Sobriety Checkpoints

Soooooo...we're on our way home about midnight last night, I get off of I-71 at the Buckner exit (where there is absolutely nothing except a Thorton's) and we're greeted by by 5 or 6 squad cars blocking the off ramp and KY146 doing a sobriety checkpoint. I'd had a couple of barley pops earlier in the evening but nothing in the past couple of hours, so I wasn't really worried about getting a DUI...MOF, on a humorous side note, the cop asked me what kind of beer I had riding beside me in the console and I was pleased to be able to show him a bottle of ROOT beer.

Anyway, my question then is, is this a common occurrence here in the metro area ? I've lived in states where they've determined that it is constitutionally illegal to conduct these check points (MN), I've also lived in states (OH, OK) where they CAN do the check points BUT they have to advertise in the media when and where they are doing them. So what's the deal here in KY ? Just curious ? Oh and WHY do a checkpoint at some Godforsaken exit like Buckner ? You'd think they could find a much more <eh-hem> productive location.

I have never seen one, but I don't get out to Buckner that often.

Buckner, what the hell is up with that?

Bardstown Rd/Baxter Ave and 4th Street would be a drunk driving gold mine.

Kentucky Roadblocks
http://www.roadblock.org/roadblocks/ky.htm

http://www.duicheckpoints.org/legalitys ... oints.html

From above website.
"According to the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, unreasonable searches and seizures of U.S. citizens are forbidden. There must be probable cause for a law enforcement agent to arrest or search people on their private property. This means that an officer must have reasonable suspicion based on facts that a crime has occurred.

This leads many people to ask how officers can legally stop drivers at sobriety checkpoints.

The Michigan State Supreme Court found that sobriety checkpoints violated the Fourth Amendment. However, in a split decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled that properly conducted checkpoints are legal, and reversed the Michigan Court’s decision.

The Supreme Court acknowledges that DUI roadblocks violate a fundamental constitutional right. However, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued in a majority opinion that sobriety checkpoints are justified because the state’s interest in reducing drunk driving outweighs the minor infringement on an individual’s rights.

The dissenting judges argued that the Constitution does not provide exceptions to the Fourth Amendment. Judge Brennan argued, “That stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving...is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion.”

Judge Stevens, who also dissented in this case, argued that the net effect of checkpoints on traffic safety is small, and possibly negative. He also stated that even if roadblocks were effective, conducting them would not justify violating people’s constitutional rights.

Many DUI attorneys call this ruling “the DUI exception to the Constitution.”

Although the U.S. Supreme Court has made this exemption to the Constitution, eleven states did not abide by the decision. These states found that sobriety checkpoints violate their constitution or outlawed them. People in these states have more protections against unreasonable searches and police DUI roadblocks are prohibited."

Why the location? Well, they need to be fairly random in order to be effective. Plus a busy location could cause a real traffic jam. Announcing them in advance seems downright stupid to me.

I'm totally in favor of checkpoints. Minor inconvenience for something that could save our lives - or the lives or our loved ones - some day.

Our last president had a DUI, and our last VP had two DUI's. Probably multiply that by a hundred for how many times they drove drunk. It isn't the end of the world when you get caught. But it should be a wakeup call. For most people I think it is....

Cheers!

Why the location? Well, they need to be fairly random in order to be effective. Plus a busy location could cause a real traffic jam. Announcing them in advance seems downright stupid to me.

I'm totally in favor of checkpoints. Minor inconvenience for something that could save our lives - or the lives or our loved ones - some day.

Our last president had a DUI, and our last VP had two DUI's. Probably multiply that by a hundred for how many times they drove drunk. It isn't the end of the world when you get caught. But it should be a wakeup call. For most people I think it is....

Cheers!

Agree with most of what you say, except the end of the world part. Anymore a DUI can flat ruin your life, not only is it costly($5000), it can make you lose or not get a job. Most companies won't hire someone with a DUI, especially if a company car is involved and if you lose your license for a year you're screwed.

Like most things in the world today, I can fall off on both sides of the fence on this issue...on one hand I think in a perfect world the checkpoints would be a deterrent for this type of behavior. On the other hand the potential for abuse is rather obvious.

Speaking only to my experience last night, my little conversation with the officer was short and rather casual...nothing even remotely "come to Jesus" about it. He pretty much just asked to see my license (nothing about insurance) and asked point blank if I had been drinking. It was no big deal. That being said I have this very uncomfortable feeling that had my vehicle or personal appearance somehow fit a narrowly defined profile that the questions and attention to detail would have been much more personal.

Checkpoints are just one, relatively minor, infringements our our right to privacy., I don't lose a lot of sleep over getting a DUI since I never drive if I have consumed more than 2 drinks and I'm a pretty big guy, so 2 drinks will put me well under .08.

Nimbus, I forget where it was (Indy Maybe?), the police put up one of those 6x10' lighted signs warning "SEAT BELT COMPLIANCE CHECK AHEAD". Yup, ticketed a bunch of folks.

