RUMOR - DUI Checkpoint in St. Matts Tonight (07/09)

[Robin Garr]

yes indeed ky does have one of the highest insurance rates.
hard to believe that moving from new york to ky never ever having an accident in my life or a ticket. i have a perfect driving record. my rates went up since moving to ky.

I think you might want to shop around for a new policy, Annemarie. When we moved from NYC back to Louisville, our auto insurance dropped by half. Same car, same drivers, same perfect records. We got back a check for about $300 for the overage pending on our six-month payment.

I'm not saying take away their license and they simply won't drive drunk. My statement was trying to show lack of action toward a problem that's been around for a long period of time; even though a person may look down on it.

Incarceration would be the only way to keep people off the streets and from behind a wheel. And, that's not going to happen unless someone dies. Which, was my point.

Kyle-
Thanks for clarifying your post as I did not get that from the first read through. I can't speak for KY, but here in Indiana there are plenty of multiple OWI offenders sitting in county lockups for incidents that did not involve death or even serious injury. Granted they are not getting years in the slammer but 6 months is not unheard of over here.
Best,
Bill

I wonder if the family whose eleven year old son was run over and killed by a drunk driver a couple weeks ago here in town would approve of the checkpoints?

Magic 8-Ball says: " We Approve "

This is a great argument to emotion and sympathy, but sorry, it doesn't work. We live under a rule of law simply to prevent vengeance and vigilantism.

No one in this thread has spoken in favor of DUI. Drunks should be off the roads, and drunks who kill people should be in jail. But we're giving police a pass to step gently on our rights in exchange for letting them catch drunks the easy way. Patrolling and police work and reasonable ground for suspicion is where they need to be. I'm terribly sorry for the mother whose 11-year-old son was run over, but sorry, I don't care for a system in which a grieving family sets public policy on the basis of their loss.

That 11 year old boy was my best friend's son's best friend. I don't mind DUI checkpoints one bit. I look at it this way...I've got nothing to hide, so they don't bother me. I'd rather go through a bit of an inconvenience and get drunks off the streets. If more checkpoints had been held, perhaps Dylan would still be alive. He's not just some kid killed by a drunk. He was someone's son, and someone's best friend. I can't comprehend what it would be like to lose my best friend, and I'm 34. It was a senseless tragedy, and one that could have been avoided, at that. If it was ONE family who was affected by drunk driving, I might have a different view, but thousands of people are killed by drunk drivers every year. I don't CARE if it's easy. Many of these people are repeat offenders. Get these menaces off the road by any means necessary (don't even get me started on texting/talking while driving). DUI checkpoints? Bring 'em on.

* Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

The right of the people to be secure in their 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 place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

While I understand where you are coming from, you're looking at a slipper slope there Michelle.

I guess it all depends upon one's definition of "unreasonable."

I don't find it unreasonable for police to set up checkpoints in areas with known frequent DUI arrests based on statistical data.

For those of who using the "slippery slope" fallacy: "It ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B. Modern usage avoids the fallacy by acknowledging the possibility of this middle ground."

Checkpoints have been used for decades with Supreme Court backing. If that slope was slippery, we'd be falling down it already.

Quite frankly after my idiot neighbors set off fireworks in the middle of my narrow subdivision streets on the 4th and nearly destroyed our cable and phone lines in the process, I don't think the police are doing enough. I'm tired of seeing flaming bottle rocket detritus on my roof and car ever year, but drunks pose more of a threat to innocent people in larger numbers than a few rednecks with illegal fireworks.

Now if the police set up checkpoints in the middle of Glenmary or at the Pope Lick train trestle, I would consider that unreasonable as I would bet that statistics would show these areas do not have a high occurence of drunken driving. Yes, it happens, I'm sure, but it's a numbers game. The police want to get the most drunks off the road in a limited amount of time.

And gripe as many of you will (and have the right to), drunken drivers were taken off the road during this checkpoint, maybe a driver that would have plowed into your Mother or sister or cousin or child or...*gasp* even you.

Sorry. I can't side with those who think it's unreasonable. I wish we lived in a world where people had enough intelligence to not drive while intoxicated, but we don't. The argument is moot unless/until the Supreme Court changes its stance on the issue.

