PDA

View Full Version : Top DUI cops secret: find a reason to talk to people, over and over again.




phill4paul
03-19-2013, 11:30 AM
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/03/18/3921965/dwi-cops-secret-lots-of-traffic.html


It’s 9:45 on a Thursday night, and Officer Matthew Pressley is parked on the side of a street in east Charlotte, looking for a reason to talk to people.

Speeders get special attention. But he’s also looking for cars with busted headlights or drivers making wide turns or following too closely.

Pressley, a 14-year Charlotte-Mecklenburg police veteran (his anniversary was St. Patrick’s Day), arrested 158 impaired drivers last year – more than any officer in Mecklenburg and the fifth-highest number of DWI arrests in the state. The number got him an award and a steak dinner from the advocacy group Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

A specialist with a knack for spotting and helping prosecute drunken drivers, Pressley has received the MADD recognition in six of the last seven years.

As he checked the speeds of drivers on Farm Pond Lane last week, he noted his training in traffic enforcement but said there’s only one secret to taking drunken drivers off the roads at his clip: find a reason to talk to people, over and over again.

“A lot of people have the understanding that to find an impaired driver, they’re weaving all over the road and driving into a ditch,” he said. “There are a thousand reasons to stop a car.”

After they’re stopped, he said, he begins looking for signs that they’ve been drinking – the odor of alcohol, glassy eyes or even open containers of alcohol.

“You’re trying to be as aware of everything as much you can,” he said later.

The driver of a green minivan he stops, for example, was going 40 mph, 15 mph over the speed limit, when Pressley clicked on his flashing blue lights.

As he walks unhurriedly to the van with his flashlight, Pressley touches the car just below the rear window.

“If anything happens to you and they have to rely on finding that car later on, at least you’ve got your prints on it.”

As he approaches the driver, he’s already taking notes in his head.

Clothes in the back of the van obscured more passengers than he realized at first – at least five people are in the back seat. He scans the inside of the car for evidence of any crime – anything from an expired registration sticker to the smell of marijuana.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration gives officers a list of roughly 50 signs that someone’s impaired – glassy eyes, slurred speech and a strong odor of alcohol are on the list, but so are things like a wide turning radius.

But the driver in the van isn’t exhibiting any of the signs. So Pressley returns to his car and writes a speeding ticket, which he hands to the man.

Back in the car, he uses a tuning fork to make sure his radar gun is working correctly, then starts scanning the roads, looking for other reasons to stop people.....

Fivezeroes
03-19-2013, 11:34 AM
So... there is now something wrong with getting drunk drivers off the road? Or am I missing something here?

Red Green
03-19-2013, 11:39 AM
So... there is now something wrong with getting drunk drivers off the road? Or am I missing something here?

Well, depends on how you define "drunk". It used to be when I thought of a drunk driver, I would think of someone who was not fully in control of their car or driving with total disregard to the safety of others on the road. Turns out, at least in AZ, a drunk driver is someone who had a glass of wine with dinner and did not necessarily demonstrate any recklessness on the road whatsoever.

Fivezeroes
03-19-2013, 11:42 AM
Well, depends on how you define "drunk". It used to be when I thought of a drunk driver, I would think of someone who was not fully in control of their car or driving with total disregard to the safety of others on the road. Turns out, at least in AZ, a drunk driver is someone who had a glass of wine with dinner and did not necessarily demonstrate any recklessness on the road whatsoever.

A glass of wine at dinner wouldn't cause you to pop on a breath test. It also wouldn't cause your eyes to glass over, your driving abilities to be so impaired that you're weaving in and out of lanes. If AZ says you're drunk driving from drinking one glass of wine, that's just stupidity. Hell, there isn't enough alcohol in wine to do that.

Red Green
03-19-2013, 11:57 AM
A glass of wine at dinner wouldn't cause you to pop on a breath test. It also wouldn't cause your eyes to glass over, your driving abilities to be so impaired that you're weaving in and out of lanes. If AZ says you're drunk driving from drinking one glass of wine, that's just stupidity. Hell, there isn't enough alcohol in wine to do that.

There is no legal limit for BAC in AZ. If a pig says you looked impaired to him and you register anything other than 0.00 on a BAC test, you're guilty. Worse than that, you can be convicted of impaired driving if the blood test comes back showing you smoked a joint 3 weeks ago.

The problem is that a real problem has a does exist with "drunk" drivers who create wildly hazardous conditions on the road but that has been seized by the neo-prohibitionists at MADD and politicians who see a revenue stream along with police departments who see the potential for new funding and the prison industry as a new source of revenue, not to mention the manufacturers who lease out interlock devices and such.

The fact is that a real safety issue has been exploited, like all issues, by government and those that make their money off government so that they can increase control and take more money from hardworking people.

I have no respect for anyone that gets honored by MADD. As I said before, this guy rather than wearing this as a badge of honor should be treated like a social pariah.

Fivezeroes
03-19-2013, 11:59 AM
There is no legal limit for BAC in AZ. If a pig says you looked impaired to him and you register anything other than 0.00 on a BAC test, you're guilty. Worse than that, you can be convicted of impaired driving if the blood test comes back showing you smoked a joint 3 weeks ago.

The problem is that a real problem has a does exist with "drunk" drivers who create wildly hazardous conditions on the road but that has been seized by the neo-prohibitionists at MADD and politicians who see a revenue stream along with police departments who see the potential for new funding and the prison industry as a new source of revenue, not to mention the manufacturers who lease out interlock devices and such.

The fact is that a real safety issue has been exploited, like all issues, by government and those that make their money off government so that they can increase control and take more money from hardworking people.

I have no respect for anyone that gets honored by MADD. As I said before, this guy rather than wearing this as a badge of honor should be treated like a social pariah.


Man that's fucked up. I wouldn't even have someone do the breath test on something as minute as one glass of wine.

Red Green
03-19-2013, 12:03 PM
Man that's fucked up. I wouldn't even have someone do the breath test on something as minute as one glass of wine.

If you want to know why I call the guys in blue "pigs", just know some of your compadres over here are putting DUIs on people with a beer or a glass of wine in their system. Getting a DUI in AZ basically means you got caught with something other than being absolutely sober and without having smoked a joint in the last 6 weeks. Given enough time and effort, pretty much the entire driving population of AZ could have a DUI on their record given the laws and the gusto to which they are enforced.

The Goat
03-19-2013, 12:05 PM
Don't talk to cops. hand them your shit and look at the windshield.

VBRonPaulFan
03-19-2013, 12:18 PM
So... there is now something wrong with getting drunk drivers off the road? Or am I missing something here?

This is just out right fishing. He fabricates any reason he can to pull someone over, and then chit chats until he can find some reason to ticket/arrest them. Sort of seems at odds with unreasonable search/seizure.

Brian4Liberty
03-19-2013, 12:19 PM
So... there is now something wrong with getting drunk drivers off the road? Or am I missing something here?

In this story, they are talking about making up excuses to pull people over and inspect them. This is very close to just random inspections ala Police States. What next, random home inspections, just to fish for some kind of violations? Do citizens have any rights?

