[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by RussP

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

Russ - I asked you some questions above that you dodged. Now you come back with a set of questions of your own?

Here's what I'm saying. Perhaps this is clearer:

When federal grants fund DUI checkpoints to cover overtime for the officers working those checkpoints, yes, the officers have a financial interest in the checkpoints, and grants, continuing. If the checkpoints don't yield results, the chances of the grants, and the overtime pay, is lessened.

Do you disagree with this? If so, what part?

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by RussP

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

What agenda?

[blastfact]

Originally Posted by OlliesRevenge

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.

In Texass if the police think you are impaired and a death results from a accident you are involved in be it your fault or the other party's. They will by force draw your blood if you refuse a breath test. I had got rear ended near Longview. Hit and run no less heading to a meeting in Fort Worth. A friend was from Shreveport was meeting our client and I in down town Fort Worth. Mind you I got rear ended, hit and run. He got rear ended on the LBJ after the meeting. We each had two beers with our full course meal. The dude that rear ended my partner died! The police took his blood by force. He would have been cleared of all charges if he taken the breath test. It was the dead dudes fault! Judging by the pictures I saw the big headed texagan thugs did not get the blood very easy.

[arizona_andy]

Originally Posted by johnd

If you havent been drinking then theres nothing to fear. if you have then the penalties are never enough.

Agree 1000%. In my book you should go away for a very, very long time for drinking and driving. First offense. It demonstrates a complete and utter lack of responsibility and total disregard for the lives of others. IMO it is no different than firing a weapon with the knowledge that there are people somewhere downrange.

[ray9898]

Originally Posted by OlliesRevenge

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.

LE has a small handheld box for field tests and the large standardized machine used statewide which is normally housed at a different location. In GA the only refusal that has penalty is the state test.

Refusing the state test suspends your license, it looks bad at trial but is not an 'automatic conviction' criminally. The warrant for blood can be obtained for scientific proof of intoxication to be submitted as evidence to the judge and jury at trial.

[Bruce M]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

.... From an ethical standpoint, any time someone has a financial interest in something like this that should be pointed out and taken into consideration.

If you think a DUI checkpoint has some overtime, think about a complicated homicide scene in which the homicide and crime scene investigators are on the scene for twenty four hours.

And here is six or seven figures worth of ethics

[blastfact]

Originally Posted by arizona_andy

Agree 1000%. In my book you should go away for a very, very long time for drinking and driving. First offense. It demonstrates a complete and utter lack of responsibility and total disregard for the lives of others. IMO it is no different than firing a weapon with the knowledge that there are people somewhere downrange.

What about the sober idiots that cause far more property damage and lose of life year in and year out behind the wheel?

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by Bruce M

If you think a DUI checkpoint has some overtime, think about a complicated homicide scene in which the homicide and crime scene investigators are on the scene for twenty four hours.

And here is six or seven figures worth of ethics

You can see the guy in the photo saying, "Its just weed, mon!"

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by arizona_andy

Agree 1000%. In my book you should go away for a very, very long time for drinking and driving. First offense. It demonstrates a complete and utter lack of responsibility and total disregard for the lives of others. IMO it is no different than firing a weapon with the knowledge that there are people somewhere downrange.

Agreed. Also any violations for texting, eating, applying makeup, excessive speeding, careless and reckless and failing to maintain control.

[MAC702]

Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk

So, in your state, you are allowed to drive without an inspection sticker, a license plate, proof of insurance, or a license?

How did you get that from what I posted?

While we do not have inspection stickers, you are required to have your license, vehicle registration, and proof of insurance, yes.

Now, let's actually look at the point I made instead of whatever you tried to make it out to be.

The police, in my state, do not have the right to stop you for no reason other than just to see that you have your documents.

A traffic stop here must be for an observed offense, or reasonable suspicion (such as characteristics of drunk driving).

[MAC702]

Originally Posted by JLB768

I've got no problem with DUI checkpoints, but then again, my Uncle was hit by a drunk while on his motorcycle, and left dead in the road. Some time later, he was hit by a second car, that didn't see him in time. The drunk, he drove on home, and went to bed.

You should hate DUI checkpoints. Have you seen how many police officers are at a typical checkpoint? Statistics prove that when that same number of police officers go on a saturation patrol actively looking for drunk drivers, they catch far more of them. Without making anyone late for dinner, too.

[ray9898]

Originally Posted by blastfact

What about the sober idiots that cause far more property damage and lose of life year in and year out behind the wheel?

Roughly 1/3 of all traffic deaths the last few years, over 10k per year, are the result of impaired drivers who were over the 0.08 limit. Compare that number with the overall sample of drivers and you should easily see impaired drivers are a huge danger.

I would love to see the number which encompassed those who were impaired but not over the per se limit. I bet it would be close to 50%.

[*ASH*]

Originally Posted by MAC702

You should hate DUI checkpoints. Have you seen how many police officers are at a typical checkpoint? Statistics prove that when that same number of police officers go on a saturation patrol actively looking for drunk drivers, they catch far more of them. Without making anyone late for dinner, too.

well i know here they dont care really. me and the wife spotted a green truck ,running off road then to the other side .he was either drunk or high.
wife called 911 went straight to our sheriffs dept, dispatch said " what location " " oh state patrol handles that " i will patch thru to HP . waiting on phone for over 10 minutes ,and nothing , so i hung up and went home .

[MAC702]

Originally Posted by AK_Stick

Oh, don't get me wrong travel is a right.

But you choose to travel in an automobile, means you must obey the limitations and restrictions you agreed to abide when you got a liscense.

You do not have a right to get in a car without a liscense and do as you please.

To clarify, this is only if you will be the operator of the vehicle.

