[Bruce M]

Originally Posted by DanaT

.... There were no electronic sound amplification devices in the 1700s, so why should out freedom of speech not be limited by common sense restrictions to the devices in use in the 1700s? Printing, no more of the this pesky internet stuff, only printing presses in use in the 1700s. Opps. No cameras were in use so that is reasonable restrictions on our privilege of free speech.

See how stupid thisis? Yes. Stupid. We don’t restrict free speech to what was in use in the late 1700s. Since travel is a RIGHT, as ruled by the Supreme Court, wouldn’t that mean that travel by means available in modern times are covered under that right just as digital cameras are covered under the right to free speech?

....

If you think you have an absolute right of freedom of speech try yelling what you think in a church or from the gallery when your legislature is in session.

Or if we do not restrict the right of speech when it is electronically amplified and transmitted try dialing random numbers and start yelling at them when someone answers. Or even simply don't pay the telephone bill.

[tslex]

Originally Posted by groundhawg

. . . . .

Someone said "if it saves 1 child--or Uncle". . . . .

Each loss of a single life is an immeasurable tragedy to that family.

But the problem is that any idea expressed through this formulation – “If we can [verb] just one [noun] then [rule, requirement or restriction] will be worth it.” – is errant nonsense. Always and without exception.

It's no basis for policy.

Here's why: http://suburbansheepdog.blogspot.com...bad-touch.html

[ray9898]

Originally Posted by DanaT

Then state publicly that if an AWB occurs that requires confiscation and/or registration, that you will not enforce said law because it is unconstitutional. You will lose your job and your pension.

If you wont participate in confiscation/registration, state so and prove me wrong.

I would turn my badge in as would every officer I know on a personal level. I have been a lover of firearms since childhood and carried for many years under a state of GA CCW permit long before I ever entered LE. My life is full of friends and family who are not LE just like every other officer. So to paint us with the broad brush that we only care about our self because we will have gun rights as LEO's is flawed.

...and FYI....I don't have a pension like many officers working outside the larger agencies in the SE.

[OlliesRevenge]

Here in the Seattle area, DUI checkpoints are (happily) either non existent, or so rare I have neither seen or heard of one -- so pardon my ignorance.

Question: For those areas that actually do this kind of stuff regularly - Is it common practice to actually have the calibrated breathaylzer machine on the scene at the checkpoint? I'm not talking about the small portable device the officer can stick in your window... but the actual "intoxalyzer" machine usually found back at the station.

[DanaT]

Originally Posted by ray9898

I would turn my badge in as would every officer I know on a personal level. .

I applaud you on that.

[RussP]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

So if I understand this correctly, departments receive federal grants that cover the man hours and so forth to run dui operations? Covers over time and whatnot?

Google "Grants for Law Enforcement DUI checkpoint"

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by RussP

Google "Grants for Law Enforcement DUI checkpoint"

I take it that's a yes?

[ray9898]

Originally Posted by OlliesRevenge

Question: For those areas that actually do this kind of stuff regularly - Is it common practice to actually have the calibrated breathaylzer machine on the scene at the checkpoint? I'm not talking about the small portable device the officer can stick in your window... but the actual "intoxalyzer" machine usually found back at the station.

Sometimes the state brings one out if the operation is big enough, that allows us to process on scene and having the wagon pick them up to go to the jail. If that is not the case and we are taking them our self it is easier to just use the one at the jail.

[RussP]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

I take it that's a yes?

There are many grant providers, agencies at both levels, and grants in varying amounts from funding one check point one time on up.

[jdeere_man]

My opinion may go against what is permitted under laws that have been crafted, but I am against checkpoints of any type. That does not mean I advocate drinking and driving. What that means is you need probable cause to inhibit my travel. If I'm driving erratically fine stop me and check. But to stop every vehicle traveling is no different than pulling someone over without probable cause IMO.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by RussP

There are many grant providers, agencies at both levels, and grants in varying amounts from funding one check point one time on up.

So would it be fair to say that officers have a financial interest in the checkpoints? I assume that this is overtime.

[DanaT]

Originally Posted by jdeere_man

My opinion may go against what is permitted under laws that have been crafted, but I am against checkpoints of any type. That does not mean I advocate drinking and driving. What that means is you need probable cause to inhibit my travel. If I'm driving erratically fine stop me and check. But to stop every vehicle traveling is no different than pulling someone over without probable cause IMO.

I agree with what you have said.

[RussP]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

So would it be fair to say that officers have a financial interest in the checkpoints? I assume that this is overtime.

You would have to ask the agency receiving the funds what they cover.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by RussP

You would have to ask the agency receiving the funds what they cover.

If officers are already on the clock, why would additional grant money be needed to fund a checkpoint if it is not to cover over time ?

[Huaco Kid]

I was pulled over a few years ago at, like, 3:00 am (I was going home from the airport).

I was rousted. Supreme.

I refused the field sobriety tests. He got pretty mad.

I refused the breathalyzer. I got jacked up.

I accepted the hospital blood test. I got cuffed. They towed my car and it ruined my night. After the hospital, I spent twenty minutes at my small-town jail, until my wife picked me up.

Two weeks later, I was found clean. I got an attorney that retrieved my expenses plus a little bit more.

