted that you're willing to give up your citizen's rights, in hopes that you'll be "safer". Be careful what you ask for...<<<

No, but I'm willing to give up YOUR rights to drive if you can't follow the law. I have no problem waiting at a checkpoint for a few minutes if it will get people who should not be driving OFF the road.
I guess we will just have to agree to dissagree.

broadbandersnatch

09-06-2009, 11:58 AM

justme

09-06-2009, 12:23 PM

"If folks are Law-abiding, then they have nothing to worry about, do they."

I have seen that naive statement before. It is the very genesis of what's euphemistic known as 'the slippery slope.' Fasten your seat belts - it's a long way down.

So many whiners with so much time.....

Some want their world to be how they see fit.....Times have changed some..... Personal freedom has diminished some, but look at China, Iran, etc and then say your rights are being taken away...

It's all about adjusting to change,,,, Do you all really feel that imprisoned?

broadbandersnatch

09-06-2009, 01:10 PM

So sayeth the the lobster to the cook...

So many whiners with so much time.....

Some want their world to be how they see fit.....Times have changed some..... Personal freedom has diminished some, but look at China, Iran, etc and then say your rights are being taken away...

It's all about adjusting to change,,,, Do you all really feel that imprisoned?

tomcat

09-06-2009, 01:55 PM

I agree that we must all be aware of how far we let the authorities go to make our piece of the world safer, and I'm glad that their are folks who will kick and scream at the slightest hint of any perceived loss of rights and freedoms.

We all must decide for ourselves where to draw that line in the sand... and I am just saying that checkpoints are OK with ME.

People expressing a different opinion is also OK with ME.

If you are saying that Law-abiding citizens need to worry, then are you saying that we can't trust the authorities?
Well, that can be the case anywhere that you have a few bad apples and I have experienced it myself while visiting France long ago, but for the MOST part here in our area, I feel OK about the authorities as long as I am not breaking any laws.

"If folks are Law-abiding, then they have nothing to worry about, do they."

I have seen that naive statement before. It is the very genesis of what's euphemistic known as 'the slippery slope.' Fasten your seat belts - it's a long way down.

Tars

09-06-2009, 08:22 PM

Like I said, if you knew their was a possibility of being stopped at a checkpoint, maybe you wouldn't drive impaired or unlicensed or have drugs or guns in plain sight or whatever, so IMO, checkpoints can be effective.

And be sure to have your papers in order. Or, you will be fined heavily.

Maybe there just are not enough checkpoints to convince folks that they should follow the law.

How many are enough? As justice Stevens pointed out, the level that they're done now has a miniscule effect, if any. on drunk driving, and causes more harm than good. I accept his educated opinion. They're a big waste of public safety labor and resources.

Driving a vehicle is a PUBLIC action, not a private one.

But our privacy rights protect our cars, just as they protect our home or person. Police roadblock checkpoints don't respect any citizen's privacy. The vast majority of those citizens are behaving completely legally. The majority of cited citizens are not posing a threat to anyone's safety.

If a driver's "PUBLIC" action shows cause to stop them, then I agree that they should be stopped and checked for sobriety. Otherwise, stay out of our private business.

>>>"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."<<<

Does not seem to mention vehicles, does it.

A car is a personal effect.

Maybe folks in the Sebastopol are getting the idea that it is NOT OK to drive impaired. Maybe checkpoints ARE working.

But most likely not. What are you basing that assumption on; "maybe" means you're guessing. Roadblocks have zero effect on drunk driving. Am I wrong? Demonstrate otherwise. Roadblock checkpoints' main effect is to initiate a transfer of wealth from private citizens to the government bureaucrats.

Tars

09-06-2009, 08:31 PM

And the right to question those who disagree with our opinions too... In a civil way....

So many whiners with so much time.....

Ah...."a civil way"....isn't it wonderful? Your idea of civility is a MsTerry to me.