The mission of the Police needs to be better defined and prioritized. In many cities, robbery, burglary, and other after the fact crimes don't warrant any response by the Police at all, even to write a report. Often, investigating crimes has no priority, even in violent crimes. Yet they have time to pull people over just for fishing expeditions? The mission of the Police is not to search around all day for revenue. We don't want to become a third world country where the Police are sometimes nothing more than revenue seeking robbers. (Eliminating the middle-men of the Courts, just cash on demand).

Fivezeroes
03-19-2013, 12:22 PM
This is just out right fishing. He fabricates any reason he can to pull someone over, and then chit chats until he can find some reason to ticket/arrest them. Sort of seems at odds with unreasonable search/seizure.


I read that he pulls them for various reasons, some of which involves the driver swerving, and then tries to make small talk(most cops do this, it's to put the driver at ease, because a driver at ease makes it safer on us). You'd also be amazed at what you can pick out by hearing someone talk, especially if they're intoxicated.

Anti Federalist
03-19-2013, 12:23 PM
A glass of wine at dinner wouldn't cause you to pop on a breath test. It also wouldn't cause your eyes to glass over, your driving abilities to be so impaired that you're weaving in and out of lanes. If AZ says you're drunk driving from drinking one glass of wine, that's just stupidity. Hell, there isn't enough alcohol in wine to do that.

Que?

Wine has more alcohol by volume than beer does.

There have been some epic threads on abolishing drunk driving laws, which I happen to agree with.

I'll try to dig a couple up.

And it doesn't matter if AZ is being "stupid" or not.

Your ass will be in bind and your life ruined. (Or at least a good dent taken out of it).

This article just emphasizes, once again, never talk to cops.

Won't help, almost always will hurt.

When dealing with an enforcer of the state, keep your fucking mouth shut.

Root
03-19-2013, 12:26 PM
More victim-less crime bullshit.

Fivezeroes
03-19-2013, 12:27 PM
Que?

Wine has more alcohol by volume than beer does.

There have been some epic threads on abolishing drunk driving laws, which I happen to agree with.

I'll try to dig a couple up.

And it doesn't matter if AZ is being "stupid" or not.

Your ass will be in bind and your life ruined. (Or at least a good dent taken out of it).

This article just emphasizes, once again, never talk to cops.

Won't help, almost always will hurt.

When dealing with an enforcer of the state, keep your fucking mouth shut.


Yea true, but even still one glass of wine isn't enough to cause you to drive like you drank a 5th of jack. I used to know the formula for alcohol consumption and how to measure the BAC and how one glass or even 20 beers would break down into how much alcohol is in your system.

Fivezeroes
03-19-2013, 12:28 PM
More victim-less crime bullshit.

Sorry but DUI is far from victim-less, when you've been at the scene of an accident where a drunk driver has killed someone, then you have room to say what is and isn't victim-less.

Anti Federalist
03-19-2013, 12:31 PM
Yea true, but even still one glass of wine isn't enough to cause you to drive like you drank a 5th of jack. I used to know the formula for alcohol consumption and how to measure the BAC and how one glass or even 20 beers would break down into how much alcohol is in your system.

No, it won't, but that's not the point.

The cop in this article went "fishing" for a DUI bust after having stopped someone for an unrelated issue.

belian78
03-19-2013, 12:32 PM
Sorry but DUI is far from victim-less, when you've been at the scene of an accident where a drunk driver has killed someone, then you have room to say what is and isn't victim-less.
But there's already laws on the books to discourage things like this that have very stiff penalties, like vehicular manslaughter. Why go out and create laws that do nothing but create whole new classes of criminals, just so you have the justification to pull someone over for not driving how you feel that they should be?

Red Green
03-19-2013, 12:32 PM
Sorry but DUI is far from victim-less, when you've been at the scene of an accident where a drunk driver has killed someone, then you have room to say what is and isn't victim-less.

I daresay most of us don't care if a guy has a .02 in his system so long as he's driving without causing a hazard. If someone hits someone else, then regardless of what the negligence, you have a victim. Until that happens, you really don't have a victim. This is all part of the creep towards "precrime".

Anti Federalist
03-19-2013, 12:34 PM
Sorry but DUI is far from victim-less, when you've been at the scene of an accident where a drunk driver has killed someone, then you have room to say what is and isn't victim-less.

Using that same logic, everything could be banned.

How many dead bodies have you pulled out of wreckage that was not caused by drunk driving?

Anti Federalist
03-19-2013, 12:35 PM
But there's already laws on the books to discourage things like this that have very stiff penalties, like vehicular manslaughter. Why go out and create laws that do nothing but create whole new classes of criminals, just so you have the justification to pull someone over for not driving how you feel that they should be?

It was needed, 30 odd years ago, to acclimate the people to the coming 21st century police state.

Mission: Successful.

QuickZ06
03-19-2013, 12:35 PM
So... there is now something wrong with getting drunk drivers off the road? Or am I missing something here?

Its never been about that, it has only been used to generate revenue.

ZENemy
03-19-2013, 12:35 PM
Sorry but DUI is far from victim-less, when you've been at the scene of an accident where a drunk driver has killed someone, then you have room to say what is and isn't victim-less.

Why? Are DUI accidents worse than people falling asleep and causing accidents? Are DUI accidents more gruesome then the accidents caused by young males simply trying to show people how fast their car is?

kathy88
03-19-2013, 12:36 PM
Sorry but DUI is far from victim-less, when you've been at the scene of an accident where a drunk driver has killed someone, then you have room to say what is and isn't victim-less.

What percentage of DUI convictions involve fatalities? I'm betting it's very very low.

phill4paul
03-19-2013, 12:36 PM
Sorry but DUI is far from victim-less, when you've been at the scene of an accident where a drunk driver has killed someone, then you have room to say what is and isn't victim-less.

DUI IS a victim-less crime. Until there is an accident there are no victims.

Anti Federalist
03-19-2013, 12:37 PM
Its never been about that, it has only been used to generate revenue.

In the words of Hannibal Lecter:

"NO...that is incidental."

The primary mission was to get people used to the idea of roadblocks, checkpoints and heavy handed authority.

Fivezeroes
03-19-2013, 12:37 PM
But there's already laws on the books to discourage things like this that have very stiff penalties, like vehicular manslaughter. Why go out and create laws that do nothing but create whole new classes of criminals, just so you have the justification to pull someone over for not driving how you feel that they should be?


Yea, I agree. There are laws on the book, but then you have to look at the what ifs, if this guy lets someone go who is swerving and a mile or so later, he smashes into a car that has a mother and her child in it, killing them, you pretty much curse yourself over it. I know that no one likes dealing in hypotheticals either.

phill4paul
03-19-2013, 12:38 PM
In the words of Hannibal Lecter:

"NO...that is incidental."

The primary mission was to get people used to the idea of roadblocks, checkpoints and heavy handed authority.

Correct.

QuickZ06
03-19-2013, 12:38 PM
Sorry but DUI is far from victim-less, when you've been at the scene of an accident where a drunk driver has killed someone, then you have room to say what is and isn't victim-less.

