Sobriety Check Points.... Will it happen in SA? (San Antonio, Howe: insurance, lawyers)

[RodLu]

.....not that I like petty thieves either, myself.......

[Azure110]

Some of these responses make me laugh because to say the practice of setting up roadblocks is unconstitutional makes little sense to me when our federal government passes the Patriot Act for example deeming it necessary to protect our country. Our country's own constitution has little meaning these days as it gets watered down little by little over time.

Personally, I am for setting up road blocks if that is what it will take to get drunk drivers off the road. If I get stuck in the middle of the one, no big deal because I have nothing to hide. I am not a drinker, pay my car insurance and registration, wear my seatbelt, etc. I might get annoyed if I am in a hurry but am willing to deal with it to save lives.

[Bo]

Originally Posted by majormadmax

OK, would someone in favor of these checkpoints please explain to me how they would be implemented in SA? They could not be done on the major thoroughfares of our city (410, 1604, IH-10, IH-35, IH-37, 151, etc), which is where I see the greatest amount of suspected drunk drivers on the weekend. Heck, even trying to put one on a secondary road, such as Bandera or Fredericksburg, would be a nightmare. The high volume roads in this area just don't make this a practical idea.

I've been through checkpoints in other states a couple of times. The LEOs there don't set them up on interstates or at rush hour. You might see one at 10 PM on a road similar to Bandera or Fredericksburg. In those instances, everyone going in one direction gets funneled into 1 or 2 lanes. At the front of the line, you have to roll down the window and have a conversation with a LEO. The conversation is a screening. I assume that if you don't pass the conversation test, you get pointed over to another set of officers for more specific screening.

It wasn't a huge hassle the two times I went through it. Sort of like being in a line to pay for parking, except you're on a public street.

There was a thread on here over the summer about some similar SAPD checkpoints that were set up on highway turnarounds to check for insurance. IIRC, nobody here seemed to object to those.

[majormadmax]

Bowie

I have been in states that have them, and have gone through a few myself, and I still don't think they are an effective way to catch drunk drivers despite what some interest groups lead people to believe.

As for the SAPD checkpoints over the summer, those were specifically looking for obvious and visible vehicle infractions such as expired inspection or registrations or occupants not wearing seatbelts, which do give the police a right to stop and detain the vehicle. It is probable cause as there is clear evidence of a crime being committed. Sobriety checkpoints assume that if you are on the road during a certain time that there is a chance that you may have been drinking, but that is unreasonable as the state court ruled not probably cause.

It is the same as if the police pull over a car that has been weaving all over the road, it presents probable cause. However, if a person is simply pulled over for driving correctly, then it is not.

The bottom line is there are much more effective and efficient ways for the police to deal with drunk drivers. Stopping people because it is a certain time of the day is not one of them, especially when the vast majority of those being detained are innocent...

[TexasRedneck]

I'm sorry....too many have died fighting for the ideals set forth in the Constitution for me to simply say "it doesn't affect ME, so go ahead". Reading things such as that make me want to cry in frustration, because it starts us down a slippery slope that is beyond our comprehension. Folks, the rights given us by the founding fathers were done for a reason - and for us to complacently sit back and surrender them is something I just find SO hard to accept.
Why aren't more folks incensed by the ongoing refusal of our judges to impose the sentences allowed by existing laws? Why aren't you demanding accountability of the legal system - is it because you're afraid you might be the next caught?
Moderator cut: see comment
That doesn't make THIS kind of law any better. Please don't be so willing to give up a right - because you don't know which one they might decide to go for next. Men paid for this country with their blood and fortunes - NEVER forget that, or allow it to be given away as if it was of no consequence.

[Bo]

Originally Posted by majormadmax

As for the SAPD checkpoints over the summer, those were specifically looking for obvious and visible vehicle infractions such as expired inspection or registrations or occupants not wearing seatbelts, which do give the police a right to stop and detain the vehicle. It is probable cause as there is clear evidence of a crime being committed. Sobriety checkpoints assume that if you are on the road during a certain time that there is a chance that you may have been drinking, but that is unreasonable as the state court ruled not probably cause.

It is the same as if the police pull over a car that has been weaving all over the road, it presents probable cause. However, if a person is simply pulled over for driving correctly, then it is not.

What about vehicles leaving an event like NiOSA, where the beer and liquor flow freely and are viewed by many attendees as a key part of the night's entertainment? (Apparently our state and local governments have reason to believe Fiesta is a prime time for drunk driving, since the Transguide signs feature anti-DUI messages during those weeks.) My view is that there should be probable cause to screen every single vehicle leaving NiOSA for an intoxicated driver.

I'm sure there are other examples of alcohol-fueled entertainment in the area, but lif checkpoints are made legal, let's start with NiOSA and see if the ROI justifies the effort on checkpoints.

[Bo]

It strikes me that I've never seen any objection here to our DA's "No Refusal Weekends.". Being dragged to the hospital to have your blood drawn against your will strikes me as being about a million times more hassle and privacy intrusion than driving through a DUI checkpoint and verifying that you're fit to operate the vehicle you're driving. Why is this OK and not the checkpoint?

[RodLu]

Originally Posted by Bowie

It strikes me that I've never seen any objection here to our DA's "No Refusal Weekends.". Being dragged to the hospital to have your blood drawn against your will strikes me as being about a million times more hassle and privacy intrusion than driving through a DUI checkpoint and verifying that you're fit to operate the vehicle you're driving. Why is this OK and not the checkpoint?

I have also wondered the same thing on all counts.......

[L210]

Originally Posted by majormadmax

Bowie

I have been in states that have them, and have gone through a few myself, and I still don't think they are an effective way to catch drunk drivers despite what some interest groups lead people to believe.

As for the SAPD checkpoints over the summer, those were specifically looking for obvious and visible vehicle infractions such as expired inspection or registrations or occupants not wearing seatbelts, which do give the police a right to stop and detain the vehicle. It is probable cause as there is clear evidence of a crime being committed. Sobriety checkpoints assume that if you are on the road during a certain time that there is a chance that you may have been drinking, but that is unreasonable as the state court ruled not probably cause.

It is the same as if the police pull over a car that has been weaving all over the road, it presents probable cause. However, if a person is simply pulled over for driving correctly, then it is not.

The bottom line is there are much more effective and efficient ways for the police to deal with drunk drivers. Stopping people because it is a certain time of the day is not one of them, especially when the vast majority of those being detained are innocent...

How did those checkpoints work? Were people pulled over and the cops looked for visible infractions?

[TexasRedneck]

Originally Posted by Bowie

It strikes me that I've never seen any objection here to our DA's "No Refusal Weekends.". Being dragged to the hospital to have your blood drawn against your will strikes me as being about a million times more hassle and privacy intrusion than driving through a DUI checkpoint and verifying that you're fit to operate the vehicle you're driving. Why is this OK and not the checkpoint?

Because at that point, an officer has observed you and has probable cause to believe you are intoxicated.