(They didn't have a video tape or breathalyzer to use against me!)

Later, I shook the Cop's hand (while he looked sheepish (he was a VERY young guy)) and told him there were no hard feelings. (He was actually VERY nice and VERY professional throughout the whole ordeal) I've seen enough TV shows to have learned what I did. And, have enough attorneys in my extended family to back up my actions.

And, I do, still, actually have some inherited rights, in this country I live in.

(That Nice Young Cop was "dismissed" a few months later. Something to do with the local high-school principal, and her husband, and a gun being pointed at everybody and a big media brouhaha. Ooops!)

[OlliesRevenge]

Originally Posted by ray9898

Sometimes the state brings one out if the operation is big enough, that allows us to process on scene and having the wagon pick them up to go to the jail. If that is not the case and we are taking them our self it is easier to just use the one at the jail.

Thanks. Now I'm trying to get a handle on the "no refusal" component here. Most traffic attorneys advise clients to...

• Refuse to take a breath test on the side of the road, and instead tell the officer you want to take a breath test at the station (In my understanding this advice is based on the idea that the small roadside device is inaccurate)
• Refuse to take a "field sobriety test", as they are not legally obligated to do so, and it is completely subjective nonsense anyway.
• Do take the breath test at the station.

Based on this common legal advice, where does "no refusal" fit in?

Edit to add: In the OP's linked article, it states that "...law enforcement will be able quickly get a search warrant to take a blood sample from a suspected drunk driver who refuses to take a breathalyzer test" -- and my question is -- Will refusing just the small portable breath tester result in a search warrant that will enable LE to forcibly draw your blood? Or do you have to refuse the calibrated breath tester found in the station or DUI patrol truck?

More importantly -- If refusal to take the breath test at the station results in automatic DUI conviction anyway (as I think is the case in most states) what is to be gained by getting a warrant and forcibly drawing someones blood? The forcible blood draw seems pretty intrusive to me, and would seem to run afoul of medical informed consent law.

[*ASH*]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

If officers are already on the clock, why would additional grant money be needed to fund a checkpoint if it is not to cover over time ?

IM PRETTY SURE YOU BUSTED HIM .

you wont get a yes or no answer .

[Bruce M]

Originally Posted by OlliesRevenge

...

Question: For those areas that actually do this kind of stuff regularly - Is it common practice to actually have the calibrated breathaylzer machine on the scene at the checkpoint? I'm not talking about the small portable device the officer can stick in your window... but the actual "intoxalyzer" machine usually found back at the station.

Yes

[JuneyBooney]

Originally Posted by Averageman

This is why when I drink, I stay at home.
New Oleans at New Years falls under the catagory of stupid stuff about to happen.

That is the only smart way. I have never been hassled at a checkpoint in my life. I do find the long lines to be a pain though.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by *ASH*

IM PRETTY SURE YOU BUSTED HIM .

you wont get a yes or no answer .

I'm not trying to bust anyone and I'm not saying that officers only run the checkpoints because they want the over time. What I am saying is that they apparently have a financial interest in the checkpoints. From an ethical standpoint, any time someone has a financial interest in something like this that should be pointed out and taken into consideration.

[Bruce M]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

If officers are already on the clock, why would additional grant money be needed to fund a checkpoint if it is not to cover over time ?

Fuel costs, renting lighting towers, barricades and illuminated sign boards for the location, a few boxes of flares and a couple of boxes of batteries for flashlights. Especially in summer some bottled water and ice to prevent dehydration and of course a few cases of beer to celebrate an effective check point after shutting it down before driving home

[blastfact]

What gets me is sober folks still kill far more people a year behind the wheel than drunks and those evil dopers. It's amazing the pass idiot sober drivers get. But here comes the meat hook if your impaired.

And everybody has to put up with the Big Brother, Nazi style road blocks. Hello Police State!!!

[F14Scott]

Originally Posted by RussP

How about those on the road after drinking at private homes?

Nothing stopping them from doing either one, now. In my book, both would fall under "legitimate police investigations," although the bar stakeout would certainly be more intuitive, cost effective, and productive. But, if the popo wants to waste time sitting outside of my house, more power to them.

Both seem better, to me, than stopping people for no reason. I simply see no justification for stopping people without reasonable suspicion or PC.

[RussP]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

I'm not trying to bust anyone and I'm not saying that officers only run the checkpoints because they want the over time. What I am saying is that they apparently have a financial interest in the checkpoints. From an ethical standpoint, any time someone has a financial interest in something like this that should be pointed out and taken into consideration.

Are you saying that anytime a law enforcement officer works overtime, he or she has a financial interest in both the mode of work and the results of that work?

When officers staff either saturation patrols, such as those done this time of year, or checkpoints, it does involve extra duty overtime for some officers so regular patrol areas remain adequately covered.

Do you object to paying overtime for saturation patrols? Grants fund those, too. Grants for Law Enforcement DUI saturation patrols

[RussP]

Originally Posted by Bruce M

Fuel costs, renting lighting towers, barricades and illuminated sign boards for the location, a few boxes of flares and a couple of boxes of batteries for flashlights. Especially in summer some bottled water and ice to prevent dehydration and of course a few cases of beer to celebrate an effective check point after shutting it down before driving home

That, too. It just doesn't fit the agenda...