Remember the outrage when radios and such were put into cars, o the horror we live with now. I am pretty sure there have been plenty of accidents and death caused by the single changing of a CD or switching that song on an iPod so how is your stance on that? Should we ban radios?

Fivezeroes
03-19-2013, 12:39 PM
DUI IS a victim-less crime. Until there is an accident there are no victims.


Yes, but what if and it has been known to happen, what if you let someone who is clearly intoxicated go and they kill someone. You figure when a drunk gets on the road they don't care about other peoples safety.

Root
03-19-2013, 12:39 PM
Sorry but DUI is far from victim-less, when you've been at the scene of an accident where a drunk driver has killed someone, then you have room to say what is and isn't victim-less.

I was an EMT in Orange, NJ for 4 years. I've seen plenty of DUI and non-DUI accident scenes. Not all of them have victims.

Fivezeroes
03-19-2013, 12:40 PM
Remember the outrage when radios and such were put into cars, o the horror we live with now. I am pretty sure there have been plenty of accidents and death caused by the single changing of a CD or switching that song on an iPod so how is your stance on that? Should we ban radios?


I'm not old enough to remember back when radios were first put in cars.

QuickZ06
03-19-2013, 12:40 PM
In the words of Hannibal Lecter:

"NO...that is incidental."

The primary mission was to get people used to the idea of roadblocks, checkpoints and heavy handed authority.

And the two love to go hand in hand, I mean heck why not make a few bucks off some tyranny, amiright?

Fivezeroes
03-19-2013, 12:40 PM
I was an EMT in Orange, NJ for 4 years. I've seen plenty of DUI and non-DUI accident scenes. Not all of them have victims.


Even if the drunk wrecks the car and injures himself he's still a victim though, correct?

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
03-19-2013, 12:42 PM
Using that same logic, everything could be banned.

How many dead bodies have you pulled out of wreckage that was not caused by drunk driving?


I find stupid drivers to be extremely dangerous.

phill4paul
03-19-2013, 12:42 PM
Yea, I agree. There are laws on the book, but then you have to look at the what ifs, if this guy lets someone go who is swerving and a mile or so later, he smashes into a car that has a mother and her child in it, killing them, you pretty much curse yourself over it. I know that no one likes dealing in hypotheticals either.

Some do. Which is why we live in an era of pre-crime laws in which every one of us is breaking the law in some way. Everyday.

QuickZ06
03-19-2013, 12:43 PM
I'm not old enough to remember back when radios were first put in cars.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/29631/when-car-radio-was-introduced-people-freaked-out

phill4paul
03-19-2013, 12:46 PM
Yes, but what if and it has been known to happen, what if you let someone who is clearly intoxicated go and they kill someone. You figure when a drunk gets on the road they don't care about other peoples safety.

Would that not fall under 'reckless' driving laws? Why an extra charge drummed up by prohibitionists?

Red Green
03-19-2013, 12:47 PM
Yea, I agree. There are laws on the book, but then you have to look at the what ifs, if this guy lets someone go who is swerving and a mile or so later, he smashes into a car that has a mother and her child in it, killing them, you pretty much curse yourself over it. I know that no one likes dealing in hypotheticals either.

OK but let's say the guy is driving fine and you pull him over for a broken tail light and smell alcohol. Is that a reason to suspect him of "drunk driving"? That's the issue most of us have.

Fivezeroes
03-19-2013, 12:50 PM
OK but let's say the guy is driving fine and you pull him over for a broken tail light and smell alcohol. Is that a reason to suspect him of "drunk driving"? That's the issue most of us have.

If I smell faint alcohol then no, but, we all know the smell of an alcoholic that has had way too much to drink. And in the cases where it's a faint smell, I ask how much they've had to drink, issue them a warning to fix the tail light and drive safe. I know, not all cops can say that.

NCGOPer_for_Paul
03-19-2013, 12:51 PM
Yes, but what if and it has been known to happen, what if you let someone who is clearly intoxicated go and they kill someone. You figure when a drunk gets on the road they don't care about other peoples safety.

Then why not do what police did in a more civilized time, say 20-30 years ago, like take the driver's keys and give the drunk a ride home?

Fivezeroes
03-19-2013, 12:51 PM
http://mentalfloss.com/article/29631/when-car-radio-was-introduced-people-freaked-out


Yea, that was about 49 years before my time... my dad wasn't even a twinkle in my granddads eye.

Fivezeroes
03-19-2013, 12:52 PM
Then why not do what police did in a more civilized time, say 20-30 years ago, like take the driver's keys and give the drunk a ride home?


You know, I have absolutely no idea why they no longer do this. It seems like a good idea though.

Root
03-19-2013, 12:53 PM
double post

TheGrinch
03-19-2013, 12:53 PM
I am not in favor of our current DUI laws, but to suggest that driving truly drunk is a victimless crime, that is false. It is gross negligence that is a huge threat to my liberty when you decide to hop into a 2 ton hunk of moving steel without the motor skills needed to operate it.... Should we also let those who recklessly and needlessly discharge a firearm in public to not pay the consequences of threatening other's safety and liberty? Should we issue licenses to the sight-impaired? Why do you have to kill or harm someone to see that these actions are clearly irresponsible, dangerous and unacceptable?

Also, I'm sure you'd have some sort of DUI enforcement even on privatized roads, as no one would want to accept the liability of allowing smashed drivers to share them.

Now as for how you reform DUI laws (if that's even possible) is to bring it back to sobriety test. If you can't walk a straight line (or you're very clearly swerving all over the road), then you're too intoxicated to drive and being reckless. How anyone can dispute this is beyond me.... However, these arbitrary limits determined by inaccurate breathalizers do nothing to tell whether the person is actually too intoxicated to drive, and that is the problem that turns it into little more than a revenue-generator.

Root
03-19-2013, 12:54 PM
Even if the drunk wrecks the car and injures himself he's still a victim though, correct?

I suppose there's an argument that I could victimize myself, but I'd be challenged to press charges or testify against myself if I did press charges.

I don't believe it is the proper role of government to protect me from myself.

NCGOPer_for_Paul
03-19-2013, 12:58 PM
You know, I have absolutely no idea why they no longer do this. It seems like a good idea though.

Maybe because DUI enforcement isn't about safety, but fishing expeditions for revenue enhancement?

I want the .25 guy charged to the max.

I have a problem with someone at .08 or lower treated the same way.

belian78
03-19-2013, 12:58 PM
Yea, I agree. There are laws on the book, but then you have to look at the what ifs, if this guy lets someone go who is swerving and a mile or so later, he smashes into a car that has a mother and her child in it, killing them, you pretty much curse yourself over it. I know that no one likes dealing in hypotheticals either.
If someone is swerving, that's improper lane usage and reckless driving, again no need for DUI checkpoints and fishing. What you are defending is the harassing of innocent people to try and sniff out some extra revenue.

Fivezeroes
03-19-2013, 12:58 PM
I suppose there's an argument that I could victimize myself, but I'd be challenged to press charges or testify against myself if I did press charges.