Owltalk

09-07-2009, 12:35 AM

I guess you haven't lost a father, mother, brother, sister, son or daughter to a drunken driving accident. I have a friend whose adult son was killed buy a driver that had previous DUIs and had been drinking. This man was her most precious little boy that she carefully raised with all the love she had and now her life and her family's lives will be changed forever. I think that check points do work. A lot of people don't even go out on holidays because they know that the cops are out in force. I understand that checkpoints infringe on our rights but it's like going through the security points at the airport. It's a necessary evil.

If drinking is that important to you that you can't sacrifice some very minor freedoms to join in with many caring citizens trying to do what they can to end the slaughter out on our highways, I would start to wonder what all your protest is really about.

Yep. But, how does that justify the checkpoints? As a citizen I am "privileged" to not be subjected to a casual search, without probable cause. Besides which, if If they used 30 police, as mentioned here, on patrol, instead of manning checkpoints, the roads would be safer.

See above.

I've never seen anywhere, statistics demonstrating that sobriety checkpoints reduce the number of drunk drivers, especially compared to the same number of officers patrolling a wider area. Drunks will behave pretty much the same way they always do anyway. If reducing the number of drunks on the road is the goal, checkpoints are an innefficient boondoggle.

However, since I don't drink alcohol, my concern is not with DUI arrests, per se, but rather the invasion of my right to privacy.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Cops need to establish probable cause for stopping a driver - such as weaving or other bizarre behavior. Checkpoints stop everyone - out of the thousands stopped in the recent Sebastopol roadblock, there were three arrests for DUI. That miniscule result only reaffirms that it was an "unreasonable search".

Sadly, the Supreme Court of the U.S. ruled that police can operate sobriety checkpoints via an "exception to the Constitution". I didn't know they could do that! I thought the Supremes were just supposed to interpret it. What will the high court "except" from the Constitution next? Scary.

"Chief Justice Rehnquist had argued that violating individual constitutional rights was justified (https://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/DrivingIssues/1103163004.html) because sobriety roadblocks were effective and necessary. But dissenting Justice Stevens pointed out that "the findings of the trial court, based on an extensive record and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals, indicate that the net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative."

I'm with Stevens. I don't share Braggi's seeming distrust of authority figures. But I think drunksweep checkpoints are really just an excuse for "phishing" expeditions by local governments to "phish" law-abiding citizens, hoping for monetary gain. I think local politicians will say they're in favor of them, though their worth is highly questionable, because it's a simple visceral way to demonstrate to some citizens that "something is being done" to make them safer. Balderdash.

And your point? There was a much higher percentage of drunks in the Founding Fathers' time than there is now, and many of them carried guns and even swords. Drunks on horseback is safer? Your last part doesn't make much logical sense.

It's noted that you're willing to give up your citizen's rights, in hopes that you'll be "safer". Be careful what you ask for...

justme

09-07-2009, 01:59 AM

I am totally amazed and wonder...

Where are the "personal rights" of those killed by drunk drivers? Does being inconvenienced at a checkpoint that big of a deal?

Drunk Drivers kill, maim, hurt and destroy lives.

Wake up!!!!! To sit in a line of cars for a few minutes to help keep the DUI's at a minimum is not a big price...... Your home is not being searched.... I hear the "your papers being in order" comment being used often... What? Drivers license and insurance?

I bet if some of you got robbed in a parking lot and the police didn't set up a "checkpoint" to catch the accused, you would whime about police inaction....

How pathetic that some can't bend some to really address a society wide problem.

These days it's all about me!!! Not about others and what we can do to help....Sonoma County narcissism at it's finest!!!!

tomcat

09-07-2009, 04:49 AM

I have listened to your arguments with an open mind, but I am not swayed in the least, so like I said, we will just have to agree to disagree.... and if we get stopped at a checkpoint, I will be sober, have my papers in order and be calmly listening to some beautiful music with a smile on my face and I'm guessing that you will most likely be all upset and resentful with a frown on your face.