I'm quite sure that those of you worried about your rights being infringed upon would feel differently if it was someone you love who was killed by a drunk driver. I pray none of you have to go through the anguish Dylan's family and my best friend's family have had to go through. If you can look yourself in the eye and say that being inconvenienced at a traffic stop is more of a hardship on you, than losing a family member is to these victim's families, perhaps you're a better person than I.

Does the LMPD maintain any stats on how many DUI convictions are made in checkpoints vs. routine patrols? I think this would be an interesting statistic.
Also, eleven states prohibit roadblocks...is there any evidence these 11 states have more/less DUI incidents?
Just curious, but then I'm a numbers guy.
Bill

I don't see anything wrong with roadblocks. And, of course , there is always going to be bad police. There is always bad people. It's life. No one is perfect. However, I feel safer on the streets knowing police have these roadblocks in hope to catch even ONE driver.

I'm quite sure that those of you worried about your rights being infringed upon would feel differently if it was someone you love who was killed by a drunk driver. I pray none of you have to go through the anguish Dylan's family and my best friend's family have had to go through. If you can look yourself in the eye and say that being inconvenienced at a traffic stop is more of a hardship on you, than losing a family member is to these victim's families, perhaps you're a better person than I.

I'm sorry. While this family is hurting and I feel for them you cant use it as justification for a violation of rights. Cops can already use "Reasonable suspicion" to pull someone over. I know I've reported people that appeared to be drunk officers in the past. Cops already sit near many bars and other establishments with a lot of drinking going on and pounce on potential drunk drivers. There are many other viable ways to go about this that would be just as effective.

Also semi-related - while I've never lost anyone to a drunk driver I do have a close friend who killed someone while driving drunk. Let me be careful here not to come off defending drunk driving because I most definitely am not. I will say this person suffers DAILY knowing what they did because the person they killed was also one of their closest friends. So I am somewhat yet not intimately familiar with the pain and loss this crime can cause.

Since this is actually something I have had some experience with, I will speak to the overly opinionated, (Kyle) who want more aggressive action taken towards drunk drivers.

It might have once been true that KY was one of the more lenient states in regard to penalizing drunk drivers. The Carrollton bus crash changed that.

I think we can all agree that anyone is susceptible to possibly getting one DUI in the right (wrong) circumstances. But what happens if you screw up twice in a period of 5 years? You pay a fine. You lose your license for an entire year. You are forced to enroll in mandatory alcohol counseling classes at $20 to $30 a week for 52 weeks. Sometimes you are also forced into attending AA.

All I am saying is that the system is designed to keep you down. They take away your license so you can't get to your job. The same job that will enable you to pay for the alcohol classes that you are required to attend. The same classes that you also have to find alternate transportation to because of the whole license suspension thing.

Don't get me wrong... I don't think anyone should drink and drive. But it does happen. And KY law has quickly caught up to the rest of the country in respect to punitive DUI laws. Here's my problem...

If you classify alcoholism as a disability (which it is), how do you create stronger and stronger laws to punish those who are incapable of overcoming said disability? You might as well slap an epileptic in the middle of a seizure and tell them to "stop doing that".

If you classify alcoholism as a disability (which it is), how do you create stronger and stronger laws to punish those who are incapable of overcoming said disability? You might as well slap an epileptic in the middle of a seizure and tell them to "stop doing that".

Drunk driving and alcoholism don't always go hand in hand. Everyone I know that has a DUI is far from an alcoholic. Alcoholics have a choice, people with a true disability (epilepsy) do not.

If you classify alcoholism as a disability (which it is), how do you create stronger and stronger laws to punish those who are incapable of overcoming said disability? You might as well slap an epileptic in the middle of a seizure and tell them to "stop doing that".

Drunk driving and alcoholism don't always go hand in hand. Everyone I know that has a DUI is far from an alcoholic. Alcoholics have a choice, people with a true disability (epilepsy) do not.

Agreed. But when discussing repeat offenders... one has to start exploring the possibility of alcoholism. And when it gets to that point, don't be so sure it's that much less of a choice.

[Robin Garr]

Alcoholics have a choice, people with a true disability (epilepsy) do not.

Actually, Gary's point was that if alcoholism is a mental illness, alcoholics don't have a true choice. (No, this does not excuse drunk driving. But it helps to explain why seemingly simple measures don't make people quit.)

I think it would be helpful if whoever declared Louisville a Taxi-free zone would retract that decree. Never seen a city that size where you can't get a damned cab.