Are we safe out there? Part 2

I feel the DUI Checkpoitns and saturation patrols are more of an awaremness to the public. If you want to stop this type of crime. "STIFFIN" the laws!! DUI minimum 30 days in the county jail! Who cares what level of alcohol is in your blood! Drinking, over .08% 30 days in county jail, one year suspension of driver license, 30 days out on route 36 or 220 doing litter clean up, all and did I mention a $5,000.00 fine. Now did we get anyones attention or are we going to let an .08% dui drive around the day after his conviction without a driver license suspension. WHAT MESSAGE DID THAT SEND??

I Don't think the DUI check point is a flaw necessarily. It is the follow up that fails. A bigger fine gets dui offenders out of jail time. Obvioulsy people with multiple dui offenses aren't being stopped from doing it again because of checkpoints. I would like to see a checkpoint for stupid drivers. How about we stop them from getting or renewing their license. If you can't operate a large pickup safely, no license. If you can't see motorcycles, no license. If you can't talk AND steer, no license. If you are scared to drive at night, scared from passing vehicles or can't see over the wheel, no license. If you can't stop staring and pointing while driving or don't have the courtesy to pull over if you wanna look at something, no license. If you don't know what a turn signal is or have to pull out in front of someone even when there is noone behind that vehicle and you have plenty of time or room to pull out after they pass, no license.

A DUI checkpoint is just like a speed trap. It is there for one purpose and if the law catches something bigger, good for them. Just like hunting, a 10 point buck is better than a spike.

your papers. i MUST see your papers.

Of course I don't think that, ray... But if "checkpoints" are what you want, let's go with them. The only reason they're tied to the DUI feature is to JUSTIFY them, because otherwise we're going to start resembling a police state - having to go through a "checkpoint" to go over the 17th Street bridge, for example, or to get in the post office. I stand by my comment - the DUI checkpoint is not designed to catch illegals, or folks with outstanding warrants - or is it, in your mind?

Do you think that DUI checkpoints should only be used to catch drivers under the influence of alcohol or drugs? Should the task force let the other criminals go because they were not drunk or high? Or maybe set up another checkpoint down the road with signs that state that it is for illegal aliens only, then another further on for rapists, etc. Checkpoints DO work, that is proven.

To say this DUI checkpoint "worked" is a bit of a stretch, isn't it? The goal of the checkpoint isn't to catch illegal aliens, any more than it is to nab anyone with an outstanding warrant - and yet the stops could result in that, too. If we could point to a demonstrable drop in drunk driving incidents with a clear correlation to the location/frequency of these checkpoints, then we may be able to say they "work." But this is a coincidental happenstance that could just as easily have occurred if the illegal had a missing tail light. Would we then assert the annual vehicle inspection requirement "works?"