I don't believe it is also not the proper role of government to protect me from myself.


Not protecting you from yourself, protecting you and that 2000lb car you're driving from killing someone else and possibly yourself in the process. I'm sure we've both been to scenes where the drunk driver almost always walks away from the wreck because he was more relaxed.

Fivezeroes
03-19-2013, 01:01 PM
If someone is swerving, that's improper lane usage and reckless driving, again no need for DUI checkpoints and fishing. What you are defending is the harassing of innocent people to try and sniff out some extra revenue.

Yes, it could be considered both of those, but what is causing the reckless driving, is the driver impaired? Is he having a stroke, heart attack, getting his dick sucked? There are a number of things to consider here.

Take for example, the 18-wheeler driver, that was in the middle of a diabetic attack, he was driving in the median and had he not been forcefully stopped he would have killed a lot of people. Again, there are lots of causes to consider for reckless driving.

Root
03-19-2013, 01:02 PM
Not protecting you from yourself, protecting you and that 2000lb car you're driving from killing someone else and possibly yourself in the process. I'm sure we've both been to scenes where the drunk driver almost always walks away from the wreck because he was more relaxed.
Of course...

belian78
03-19-2013, 01:02 PM
Yes, it could be considered both of those, but what is causing the reckless driving, is the driver impaired? Is he having a stroke, heart attack, getting his dick sucked? There are a number of things to consider here.

Take for example, the 18-wheeler driver, that was in the middle of a diabetic attack, he was driving in the median and had he not been forcefully stopped he would have killed a lot of people. Again, there are lots of causes to consider for reckless driving.
The point being, there's already a reason to get that driver off the road. That in of it'self is no justification for a whole mess of other laws that do nothing but ruin lives and generate additional revenue for the state.

Fivezeroes
03-19-2013, 01:06 PM
The point being, there's already a reason to get that driver off the road. That in of it'self is no justification for a whole mess of other laws that do nothing but ruin lives and generate additional revenue for the state.


Don't quote me on this but a reckless driving ticket generates about $500 to the city(depending on the fine also incurred in court), a dui arrest costs the city over 10 times that amount, because now we got to house him in jail for as long as it takes for the judge to sentence him.. So how exactly does this help generate any kind of revenue?

Fivezeroes
03-19-2013, 01:06 PM
Of course...


That was meant to be keeping, my fault.

NCGOPer_for_Paul
03-19-2013, 01:07 PM
Don't quote me on this but a reckless driving ticket generates about $500 to the city(depending on the fine also incurred in court), a dui arrest costs the city over 10 times that amount, because now we got to house him in jail for as long as it takes for the judge to sentence him.. So how exactly does this help generate any kind of revenue?

OUR POINT EXACTLY!

phill4paul
03-19-2013, 01:09 PM
Yes, it could be considered both of those, but what is causing the reckless driving, is the driver impaired? Is he having a stroke, heart attack, getting his dick sucked? There are a number of things to consider here.

Take for example, the 18-wheeler driver, that was in the middle of a diabetic attack, he was driving in the median and had he not been forcefully stopped he would have killed a lot of people. Again, there are lots of causes to consider for reckless driving.

What does it matter what is causing it? Reckless driving in and of itself should cover the problem should it not? Reckless driving is defined as a mental state in which the driver displays a disregard for the safety of others. Then there is a number of lesser violations which could be attributed if this were not the case...careless driving or improper driving. No DUI needed.

phill4paul
03-19-2013, 01:11 PM
Don't quote me on this but a reckless driving ticket generates about $500 to the city(depending on the fine also incurred in court), a dui arrest costs the city over 10 times that amount, because now we got to house him in jail for as long as it takes for the judge to sentence him.. So how exactly does this help generate any kind of revenue?

How much tax revenue is generated to afford that prison, the court system and the police force?

Fivezeroes
03-19-2013, 01:11 PM
What does it matter what is causing it? Reckless driving in and of itself should cover the problem should it not? Reckless driving is defined as a mental state in which the driver displays a disregard for the safety of others. Then there is a number of lesser violations which could be attributed if this were not the case...careless driving or improper driving. No DUI needed.


Unless he is under the influence, but, trust me I get what you're saying.

cjm
03-19-2013, 01:13 PM
If I smell faint alcohol then no, but, we all know the smell of an alcoholic that has had way too much to drink. And in the cases where it's a faint smell, I ask how much they've had to drink, issue them a warning to fix the tail light and drive safe. I know, not all cops can say that.

If the driver responds to the "how much have you had to drink?" question with "my attorney has instructed me to not answer questions from the police" -- do you consider that PC to conduct a field sobriety test or otherwise pursue the issue? Or do you let it be if he seems alert and speaks clearly?

Fivezeroes
03-19-2013, 01:14 PM
How much tax revenue is generated to afford that prison, the court system and the police force?


Not sure how much the state gives us to do that, all I do know is that it costs a lot more to lock someone up for dui, the fine for dui in VA is last I checked about $1k and up to 1 year in jail. On average to care for just one inmate it's something like 50k a year. DUI laws are fucking retarded....

Fivezeroes
03-19-2013, 01:15 PM
If the driver responds to the "how much have you had to drink?" question with "my attorney has instructed me to not answer questions from the police" -- do you consider that PC to conduct a field sobriety test or otherwise pursue the issue? Or do you let it be if he seems alert and speaks clearly?


If he can get all of that out, without the hint of a slur, he's good to go in my book.

phill4paul
03-19-2013, 01:16 PM
Unless he is under the influence, but, trust me I get what you're saying.

I'm sorry. I don't believe that you do understand what I am saying. In fact, I'm convinced of it.

ETA:
DUI laws are fucking retarded....

Or perhaps you do.....

proudclod229
03-19-2013, 01:16 PM
When I first started driving, I came to an intersection and saw a couple of cop cars there..took the turn too tight and ran up the curb.

I had to pay about 300 dollars for that.

It's about the same thing with drinking. Say you have had about the equivalent to
10 beers throughout the night...should you get punished even though were driving perfectly fine?

Fivezeroes
03-19-2013, 01:17 PM
I'm sorry. I don't believe that you do understand what I am saying. In fact, I'm convinced of it.


I get your point, you find DUI laws, fucking retarded. I do too.. considering they only bring in about $1000 in fine money.... while costing the city 49k more to take care of him, in the case he is put in jail for the year.

WM_in_MO
03-19-2013, 01:18 PM
So... there is now something wrong with getting drunk drivers off the road? Or am I missing something here?


Im ok with non-checkpoint methods of getting drunks off the road...

Fivezeroes
03-19-2013, 01:19 PM
When I first started driving, I came to an intersection and saw a couple of cop cars there..took the turn too tight and ran up the curb.

I had to pay about 300 dollars for that.

It's about the same thing with drinking. Say you have had about the equivalent to
10 beers throughout the night...should you get punished even though were driving perfectly fine?


