DUI checkpoint

Officer: Sir, what are you doing this evening?
Me: I'm looking for a home to buy.

Actually, that one would be the truth!

I find it troubling that you are presumed suspicious for avoiding a check point in this country - that reeks of police state in my book. I find check points troubling as well. Then again guys in uniform always make me nervous. Do they do breath-a-lizers on everyone, randomly, or on those that somehow appear inebriated?

About 20 years ago I had to run out for work in the middle of the night and almost jumped a light when the turning arrow changed from red to green. I was driving a beat up old Toyota Carolla, had a full beard and longer hair at the time, and looked like hell as I had had to get up and going rather quickly. I got pulled over by a police officer who really gave me the look over as he told me he knew about "guy's like me". I had no idea what he meant by that - he didn't ask for my license, insurance, etc. but let me go on my way. I didn't run the light or do anything run other than jump a couple of feet when the other light changed. Suspicious?

But Mark, if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't be bothered by initiatives that are intended to protect you.

I had an officer pull me over for not having my license plate illuminated. When he came to the car he asked me if I had been in any trouble recently. I should have told him to mind his own business but I said "only with his mother" indicating my 15 year old son in the car. Glad they are here to protect and serve but there is a fine line that gets crossed.

Officer: Sir, what are you doing this evening?
Me: Sorry officer, but my wife no longer let's me date..

If the Indiana State Police can prove to me that they enforce "not using turn signal" as zealously at 1:00 p.m. as they do at 1:00 a.m., then I'll retract my "it's just poaching" stance. For the record, they say no statistics are kept on such matters. I find that both curious and predictable.

I am glad the police are being proactive in trying to protect the public...but should the people who are just turning onto their neighborhood streets have to be chased by a police car and assumed guilty? Should they have to wait through the checkpoint to avoid it? That doesn't make sense to me.

Comrades,

For does ob you who mite have meesed dees...Please to have your pay-pahs in ordah before driving dah jalopnik outsides ob dah bordahs ob dah Gene Snydah...



The Kentucky State Police will be on Oldham roads this month and next, conducting traffic safety checkpoints.

The police will be in Oldham — along with Trimble, Henry, Owen, Carroll and Gallatin counties — Oct. 24 through Nov. 7.

The intent of a traffic safety checkpoint is to provide highly visible public safety service, focusing on deficient car equipment such as broken seat belts and headlights and checking vehicle registration and drivers licenses, according to a news release.

Violations of law or other public safety issues that arise will be addressed in accordance with Kentucky traffic and regulatory laws.

With regards to checkpoints: Do your job, sir/madame.

I do worry about abuse, though. Who polices the police? The police. I'm not seeing a check-and-balance in our society except the tenuous, occasional camera-holding citizen.

[Robin Garr]

Who polices the police? The police. I'm not seeing a check-and-balance in our society except the tenuous, occasional camera-holding citizen.

It's a real concern, especially since 9/11 when "security" allows authorities to pretty much do whatever and decline to explain it.

There have also been some outrageous reports of police around the country roughing up citizens who try to videotape them - something that's a lot easier to do in the age of the smartphone.

Here's an interesting link from a photography blog that, among other things, reports stories of police trying to keep their activities off YouTube ...
http://www.pixiq.com/article/woman-sues ... esting-her

As a longtime journalist, my attitude on public photography is pretty clear: If you're in a public space, you have no right to expect privacy against other people's cameras, and being a cop (or a celeb) doesn't change that. Go inside your house, that's a whole nuther story.

Officer: Sir, what are you doing this evening?
Me: Sorry officer, but my wife no longer let's me date..

+10

my wife and i went through one of these on outer loop a few months ago. when i rolled my window down and said "good evening, officer" it was as if he looked at us, thought, "oh, you're white and well groomed, you may pass". didn't even ask for anything. If this had been ten years ago when my hair was long and my tattoo's had been visible, i highly doubt that we would have received a free pass through the checkpoint. this is simply a way to generate revenue for the state. roadblocks do not make our lives safer.

Now if only they would enforce the things that really hurt/maim/kill people - like those pesky red lights that seem to be pretty much optional these days.

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/ ... 01/rsslink

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20111019/NEWS01/310200005/1001/rsslink

But Sgt. Mike Minniear, of the police traffic unit, said officers believe the impact goes beyond the number of citations and arrests.

On checkpoint nights, word seems to spread quickly through text messages and cellphone calls, he said, and it’s not uncommon to see more taxis coming through a checkpoint after one has been set up for awhile.

Hard data, which wouldn't be difficult to collect, would be more convincing than assumptions.

Maj. Don Burbrink, who pushed for the roadblock idea, said it’s good for officers to break routine and get out to educate the public in new ways.

“They see we’re out there,” said Burbrink, commander of the department’s 6th Division. “We’re doing something positive.”

Ah yes, education and positive behavior. Why would I consider it anything else?

In addition to the roadblocks, police plan to announce two grants today — totaling $240,000 — in which they are partnering with Seven Counties Services Inc. to combat underage drinking.

The irony of this article is that the writer doesn't connect the puritanical attitude we have toward alcohol with alcohol issues such as drunken driving. MADD is too powerful a lobby to allow for a systematic change in how we "educate" about alcohol and how we "sponsor" drinking behavior.

Anyone without proper license or insurance, not wearing a seat belt, or those whose behavior indicates they might have been drinking, is pulled over into the parking lot.

So if I answer the officers question honestly, "Yes, I've had a drink tonight," I'm going to be sent to the parking lot? And I thought it was supposed to be about education and positive behavior. Sounds like a police state to me.


I'd respect the whole idea much more if they just cut out the spin PR. Just tell me it's a police state, and we'll go from there.