Enjoy your life, for an impaired driver could take yours or a loved ones away at any moment on the highway.

And be sure to have your papers in order. Or, you will be fined heavily.

How many are enough? As justice Stevens pointed out, the level that they're done now has a miniscule effect, if any. on drunk driving, and causes more harm than good. I accept his educated opinion. They're a big waste of public safety labor and resources.

But our privacy rights protect our cars, just as they protect our home or person. Police roadblock checkpoints don't respect any citizen's privacy. The vast majority of those citizens are behaving completely legally. The majority of cited citizens are not posing a threat to anyone's safety.

If a driver's "PUBLIC" action shows cause to stop them, then I agree that they should be stopped and checked for sobriety. Otherwise, stay out of our private business.

>>>"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."<<<

A car is a personal effect.

But most likely not. What are you basing that assumption on; "maybe" means you're guessing. Roadblocks have zero effect on drunk driving. Am I wrong? Demonstrate otherwise. Roadblock checkpoints' main effect is to initiate a transfer of wealth from private citizens to the government bureaucrats.

Tars

09-07-2009, 08:28 AM

I guess you haven't lost a father, mother, brother, sister, son or daughter to a drunken driving accident. I have a friend whose adult son was killed buy a driver that had previous DUIs and had been drinking.

My condolences to your friend on their loss. I've lost people close to me because of alcohol as well. It's very frustrating, and I, as you apparently do, get angry at the needless pointless loss. There is the desire to do more, anything more, to try to reduce the bloodshed by drunk drivers.

Drunks will drive. Alcohol removes common sense. As history has shown though, checkpoints are probably the least-effective way to address the problem. Yes, they are very visable, so may reassure some law-abiding citizens who are scared and anxious. But if all the labor used in checkpoints was instead used to cover a much-wider area of roads and highways, the number of drunks taken off the road would be increased.

broadbandersnatch

09-07-2009, 08:28 AM

Unless its just plain true that they are ineffective. No one wants drunl drivers on the road. If you read most posts that object to checkpoints that is not a point that are contending. So stop the sensational stuff and listen: The real question is, what's most effective? Have there been studies that show this is the best way to get the job done. What are experts saying? Where are the stats? Show me this is the most effective way to stamp out drunk driving and I'll put up with checkpoints. I don't believe that they are the best way to put an end to this menace but I am totally open to being shown otherwise. Show me proof and I'll change my position.

I am totally amazed and wonder...

Where are the "personal rights" of those killed by drunk drivers? Does being inconvenienced at a checkpoint that big of a deal?

Drunk Drivers kill, maim, hurt and destroy lives.

Wake up!!!!! To sit in a line of cars for a few minutes to help keep the DUI's at a minimum is not a big price...... Your home is not being searched.... I hear the "your papers being in order" comment being used often... What? Drivers license and insurance?

I bet if some of you got robbed in a parking lot and the police didn't set up a "checkpoint" to catch the accused, you would whime about police inaction....

How pathetic that some can't bend some to really address a society wide problem.

These days it's all about me!!! Not about others and what we can do to help....Sonoma County narcissism at it's finest!!!!

justme

09-07-2009, 12:12 PM

justme

09-07-2009, 12:15 PM

My condolences to your friend on their loss. I've lost people close to me because of alcohol as well. It's very frustrating, and I, as you apparently do, get angry at the needless pointless loss. There is the desire to do more, anything more, to try to reduce the bloodshed by drunk drivers.

Drunks will drive. Alcohol removes common sense. As history has shown though, checkpoints are probably the least-effective way to address the problem. Yes, they are very visable, so may reassure some law-abiding citizens who are scared and anxious. But if all the labor used in checkpoints was instead used to cover a much-wider area of roads and highways, the number of drunks taken off the road would be increased.