What was the time span between each bottle consumed? The human body can metabolize roughly 2.5% alcohol per hour, or something like that. And the cops that ticketed you were assholes, if I ticketed everyone who ran up on a curb because they took the turn too tight, i'd have been a SGT by now.

phill4paul
03-19-2013, 01:19 PM
I get your point, you find DUI laws, fucking retarded. I do too.. considering they only bring in about $1000 in fine money.... while costing the city 49k more to take care of him, in the case he is put in jail for the year.

So DUI laws, to you, are about cost analisys? If they didn't cost the state as much you would be fine with them?

ItsTime
03-19-2013, 01:20 PM
My town recently had a dui check point. They pulled over 200 people and only arrested 2 on suspension of pot use. A 1% success rate if both people are convicted. 99% of the other people were harassed and stopped without probable cause.

Fivezeroes
03-19-2013, 01:21 PM
So DUI laws, to you, are about cost loss. If they didn't cost the state as much you would be fine with them?


I dunno about you but I hate my tax dollars being spent on giving some asshat, 3 hots and a cot and better medical and dental than I receive. I'm not fine with drunk drivers, but I'm also not fine with having to house them for a year.. extremely conflicted now that I look at it.

proudclod229
03-19-2013, 01:21 PM
What was the time span between each bottle consumed? The human body can metabolize roughly 2.5% alcohol per hour, or something like that. And the cops that ticketed you were assholes, if I ticketed everyone who ran up on a curb because they took the turn too tight, i'd have been a SGT by now.

I'd say over 4 hours...like the span of a football game.

phill4paul
03-19-2013, 01:30 PM
I'd say over 4 hours...like the span of a football game.

Good calculator.... http://bloodalcoholcalculator.org/

Fivezeroes
03-19-2013, 01:32 PM
I'd say over 4 hours...like the span of a football game.


If I could remember the formula for breaking that down, I could tell you what your BAC would be and whether or not it's over your state limit.

proudclod229
03-19-2013, 01:35 PM
Turns out to be .12 or something like that...depending on your weight.

Fivezeroes
03-19-2013, 01:36 PM
Turns out to be .12 or something like that...depending on your weight.



Most states have a .08 BAC legal limit. I still find having a limit stupid... especially if you can pop one right after taking some nyquil.

proudclod229
03-19-2013, 01:40 PM
Exactly, if somebody is too drunk to drive, it's ALMOST ALWAYS obvious.

Fivezeroes
03-19-2013, 01:42 PM
Exactly, if somebody is too drunk to drive, it's ALMOST ALWAYS obvious.

Then again, there's also the idea of smart cars that have the sensors built into the wheel. What do we know about alcohol? It makes you sweat a whole lot and you have to piss. If you're over your states limit, the car doesn't start, saves so many lives and keeps drunks out of jail cells.

AFPVet
03-19-2013, 01:43 PM
For some people, a simple glass of wine is enough to put you over .08, yet they drive perfectly fine.

Some considerations you want to remember when going to any event that serves alcohol:

1. Do a complete vehicle inspection. People should do this anyways.
2. Have a plan if you have too much to drink.
3. Drink water and eat something after drinking.
4. Drive normally and obey all traffic regulations. One thing people do wrong is they drive like they have done something wrong. If you can stand on one leg and do some basic manurers, that is the most obvious indicator of whether there is serious impairment.

phill4paul
03-19-2013, 01:43 PM
I dunno about you but I hate my tax dollars being spent on giving some asshat, 3 hots and a cot and better medical and dental than I receive. I'm not fine with drunk drivers, but I'm also not fine with having to house them for a year.. extremely conflicted now that I look at it.

You must also realize that there is entire industries behind DUI laws. MADD of course ( did you realize that MADD was started by Candy Lightner as a way of stopping recidivist DUI drivers and later was forced out by what she called a prohibitionist board of directors? ) and then there are also the insurance lobbyists and the rehabilitation lobbyists. They don't care that the state may have to collect more in taxes. They just know that they too can generate revenue.

TheGrinch
03-19-2013, 01:50 PM
Then again, there's also the idea of smart cars that have the sensors built into the wheel. What do we know about alcohol? It makes you sweat a whole lot and you have to piss. If you're over your states limit, the car doesn't start, saves so many lives and keeps drunks out of jail cells.

Quite a lot of issues with a smart car (not least of which being that there might be a time where having access to your car is more important than barely being over the limit, such as if you're in danger and have to flee), but as you highlighted yourself, state limits are stupid and arbitrary (and of course are more about revenue generation than public safety).

I work in the beer industry, and it's already bad enough that I have to try to stay within the limit even if I know I'm fine to have another beer or 2, but to have my car not start if I happen to be above .08? That's just ridiculous.

Fivezeroes
03-19-2013, 01:53 PM
Quite a lot of issues with a smart car (not least of which being that there might be a time where having access to your car is more important than barely being over the limit, such as if you're in danger and have to flee), but as you highlighted yourself, state limits are stupid and arbitrary (and of course are more about revenue generation than public safety).

I work in the beer industry, and it's already bad enough that I have to try to stay within the limit even if I know I'm fine to have another beer or 2, but to have my car not start if I happen to be above .08? That's just ridiculous.


Of course, I suggest raising the BAC up to .10% or something. Not keep it at .08% and I am aware some people can drive heavily under the influence. About six years ago, well before I became a cop, I drove myself to the hospital (kidney stones as it turned out) They gave me some drugs that knocked me for a loop, I still managed to drive myself the 12 miles back to my house, severely under the influence of narcotics. So again, I do realize some people can still drive.

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
03-19-2013, 01:59 PM
Maybe because DUI enforcement isn't about safety, but fishing expeditions for revenue enhancement?

I want the .25 guy charged to the max.

I have a problem with someone at .08 or lower treated the same way.


Makes more sense to test driving abilities and have an intoxication rating on a license. There must be a whole class of .08 people who drive better, have better response times, than your average 70 year old.




Not protecting you from yourself, protecting you and that 2000lb car you're driving from killing someone else and possibly yourself in the process. I'm sure we've both been to scenes where the drunk driver almost always walks away from the wreck because he was more relaxed.


Sounds like an argument for everyone to drink.



Don't quote me on this but a reckless driving ticket generates about $500 to the city(depending on the fine also incurred in court), a dui arrest costs the city over 10 times that amount, because now we got to house him in jail for as long as it takes for the judge to sentence him.. So how exactly does this help generate any kind of revenue?


Prison guards and cops don't pay for that. They have a revenue GAIN. So do lawyers. The "city" collects money from everyone through taxation. And I have serious doubts any cities don't make a net profit after fines, court costs, etc. The people spending the money are either tax payers or the arrested. Everyone else is collecting money.

TheGrinch
03-19-2013, 02:05 PM
Of course, I suggest raising the BAC up to .10% or something. Not keep it at .08% and I am aware some people can drive heavily under the influence. About six years ago, well before I became a cop, I drove myself to the hospital (kidney stones as it turned out) They gave me some drugs that knocked me for a loop, I still managed to drive myself the 12 miles back to my house, severely under the influence of narcotics. So again, I do realize some people can still drive.

Your first sentence is in direct contradiction with the rest of this and your previous post.

Some people do handle their alcohol better than others, and I know from experience that I could drive well beyond the legal limit safely (done so many times on private land).

