[Sharky7]

Originally Posted by Random

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.

This is not true. Understanding and having a working knowledge of basic search and seizure laws would help you understand this more.

Seems like plenty of other people have tried to explain it to you - but you seem to want to believe something that is not true.

1.) There must be an arrest to request the search warrant for blood.
2.) In order for there to be an arrest, probable cause for that arrest must be established.
3.) Simply refusing field sobriety tests or a portable breathalyzer does not rise to probable cause for arrest.

[goldenlight]

Originally Posted by WarCry

Again, back to the first point, maybe if you acted a little more civilly, they would, too.

A quick tale, the last checkpoint I went through was set up by the Illinois State Police, at the bottom of an exit ramp off the interstate (long ramp, lots of trees between the interstate and the cross-road). It was 2:00am, and I slowed down, rolled down my window. Wife in the right seat, child in the back, sleeping. Trooper leaned in (likely doing a sniff-test) and asked where we were coming from. I told him we'd been at the drive in movies, at which point he had the unmitigated gall to ask the intrusive question: "Whaddya see?".

Never asked for my ID - they were either looking for drunks and I obviously wasn't, or they were looking for someone specific and I didn't match the description - had about 30 seconds of conversation, and then I was gone.



Amazing what a little civility will get you.

This.

Mouthing off to a LEO, even in a small way, is just plain stupid. I was told, by MANY different people, to say 'yes sir', and 'no sir'. Answer questions, as simply as possible. Don't say anything you don't need to. If you haven't been drinking, he'll let you go. He'll let you go quicker if you don't mouth off to him.

[Random]

Originally Posted by Sharky7

This is not true. Understanding and having a working knowledge of basic search and seizure laws would help you understand this more.

Seems like plenty of other people have tried to explain it to you - but you seem to want to believe something that is not true.

1.) There must be an arrest to request the search warrant for blood.
2.) In order for there to be an arrest, probable cause for that arrest must be established.
3.) Simply refusing field sobriety tests or a portable breathalyzer does not rise to probable cause for arrest.

I respect your passionate defense, but you are now telling me that I have not seen what I have seen. I've sat on the bumper and had officers tell me that that is what they are doing. I've been told that everyone in line was a suspected drunk driver and that that was their probable cause until proven otherwise.

Much like Bren, you are stating how the law is intended to be used. I can almost envy the world you guys must live in.

[NOLA_glock]

Do we even have DWI checkpoints in the city? I've honestly never even seen one here.

I've been through them in St John parish, Hammond, and Baton Rouge, and I'm hardly in those places at drinking time.

[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

Keeping people impaired by alcohol off the road, of course.

What did you think I meant?

[RussP]

Originally Posted by Random

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. "

Random, read this blog piece by
a DUI/DWI attorney here DWI mandatory blood testing.

Two sentences from the piece...

Therefore, when police, prosecutors, and judges collaborate to detain drivers who refuse breathalyzer testing, draft search warrants for blood samples, and review and sign the warrants, involuntary blood testing is allowed.

Now that prosecutors and judges have agreed to join police on the midnight shift, the summer heat is hotter than ever for drunk drivers.

It seems in Louisiana they are well organized against impaired drivers.

You are saying that they are asking drivers without alcohol on their breath, who are not slurring their speech, who exhibit no physical symptoms of having alcohol on board to submit to a breathalyzer test. A good DWI/DUI attorney in LA should be able to beat that.

[RussP]

Originally Posted by Random

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.

Can you elaborate a bit on the part I put in red?

You provide the lighting at DUI/DWI check points in Louisiana?

You are making money providing services to law enforcement agencies conducting these check points?

[RussP]

Originally Posted by Random

I've sat on the bumper

While providing the lighting for the check point...

Originally Posted by Random

and had officers tell me that that is what they are doing. I've been told that everyone in line was a suspected drunk driver and that that was their probable cause

Probable cause to do what?

Originally Posted by Random

until proven otherwise.

What proof would that be?

[JLB768]

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.

No, I don't hate them, what I did hate, was watching my Mom and Grandmother sobbing over the fact that someone killed him. And to make it worse, left him like an animal laying in the road, to be run over a second time. Around here, we have state police, sheriff, and city, so even if there is a checkpoint, there are still police patroling. Late for dinner? My Uncle has been late for dinner, since 1988. I suspect that if the police make you late for dinner, you'll be able to warm it in the microwave...

[Bill Lumberg]

You wouldn't know whether they were or not. Don't drink and drive and you're good to go. [QUOTE=Random;19789225]By my luck of the draw I've never met an honest cop at any of them.[QUOTE]

[airmotive]

Originally Posted by JLB768

No, I don't hate them, what I did hate, was watching my Mom and Grandmother sobbing over the fact that someone killed him. And to make it worse, left him like an animal laying in the road, to be run over a second time. Around here, we have state police, sheriff, and city, so even if there is a checkpoint, there are still police patroling. Late for dinner? My Uncle has been late for dinner, since 1988. I suspect that if the police make you late for dinner, you'll be able to warm it in the microwave...

Slippery slope.
Thousands of people use similar arguments to justify taking away all your assault weapons.

I'm sorry for your loss, but don't do warrantless searches on me because of it. Next time, it will be a warrantless search of your house looking for assault weapons, while the news does nothing but replay video of a grieving mother who lost all 14 of her children in a drive-by.