Its a fairly common occurrence out here in the sticks. When we come home late from shows we can expect to see a roadblock on 155 heading into Taylorsville or hwy 248 heading out. I think we went through five last year on that section of road and once already this year.My guess as to why so much, is the traffic to and from the lake at the state park. Went through two last year in Shelby county. No signs or warnings in any of the incidents. When we lived in Chicago and would head up to Wisconsin they used to have a little trick going where they would have a lighted sign stating safety check X miles ahead, and then pop everybody that took the next exit. We also had a regular check point on rt 34 outside of Chicago where they would have you get out of the car and run a dog through it. I am pretty sure I fit a certain profile at the time ,but they did it to every car. I personally dont feel a sobriety checkpoint is the right thing to do at any time in any place unless they have probable cause. Too many people have died protecting our rights to have them thrown away in the name of cultural fads and trends. I hate drunk drivers,working on our VFD has lead me to clean up and body bag more people then I ever thought I would. I have cut heads out of windshields and put "parts" into bags that no longer were part of the body they came from. I know very well the result of driving under the influence,but giving up our rights is pretty scary too. If thats what a majority of current voters want then thats what they will get,Patriot act,warrant less wire taps and so forth in the name of safety. Some of my friends from Europe have told me about pretty strict DD laws in some places. From what I remember its get caught one time and forfeit your driving privileges for good,depending on where you live. That might not be a bad idea here.I am getting a CDL now and see that even if I am not on a job and driving my personal vehicle the legal limit is .04 bac for anybody with a CDL.. A driver could also receive a 24 hour suspension for a .01 bac also.

Wow...I had no idea they were that common. Last night was the first one I'd seen. Glad I cut myself off when I did last night. So where else do they like to pop these little surprises ?

As a side note, I suppose I'd rather deal with a highway full of drunk drivers than a highway full of "texting" teenage girls...or for that matter a highway full of mini van driving soccer moms. Just sayin.

So where else do they like to pop these little surprises ?

Kentucky Roadblocks
http://www.roadblock.org/roadblocks/ky.htm

We went through one in Shelby Co. on US 60 into Shelbyville last year. I have never been through another one in my 7 yrs here.

I did have an odd occurance last year though. I drove into my subdivision and there were 2 cop cars in the street and were stopping everyone coming in, or going out. Now this was at 5 pm on a weekday..so I can't understand that one. And I also can't understand it since it was in a subdivision, not out on a public road. but this is Simpsonville..who knows. Maybe they wanted to feel like they had something to do for once.

Hmmmm, I wonder if police divisions have a quota as far as the number of checkpoints they have to do in any given time frame? Seems like 3 or 4 police cars out in the booneys on a Monday night would be a waste of time.

Some interesting points here in this thread.

I'm totally for personal rights and a right to privacy. I'm also against search without probable cause.

The problem here arises because we have competing rights. Some people feel they have a right to drive. I think you sort of do, but NOT if you're driving in a manner that inherently conflicts with my right to life. If you are drunk and you hit me, I'm dead or maimed. My kids might be also. Your "right" to drive goes away when you get drunk. And your right to drive is totally trumped by my right to life....

These sort of discussions happen all the time in constitutional law. Yeah, you have a right to free speech, but you don't have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater (endangering other peoples' lives).

I'm totally against the patriot act. No we do need to stand up for our rights.

Checkpoints
If these are sobriety checkpoints, they should just ask if you've been drinking. If you smell like alcohol or slur in your answer, then you get a field sobriety test. I do agree that their is a potential for abuse. They definitely can't be searching your car.

I had a very good friend die last year in a horrible car crash. He was driving drunk. He left Fourth St. Live late at night. If those cops had been watching him, or he had encountered a checkpoint, he'd still be alive. The guy was an amazing man, and a former Navy SEAL.He made it alive through several covert missions, and faced a lot of life and death situations, but that night one stupid checkpoint would have saved his life. I really don't want checkpoints everywhere, or cameras everywhere, but sometimes some of us (myself included) need a little slap in the face. I think the checkpoints provide a good deterrent, but yes, they should also be strictly required not to be overly invasive in terms of our right to privacy.

Balancing rights is tricky business.....

Hmmmm, I wonder if police divisions have a quota as far as the number of checkpoints they have to do in any given time frame? Seems like 3 or 4 police cars out in the booneys on a Monday night would be a waste of time.

No quotas as far as I know. But that'd be a departmental decision. From what I know, though, checkpoints are usually very effective. If you're pulling drunks off the street, isn't that a good use of resources? Plus, the officers are still available on call for emergencies.

these are not sobriety checkpoints, more like sobriety surveillance's and just as bad, because there is no warning. no lights, no sirens...
LMPD do these very frequently, they will go to a major watering hole. they the police are known to park across two lanes, 4th st. live area or PT's stripper bar (just to name a few) at 3 am (no lights on the cop cars) and just sit and watch.
once a guy comes out of these places they watch how you walk to your car etc. if they feel you had one to many, they get in their police car and follow you for about a block and pull you over.
ding ... ding... and they get you every time.
i was on assignment once and we were discussing this. the poor soul coming out is like a sitting duck. no clue whatsoever...
at least at checkpoints you see it coming. not this...

"Poor soul" should have learned about the concept of "taxi cab." And "poor soul's" friends should have helped remind him if he forgot. Getting popped for a DUI is doing the guy (and the community) a service. An expensive lesson, but a valuable one.

Really wish they had been there at 4th st live last year when my buddy got into his car. They would have saved his life.

Unless your drunk or carrying drugs the checkpoint isn't going to be a problem. I think/know they consist of what Steve said happened to him. The cops ask if you have been drinking and you answer,look, and smell fine and go on your way. I don't see that as an invasion of privacy. Going through airport security is more of an invasion of privacy to me than a checkpoint.

I have been through one checkpoint in Georgia when I was 19 years old. There were 5 guys in a mini van stuffed full of cases of beer in some BFE town at 3:00 A.M. We pulled up to the checkpoint, answered 2 questions and were on our way.

Have you been drinking?
What are you doing in Georgia with Indiana tags?

This was a prime situation for abuse, but there was none.