Ever wonder why rich people and politicians have their own drivers? It's not so they can conduct business in the back seat (well, okay, SOMETIMES they do conduct "business"), but it's so that they have give up no rights of privacy. If their driver gets pulled over, another car shows up and they continue on their way, while their old driver deals with the police. They don't even have to tell the police who they are.

[AK_Stick]

That means 66% are sober, kind of ugly odds on both sides.

[Kingarthurhk]

Originally Posted by MAC702

How did you get that from what I posted?

While we do not have inspection stickers, you are required to have your license, vehicle registration, and proof of insurance, yes.

Now, let's actually look at the point I made instead of whatever you tried to make it out to be.

The police, in my state, do not have the right to stop you for no reason other than just to see that you have your documents.

A traffic stop here must be for an observed offense, or reasonable suspicion (such as characteristics of drunk driving).

I am sure there is enough articulable facts to stop you and check to see if you have the appropriate state licencing material. Following too closely, speeding, unsafe lane change, aggressive driving, etc. etc.

[MAC702]

Originally Posted by *ASH*

well i know here they dont care really. ...

There's something we can mostly agree on.

Here, they are much more pissed off if you remain silent until they let you go (your right) than if you are actually drunk and they catch you for it.

The checkpoint is not for catching drunks. It's to remind us who is in charge.

[MAC702]

Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk

I am sure there is enough articulable facts to stop you and check to see if you have the appropriate state licencing material. Following too closely, speeding, unsafe lane change, aggressive driving, etc. etc.

Somehow you think this is acceptable?

FWIW, The biggest speeding, illegal turns, cell-phone-talking, and red-light-running offenders around here have red and blue lights on the top of their car.

[ray9898]

Originally Posted by AK_Stick

That means 66% are sober, kind of ugly odds on both sides.

The vast majority of drivers are sober....impaired drivers are a fraction of the total pie yet they account for 1/3 of the deaths.

[Kingarthurhk]

Originally Posted by MAC702

Somehow you think this is acceptable?

Oh, I know for a fact you can be stopped and ticketed for all those offenses. I have had quite a few groups of people turned over to me by the locals on just such a stop.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by ray9898

Roughly 1/3 of all traffic deaths the last few years, over 10k per year, are the result of impaired drivers who were over the 0.08 limit. Compare that number with the overall sample of drivers and you should easily see impaired drivers are a huge danger.

I would love to see the number which encompassed those who were impaired but not over the per se limit. I bet it would be close to 50%.

Clearly sober drivers are a far greater danger than drunk drivers.

With statistics like that it makes me wonder how many of those deaths involving drivers over the 0.08 limit would have happened anyway. In other words, just because a driver with a BAC of 0.08 was involved we can't automatically assume that the BAC was the cause of the accident or even a significant contributing factor. Certainly in a % of those cases it was simply "a factor".

How can one find out how many fatalities are the direct result of a drunk driver?

[MAC702]

Originally Posted by ray9898

Roughly 1/3 of all traffic deaths the last few years, over 10k per year, are the result of impaired drivers who were over the 0.08 limit. ...

HOW FAR over that limit?

I'd like to know how many drivers under 0.10% are killing people.

Lowering the standard from 0.10% to 0.08% was all about the money.

How many arrests are made for drivers between 0.08% and 0.10%?

I am NOT advocating drinking and driving.

[MAC702]

Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk

Oh, I know for a fact you can be stopped and ticketed for all those offenses. I have had quite a few groups of people turned over to me by the locals on just such a stop.

Let's continue to ignore my point, shall we?

You should not be randomly stopped to check for documents or other non-observed offenses.

Do you or do you not agree?

[TBO]

MAC,

What is your knowledge of the law and court rulings in this area?

[Random]

Let's see if I can catch back up.

1) Last NOLA cop I asked did say checkpoints were overtime for them

2) They used to post the "success" of the big checkpoints in the paper. I'll see if I can find it this time around. It is interesting reading. Maybe one dui taken into custody, a few dozen expired tags (fines), a few expired or suspended licenses(they let them DRIVE away, but give them a fine and a summons...yeah, I'm not joking), several drug possessions (taken into custody), a few warrants for outstandings(?), a few for brakelights and whatnot.

3) Bren, no I'm not a cop. I'm a fireman. I did have a brief employment in N. Texas, but I don't believe I've ever mentioned that here.

4) Rolling your window down partly and passing your papers through it will not work here. Especially if you are under 25 years old. Your window will be broken and you will be pulled out through it.

5) Sadly, I must repeat YES, choosing not to take the breathalyzer on the side of the road is all they've been using to justify taking your blood forcibly. A couple of you are stuck in good guy mode and find it tough to swallow, but I have seen it happen more than once.

6) Bren said: "Here's a hint: if the police were arresting people and getting search warrants on the evidence you claim, we'd know, because the trouble the police and judges would be in would be all over CNN. Louisiana doesn't get to define "probable cause" and, if they do, they have to answer to the federal courts. "

That's so cool that you think that and I wish that was the way things actually worked. Oversight and accountability for the police AND the judges. Nah, man. Haven't seen it. But I have seen a cop punch a driver in the mouth because the driver said "Hey, you're kind of short". Saw that one the first time we provided lighting for a checkpoint. It was... eye-opening. Pulled the guy out of the car and then told him to walk a straight line. The punch drunk dazed guy then couldn't so he got arrested for dui. Blood came back negative. No charges for the cop or driver.




**It may look like I'm trying to create a thread to rile people up, then I disappear for hours when they ask me a question. I'm not being evasive. The time difference in Iraq just puts me on the forum when everyone else is asleep. I miss all the action and good debate**