Further it is odd that in one breath you realize the ridiculously arbitrary nature of a legal limit, and yet continue to advocate it as a solution.

Fivezeroes
03-19-2013, 02:08 PM
Your first sentence is in direct contradiction with the rest of this and your previous post.

Some people do handle their alcohol better than others, and I know from experience that I could drive well beyond the legal limit safely (done so many times on private land).

Further it is odd that in one breath you realize the ridiculously arbitrary nature of a legal limit, and yet continue to advocate it as a solution.


Oh the over your states limit part? Well 0.10% is actually quite high. That's like 10 bears over a 5 hr span. But again, it's just a suggestion. Not that the government is going to allows something like that to be implemented.

You find it ridiculous, but, to me I'm trying to keep from crossing an invisible line, As an officer, I know I have to toe this line.

JorgeStevenson
03-19-2013, 02:14 PM
Let's not forget other violations of my freedom that come along with strict DUI laws, such as

- preventing my passengers from drinking
- prohibiting me from drinking while driving, even if I am sober and under the legal limit

Why the above 2 things are illegal will always and forever remain one of life's great mysteries to me. If it's a drunk driving law, arrest the driver for being drunk. Don't arrest him for being sober.

Shredmonster
03-19-2013, 02:16 PM
First of all does anyone here - anyone think your government gives a shit weather you or any other drivers live or die ? If you think so I refer you to the NDAA, drones etc....

Common sense should tell you to follow the money. Insurance companies have to pay out less if accidents are reduced. Lawyers, psychologists and many occupations make their living off of this shit.

There is a judge who sentences offenders to spend a couple days in rehab in a facility he is part owner of in my town.

You do gooders pull your head out of your ass. Its about money period.

I have a friend who has a 4 year law degree and was a cop and a state lobbyist and was involved in testimony when the laws changed from .1 to .08 and everybody knows it is a fucking joke.

Does anybody here know the facts ? That the average driver that injures someone when drunk is .28 ? Did you hear me - .28
So don't give me your .10 bull shit.
The average driver who kills someone has 10 DWI's. These were the facts brought up to the state when they were going over the laws. The FEDS however threaten with highway funds. Follow the money.

It should be and use to be up to the discretion of the officer to haul you in or not. Attorneys now threaten to sue officers personally if they happen to let someone go and he does any damage and it is later found out that the officer released this person.

How about the fact that more accidents are caused by people that are tired than drunk ? Shall we start arresting for this ? This whole subject is a total fucking joke and people are brainwashed by the media like they usually are.

.10 high my ass. Back when the law was .15 guess what - stats were the same. It was always the people well over .2 that had problems. I remember when I was taking driver ed they said back then it was .24. I have driven literally thousands of times well over .10. Many many many times through my life. NEVER HIT ANYTHING, ANYBODY - not even close. Never crossed a lane, went off the road - nothing. Nothing you can say or present to me is going to change the fact that people can drink and they can drive and they can drive safely.

How about determining a reasonable limit. Or should I say realistic ? Oh oh but there are people that can't drive when they have had 4 drinks ... really ? I am over 50 and I have never seen this. Not saying it can't EVER happen but you don't make laws based on the occasional exception. There are always going to be things you cannot solve or prevent with legislation.

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
03-19-2013, 02:17 PM
Let's not forget other violations of my freedom that come along with strict DUI laws, such as

- preventing my passengers from drinking
- prohibiting me from drinking while driving, even if I am sober and under the legal limit

Why the above 2 things are illegal will always and forever remain one of life's great mysteries to me. If it's a drunk driving law, arrest the driver for being drunk. Don't arrest him for being sober.


Their aim is to arrest you and extract your money for anything the populace will tolerate.

devil21
03-19-2013, 02:36 PM
They're looking for reasons to lower the "legally drunk" BAC even more as we speak. Apparently .08 just isn't generating enough revenue.

Fivezeroes
03-19-2013, 02:36 PM
Their aim is to arrest you and extract your money for anything the populace will tolerate.


All well and good if that were true, but it costs more to house you in a jail cell than the city makes fining you.

Fivezeroes
03-19-2013, 02:37 PM
They're looking for reasons to lower the "legally drunk" BAC even more as we speak. Apparently .08 just isn't generating enough revenue.


.08 doesn't generate any revenue, it costs the city more to put you in jail even for a night, than it does to fine you for dui.

RonPaulFanInGA
03-19-2013, 02:43 PM
So... there is now something wrong with getting drunk drivers off the road? Or am I missing something here?

Someone is new here. There have been threads in the past full of posts with people saying drunk driving shouldn't be illegal until they hurt/kill/damage someone or something. :rolleyes:

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
03-19-2013, 02:46 PM
All well and good if that were true, but it costs more to house you in a jail cell than the city makes fining you.


See my previous post. The "city" neither makes, nor loses anything. Those who work for the city only gain. They NEVER lose money that I'm aware of. If you'd like to cite some examples of city "employees" losing money over such things, I'd be quite interested to look.

Fivezeroes
03-19-2013, 02:50 PM
See my previous post. The "city" neither makes, nor loses anything. Those who work for the city only gain. They NEVER lose money that I'm aware of. If you'd like to cite some examples of city "employees" losing money over such things, I'd be quite interested to look.

How about the fact that we city employees pay taxes just like anyone else. Our taxes then go to the jails that house these prisoners. So you figure on average a dui fine is 500 bucks and up to 1 yr in jail, that's the minimum. That 500$ fine doesn't even take care of one full days in jail for these guys. So that's why I say we lose money on this.

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
03-19-2013, 02:54 PM
How about the fact that we city employees pay taxes just like anyone else. Our taxes then go to the jails that house these prisoners. So you figure on average a dui fine is 500 bucks and up to 1 yr in jail, that's the minimum. That 500$ fine doesn't even take care of one full days in jail for these guys. So that's why I say we lose money on this.


So city employees are victims, because they're taxed on the money that they're paid from taxing others or collecting fines? Maybe they should find employment that doesn't depend on such revenue streams. Many people make things or sell services. (not put people in cages for ransom.) It would be completely illegal if anyone else did that.

Fivezeroes
03-19-2013, 02:56 PM
So city employees are victims, because they're taxed on the money that they're paid from taxing others or collecting fines? Maybe they should find employment that doesn't depend on such revenue streams. Many people make things or sell services. (not put people in cages for ransom.) It would be completely illegal if anyone else did that.


You can't argue with illogical thinking such as this... it makes my brain hurt even trying to figure out a way to debate this.

Anti Federalist
03-19-2013, 02:59 PM
All well and good if that were true, but it costs more to house you in a jail cell than the city makes fining you.

Which is why I've said all along, any monetary benefit is incidental.

Heavy handed, capricious and draconian DUI enforcement is now the model for, well, pretty much everything, from TSA to seatbelt checkpoints.

They rolled it out: the roadblocks, the checkpoints the random searches, the increase in police powers and authority, you (meaning the American people) embraced it wholeheartedly..."if it can save one life" and now, here we are.