Might be "least-effective", I don't know... But I am glad to see you use the checkpoints at least in the category of "effective"...:thumbsup:

Yubajeff

09-09-2009, 02:38 PM

Barry

09-09-2009, 02:55 PM

I have posted an audio interview I did with Sebastopol Police Chief Jeff Weaver in new thread: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/general-community/57605-sebastopol-police-chief-speaks-about-dui-checkpoints-audio.html#post97339

He addresses many of the concerns posted in this thread.

justme

09-09-2009, 06:12 PM

Such violent communication. That says it all.

Violent communication? :hmmm: Just an example..... Seems like you were the one that acused me of "being a cop" for stating an opinion that was contrary to yours. And another's response was that I was "probably just a kid". You say my example was "violent"? I say the two above stated comments were self-aggrandizing , belittling and just plain ignorant... "That says it all"....

broadbandersnatch

09-09-2009, 06:46 PM

Seems to me a lot of folks up here have lost the art of listening to one another without judgement. Look at Washington, now look at ourselves. It's time for all of us to take a deep breath and ask ourselves if we are truly communicating with each other non-violently. I think that many folks up here on wacco (including myself) are all too capable of slipping into quick and petty judgement. If a so called "conscious community" can't conduct a civil debate how can we expect this country to put aside its divisive habits and come together for the common good? Now (IMHO) "That says it all"

Violent communication? :hmmm: Just an example..... Seems like you were the one that acused me of "being a cop" for stating an opinion that was contrary to yours. And another's response was that I was "probably just a kid". You say my example was "violent"? I say the two above stated comments were self-aggrandizing , belittling and just plain ignorant... "That says it all"....

justme

09-09-2009, 10:12 PM

Seems to me a lot of folks up here have lost the art of listening to one another without judgement. Look at Washington, now look at ourselves. It's time for all of us to take a deep breath and ask ourselves if we are truly communicating with each other non-violently. I think that many folks up here on wacco (including myself) are all too capable of slipping into quick and petty judgement. If a so called "conscious community" can't conduct a civil debate how can we expect this country to put aside its divisive habits and come together for the common good? Now (IMHO) "That says it all"

I hope the above comment was directed at everyone.... I do wonder what a "civil debate" entails.... No emotion? no passion? no getting a little "riled up"? That takes the whole realm of human emotion and reduces it to a pre-determined set of rules on how to "debate? The word that comes to mind for me is "politically correct" or "socially correct". Yes, I too get into the judgement thing at times. I apologize for that.

But on an issue so important as this, I have to respond a little harshly in response to personal attacks and show my opinion on this subject in a passionate manner.

If I don't, I fall into the world of an "un-conscious community"....

broadbandersnatch

09-09-2009, 10:33 PM

I fail to see how 'political correctness' enters into the discussion of how to engage in civil debate. Certainly passion is a human quality without which we wouldn't be well, human. But when I saw the kind of crap that was being passed off as passion at the town hall shout downs I was appalled and deeply saddened that this nation had lost the art of listening. When any discussion degrades to the level of personal attacks or a shouting match that to me is the end of civil discussion.

As to my comment being directed at you - it wasn't - it was a general point I was making about the tone I see on the wacco boards and on various chats on the net. I find a large number of people who are not interested in listening to anyone's point of view but their own. They are not open to changing in any way: their minds are already made up and are simply there to attack the opposing view. I'm sure you have encountered some of these people in your travels.

I hope the above comment was directed at everyone.... I do wonder what a "civil debate" entails.... No emotion? no passion? no getting a little "riled up"? That takes the whole realm of human emotion and reduces it to a pre-determined set of rules on how to "debate? The word that comes to mind for me is "politically correct" or "socially correct". Yes, I too get into the judgement thing at times. I apologize for that.

But on an issue so important as this, I have to respond a little harshly in response to personal attacks and show my opinion on this subject in a passionate manner.

If I don't, I fall into the world of an "un-conscious community"....