[Random]

Certain fire trucks have light arrays on them. Some have towers that go up on a telescoping pole and most have portable directional lights that you can place on the ground. They can be plugged into the fire truck or the generator kept on the truck. On a few occassions the local pd has asked for fd assistance in providing light at some of their checkpoints. Not much to it, really. Once it's all set up you either sit in the truck all anti-social like or you sit on the large front bumper of the fire truck. If no cars are lined up you talk with the cops. You pay attention to what the people around you are doing and saying. You see how they choose who they're gonna wave through without stopping. You see who they push for a vehicle search based on what they look like. You listen to them verbal judo their way into searches. It gets predictable after a while.
**Let's see if I can explain this without messing it up: That was where I got to see the difference in the way younger people were treated in some police interactions. I thought being black was bad on a traffic stop. Holy cow, try being a kid. I've seen cops tell kids all sorts of lies and threats to get them to forfeit their rights and capitulate to searches.**

No, I didn't make any money off of the dwi checkpoints. I was on shift anyway. All the checkpoints did was get us out of bed from 01:00-03:00 or whatever. I see how my post read though. Like I was a part of a lighting and rigging crew.

[jakebrake]

i know exactly how to deal with these checkpoints.....the cops will fume!


don't drink and drive....they don't get to arrest you, and will end up having to arrest a drunk! won't that piss em off!

sorry, way too many of you need to grow the hell up.

[Lowjiber]

I was darn near killed by a drunk driver in 1980.

The cops can set a DUI checkpoint in front of my house and I'll make the coffee.

I've been stopped at a checkpoint by Florida HWP. No issues at all. Since I obviously hadn't been drinking, I was outta there in five minutes, max.

[Random]

Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg

You wouldn't know whether they were or not. Don't drink and drive and you're good to go.

My bar is 40 feet from my front door. I don't have to drive after drinking. That being said your comment should have read

"Don't drink and drive, make sure you don't have any attachments for your arrest, look like anyone the police may be looking for, have valid insurance on your person, have an up to date brake tag, don't have expired plates, have a valid license with you, are not legally open carrying, and don't have any visible mechanical issues with your car ie: brake light out, crack in windshield.... and you're good to go."

My point in this thread was and remains that a DWI checkpoint is not for catching drunks. It is a conveniently acceptable excuse for checking your papers or searching your vehicle and body at will. That is how it is being used.

[Random]

Originally Posted by Lowjiber

I was darn near killed by a drunk driver in 1980.

The cops can set a DUI checkpoint in front of my house and I'll make the coffee.

I've been stopped at a checkpoint by Florida HWP. No issues at all. Since I obviously hadn't been drinking, I was outta there in five minutes, max.

My question would be "Did you have to hand over your papers, or did they send you straight on your way after ascertaining that you were not intoxicated?"

[Kingarthurhk]

Originally Posted by airmotive

Slippery slope.
Thousands of people use similar arguments to justify taking away all your assault weapons.

I'm sorry for your loss, but don't do warrantless searches on me because of it. Next time, it will be a warrantless search of your house looking for assault weapons, while the news does nothing but replay video of a grieving mother who lost all 14 of her children in a drive-by.

Not a silppery slope. Driving, let alone driving drunk is not a constitutionally protected right. The 2A is.

No one is conducting a warrantless search, otherwise, you would be removed from your vehicle either by your own volition or by the assistance of law enforcement and your vehicle searched. That is not happening, is it?

Insuring that you have your proper licensing, registration, and insurance with you while engaging in a casaul conversation is not a warrantless search. Now, if you are committing a crime that is detected durring that inspection, that is on you.

Inspection stations exist, enforced by state police for commercial vehicles. Driving isn't a right, it is regulated.

[RussP]

Originally Posted by RussP

Random, read this blog piece by
a DUI/DWI attorney here DWI mandatory blood testing.

Two sentences from the piece...It seems in Louisiana they are well organized against impaired drivers.

You are saying that they are asking drivers without alcohol on their breath, who are not slurring their speech, who exhibit no physical symptoms of having alcohol on board to submit to a breathalyzer test. A good DWI/DUI attorney in LA should be able to beat that.

Did you read the blog piece?

[DanaT]

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

http://www.duiblog.com/2005/04/15/

Its amazing, they couldnt arrest enough people on DUIs to get their grant money.

To add more to the story, the aftermath was many cases were dismissed or overturned based upon quotas.

[DanaT]

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%.

I am not saying DUI is not something that should be enforced. I am saying that checkpoints are wrong and not the most effective way of catching people.

The proper way is to stop people that you actually have probable cause to believe they are drunk. And no, just because someone comes out of a bar, is not reasonable suspicion. Now, if you spot them coming out of the bar, staggering, fire up the car, and have wide turns, etc, then you have it.

[RussP]

Originally Posted by RussP

Response?

[TBO]

Originally Posted by DanaT

I am not saying DUI is not something that should be enforced. I am saying that checkpoints are wrong and not the most effective way of catching people.

The proper way is to stop people that you actually have probable cause to believe they are drunk. And no, just because someone comes out of a bar, is not reasonable suspicion. Now, if you spot them coming out of the bar, staggering, fire up the car, and have wide turns, etc, then you have it.

How do you measure deterrence?

[DanaT]

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.

Which essentially means that the LEO and Judges accept BS as "probable cause". To translate this into real world speak, a cop just has to make up a reason.

[TBO]

Originally Posted by DanaT

Which essentially means that the LEO and Judges accept BS as "probable cause". To translate this into real world speak, a cop just has to make up a reason.

Projection.

[Kevin108]

Originally Posted by WarCry

Again, back to the first point, maybe if you acted a little more civilly...

Sounds like he's civilly displaying his discontentment with the violation of his 4th Amendment rights.