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
03-19-2013, 03:00 PM
You can't argue with illogical thinking such as this... it makes my brain hurt even trying to figure out a way to debate this.


I should have said "immoral" or "unethical" instead of "illegal." So if that was your issue, ya got me. Otherwise, I'll stick by my statement. There's nothing illogical about it.

Fivezeroes
03-19-2013, 03:02 PM
Which is why I've said all along, any monetary benefit is incidental.

Heavy handed, capricious and draconian DUI enforcement is now the model for, well, pretty much everything, from TSA to seatbelt checkpoints.

They rolled it out: the roadblocks, the checkpoints the random searches, the increase in police powers and authority, you (meaning the American people) embraced it wholeheartedly..."if it can save one life" and now, here we are.


The only time that checkpoints should be set up, is during a big holiday like July 4th. More people get popped for drinking and driving on July 4th than any other day of the year. And that includes Super Bowl Sunday.

Fivezeroes
03-19-2013, 03:03 PM
I should have said "immoral" or "unethical" instead of "illegal." So if that was your issue, ya got me. Otherwise, I'll stick by my statement. There's nothing illogical about it.

Okay, so what exactly about following the law is unethical or even immoral? That is what I'm curious about.

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
03-19-2013, 03:05 PM
Okay, so what exactly about following the law is unethical or even immoral? That is what I'm curious about.


I was responding to your claim that the "city" loses money. Laws, as they are today, have little relation to morality or ethics. If there is a purpose for law, it would be "justice."

Fivezeroes
03-19-2013, 03:23 PM
I was responding to your claim that the "city" loses money. Laws, as they are today, have little relation to morality or ethics. If there is a purpose for law, it would be "justice."

Well it is the truth, like I said on average it cost a little over 50k a year to house an inmate. Basically we all lose out in the end. Tax payer wise.

devil21
03-19-2013, 03:30 PM
.08 doesn't generate any revenue, it costs the city more to put you in jail even for a night, than it does to fine you for dui.

Did you read any of the posts on this thread responding to you about this very topic numerous times?

Let's cut through some of the bs here, ok?

1. Jails are paid by the state and even the feds (if they hold fed prisoners) based on occupancy. It's extremely lucrative to hold people in jail since the ongoing costs of incarceration are minimal and generally are "fixed" costs but the jails receive the money from taxpayers on a per inmate basis and it's always a lot more per inmate per day than what it actually costs. Meals cost less than a dollar a day per inmate! DUI arrests generate lots of money for jails, particularly since they get "reimbursed" the cost of a full day incarceration while most DUI inmates (and most arrestees overall) spend less than 24 hours inside.

2. DUI fines and costs are routinely $1000 or more for first offenses and much higher for subsequent. Then there's the industries that have grown up around it, which undoubtedly have been started or invested in by the very same court and jail staffs that administer the law. You realize that prosecutors are generally salaried so their paychecks stay the same regardless of caseload, right? That's a fixed cost. Same for public defenders. Most of the costs in the judicial system are fixed and are budgeted accordingly. That brings me to the next point....

3. Larger budgets is revenue. Do you not understand how the arresting, prosecuting, and incarcerating of more and more people translates to larger and larger budgets for those departments? The "cost" is spread across every taxpayer, while the incidental revenue such as fines, costs, probation fees, etc go right back into the public coffers as "new revenue". It's basically double dipping because they get paid TWICE. Once in budget money and once by the offender.

You don't seem to understand that taking money from taxpayers (yourself included) and then fining on top of that leads to a profit.

Fivezeroes
03-19-2013, 03:36 PM
Did you read any of the posts on this thread responding to you about this very topic numerous times?

Let's cut through some of the bs here, ok?

1. Jails are paid by the state and even the feds (if they hold fed prisoners) based on occupancy. It's extremely lucrative to hold people in jail since the ongoing costs of incarceration are minimal and generally are "fixed" costs but the jails receive the money from taxpayers on a per inmate basis and it's always a lot more per inmate per day than what it actually costs. Meals cost less than a dollar a day per inmate! DUI arrests generate lots of money for jails, particularly since they get "reimbursed" the cost of a full day incarceration while most DUI inmates (and most arrestees overall) spend less than 24 hours inside.

2. DUI fines and costs are routinely $1000 or more for first offenses and much higher for subsequent. Then there's the industries that have grown up around it, which undoubtedly have been started or invested in by the very same court and jail staffs that administer the law. You realize that prosecutors are generally salaried so their paychecks stay the same regardless of caseload, right? That's a fixed cost. Same for public defenders. Most of the costs in the judicial system are fixed and are budgeted accordingly. That brings me to the next point....

3. Larger budgets is revenue. Do you not understand how the arresting, prosecuting, and incarcerating of more and more people translates to larger and larger budgets for those departments? The "cost" is spread across every taxpayer, while the incidental revenue such as fines, costs, probation fees, etc go right back into the public coffers as "new revenue". It's basically double dipping because they get paid TWICE. Once in budget money and once by the offender.

You don't seem to understand that taking money from taxpayers (yourself included) and then fining on top of that leads to a profit.


As someone who routinely arrests people for DUI, I have a fair bit of knowledge on this. When you pay 50k per year per prisoner while the state only gives you maybe 35k per prisoner, you lose money. No matter how you swing it, we're all still losing out on massive amounts of money, by this broken system of ours.

devil21
03-19-2013, 03:36 PM
Well it is the truth, like I said on average it cost a little over 50k a year to house an inmate. Basically we all lose out in the end. Tax payer wise.

This figure is bullshit and is made up to generate the budgets I mentioned. Who makes up that figure? The jail, that's who. When it costs less than a buck a day to feed an inmate, what's the other $49,600 cost? I suppose some fat deputy sitting on his ass for 12 hours a day playing angry birds can get pretty expensive....


As someone who routinely arrests people for DUI, I have a fair bit of knowledge on this. When you pay 50k per year per prisoner while the state only gives you maybe 35k per prisoner, you lose money. No matter how you swing it, we're all still losing out on massive amounts of money, by this broken system of ours.

No, the jail says it costs $50k but "settles" for $35k, when in reality it costs $25k but they don't dare admit the real cost or they lose that budget money and you better spend every last cent of what they give you. The rest goes into nice "slush funds". Don't you know how gov't budgeting works? Use it or lose it is the name of that game but that's for another thread. This is overall way too complicated a topic for such simplistic discussion.

Brian4Liberty
03-19-2013, 03:36 PM
Yea, I agree. There are laws on the book, but then you have to look at the what ifs, if this guy lets someone go who is swerving and a mile or so later, he smashes into a car that has a mother and her child in it, killing them, you pretty much curse yourself over it. I know that no one likes dealing in hypotheticals either.

I would point out that the OP article was very specific in that drivers were not swerving, or even driving erratically. It was about making up excuses to pull people over just to check them out. This is a symptom of a totalitarian state. Just like checkpoints. And random house searches.

Kudos if you only believe that cars driving erratically need to be pulled over. Kind of a side subject from the OP though.

phill4paul
03-19-2013, 03:38 PM
.08 doesn't generate any revenue, it costs the city more to put you in jail even for a night, than it does to fine you for dui.


