Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Okie Corral' started by Random, Dec 28, 2012.
Google "Grants for Law Enforcement DUI checkpoint"
I take it that's a yes?
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.
There are many grant providers, agencies at both levels, and grants in varying amounts from funding one check point one time on up.
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.
So would it be fair to say that officers have a financial interest in the checkpoints? I assume that this is overtime.
I agree with what you have said.
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 ?
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!)
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.
IM PRETTY SURE YOU BUSTED HIM .
you wont get a yes or no answer .
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.
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.
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
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!!!
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.
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
That, too. It just doesn't fit the agenda...