All well and good if that were true, but it costs more to house you in a jail cell than the city makes fining you.

Tax = revenue. More need to house, more need to tax to cover expense.

And your assessment is a bit off. Not every DUI ends in jail time. In fact the majority of first and second time offenses do not (depending on the state) so there IS a fine AND court costs that generate revenue. As well as revenue to lobbyists.

devil21
03-19-2013, 03:44 PM
Btw, I live in the area that the OP's article is about. The cops here don't do much of anything except drive around, collect a check and respond to whatever call comes in. There's very little traffic enforcement (which Im fine with). The area that officer was patrolling for DUI suspects is one of the poorer, minority filled areas of the city. You won't see that cop pulling that stuff in the rich white neighborhoods.

Fivezeroes
03-19-2013, 03:48 PM
This figure is bullshit and is made up to generate the budgets I mentioned. Who makes up that figure? The jail, that's who. When it costs less than a buck a day to feed an inmate, what's the other $49,600 cost? I suppose some fat deputy sitting on his ass for 12 hours a day playing angry birds can get pretty expensive....



No, the jail says it costs $50k but "settles" for $35k, when in reality it costs $25k but they don't dare admit the real cost or they lose that budget money and you better spend every last cent of what they give you. The rest goes into nice "slush funds". Don't you know how gov't budgeting works? Use it or lose it is the name of that game but that's for another thread. This is overall way too complicated a topic for such simplistic discussion.

Oh, yea I know how government budgeting works. Had a buddy who told me that while he was up in Quantico, they had to bust a shipment of flat screen tvs up because the base had money to spare and needed to show that it went somewhere. These flat screens were brand new in the box, so government waste doesn't elude me.

Anti Federalist
03-19-2013, 03:52 PM
The only time that checkpoints should be set up, is during a big holiday like July 4th. More people get popped for drinking and driving on July 4th than any other day of the year. And that includes Super Bowl Sunday.

Not the point.

Once you grant the premise, that in a supposedly free society, police can set up random roadblocks and indiscriminately question and inspect and detain people, then the frequency of said checkpoints is moot.

Might as well just start going house to house and checking for "crimes in progress". (which is already being done anyways)

Fivezeroes
03-19-2013, 03:54 PM
Not the point.

Once you grant the premise, that in a supposedly free society, police can set up random roadblocks and indiscriminately question and inspect and detain people, then the frequency of said checkpoints is moot.

Might as well just start going house to house and checking for "crimes in progress". (which is already being done anyways)


Easiest way to get through a checkpoint, when asked anything exercise your 5th amendment right. Just do it politely. Half the time we don't want to be out there either.

phill4paul
03-19-2013, 04:03 PM
Easiest way to get through a checkpoint, when asked anything exercise your 5th amendment right. Just do it politely. Half the time we don't want to be out there either.

I don't think anyone here is looking for the easiest way to get through a checkpoint. The point is that no one should have to go through one.

Fivezeroes
03-19-2013, 04:04 PM
I don't think anyone here is looking for the easiest way to get through a checkpoint. The point is that no one should have to go through one.


I agree, but, most of the time as long as you say that, right after we look at your ID (and the only reason we're looking at it, is to see if it's expired) we generally tell you to go on your way.

bolil
03-19-2013, 04:11 PM
I agree, but, most of the time as long as you say that, right after we look at your ID (and the only reason we're looking at it, is to see if it's expired) we generally tell you to go on your way.

You've reasonable cause to suspect everyone passing through an select area has an expired ID? hmmm.

Fivezeroes
03-19-2013, 04:13 PM
You've reasonable cause to suspect everyone passing through an select area has an expired ID? hmmm.

Nope, but that's what we always check first.

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
03-19-2013, 04:14 PM
You've reasonable cause to suspect everyone passing through an select area has an expired ID? hmmm.


"probable cause"

You're mixing up "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause," no? The point here is that they will stop you regardless of legal jargon.

Fivezeroes
03-19-2013, 04:19 PM
"probable cause"

You're mixing up "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause," no? The point here is that they will stop you regardless of legal jargon.

Nope, no probable cause or reasonable suspicion, just something we do. We look to make sure it's you in the picture and look at the expiration date. Yay, for mundane stuff.

bolil
03-19-2013, 04:20 PM
"probable cause"

You're mixing up "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause," no? The point here is that they will stop you regardless of legal jargon.


Thanks for the correction, comrade. Huh, "The right of the people to be secure in the persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the places to be searched and persons or things to be seized."

Demanding a person hand over their ID would qualify as a seizure if papers, even if it is returned at a later date. If the cops want to pretend they should at least write out warrants for searching for and seizing each and every persons' identification. It is about safety, isn't it?

Then again they don't demand, they ask and if you refuse they try to jam you up anyway they can.

As for mundane stuff, that is the kind of thing that grows into serious stuff. Isn't that why you cops are required to do it?

Fivezeroes
03-19-2013, 04:26 PM
Thanks for the correction, comrade. Huh, "The right of the people to be secure in the persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the places to be searched and persons or things to be seized."

Demanding a person hand over their ID would qualify as a seizure if papers, even if it is returned at a later date. If the cops want to pretend they should at least write out warrants for searching for and seizing each and every persons' identification. It is about safety, isn't it?

Then again they don't demand, they ask and if you refuse they try to jam you up anyway they can.

As for mundane stuff, that is the kind of thing that grows into serious stuff. Isn't that why you cops are required to do it?

You can stop pointing out the 4th, if you're going to once again neglect the 10th. How many times have we went back and forth over this now? It's the states who make the cops do these checkpoints, the best way to get a law changed is to complain to the right people or get enough people together to run and then begin the process to repeal some of these laws.

phill4paul
03-19-2013, 04:27 PM
I agree, but, most of the time as long as you say that, right after we look at your ID (and the only reason we're looking at it, is to see if it's expired) we generally tell you to go on your way.

How nice of you to TELL me that I can go on my way. I'm glad my papers were in order herr Kriminalpolizei.

aGameOfThrones
03-19-2013, 04:31 PM
Easiest way to get through a checkpoint, when asked anything exercise your 5th amendment right. Just do it politely. Half the time we don't want to be out there either.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_md95uagwKT1qck737.gif

bolil
03-19-2013, 04:32 PM
You can stop pointing out the 4th, if you're going to once again neglect the 10th. How many times have we went back and forth over this now? It's the states who make the cops do these checkpoints, the best way to get a law changed is to complain to the right people or get enough people together to run and then begin the process to repeal some of these laws.

I direct you to the ninth. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Guess the rights enumerated in the fourth would be included as those retained by the people, so disparage not.

Fivezeroes
03-19-2013, 04:33 PM
How nice of you to TELL me that I can go on my way. I'm glad my papers were in order herr Kriminalpolizei.


Anytime citizen. XD

Fivezeroes
03-19-2013, 04:38 PM
I direct you to the ninth. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Guess the rights enumerated in the fourth would be included as those retained by the people, so disparage not.


Well played.