DUI checkpoint discussion

[Lonestar]

Do US police departments receive funding according to the number of persons arrested, or something like that? And for fuck's sake people, how much do civilians hate cops over there?

In 2011 Virginia changed the defintion of "reckless speeding" from 21 miles over the speed limit to 11 miles over the speed limit. The VA DOJ published a press release last summer basically bragging about how much money the state troopers were taking in now because of it. It pissed off a lot of people, I'll tell you what.

[PKRudeBoy]

Do US police departments receive funding according to the number of persons arrested, or something like that? And for fuck's sake people, how much do civilians hate cops over there?

In 2011 Virginia changed the defintion of "reckless speeding" from 21 miles over the speed limit to 11 miles over the speed limit. The VA DOJ published a press release last summer basically bragging about how much money the state troopers were taking in now because of it. It pissed off a lot of people, I'll tell you what.

I don't know about the rest of the US, but at least where I live 10-15 mph over the speed limit on highways is just keeping up with the speed of the traffic, so i could see how that would piss a lot people off.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Do US police departments receive funding according to the number of persons arrested, or something like that? And for fuck's sake people, how much do civilians hate cops over there?

The money collected from traffic stops, asset seizure, etc goes to fund many things and, yes, the department receives part of it.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I'm not making a value judgement. I'm pointing out the vast, enormous difference in time-wastage compared with an Australian random breathalyzer stop (puff-and-go) and a US (let's run this through our cripplingly-bad hardware and database software and see what comes out) stop. Given that vast difference, is it any wonder that US drivers don't want to allow US police arbitrary stop rights, even leaving aside any civil-rights questions?

It seems like you're interchanging DUI stops with just an arbitrary traffic stop. In Australia when someone is stopped for a traffic violation they don't check their credentials? At a DUI checkpoint that appears to be the case.

[weemadando]

In my experience a RBT checkpoint in Australia will normally just be a the 45sec interaction that I've described. Maybe someone is running plates on vehicles that are stopped, I don't know. But I've never had to present a license or paperwork except the one time I encountered one that also had the road safety inspection.

I've been pulled over by police multiple times as "random" stops (ie not a checkpoint, but someone putting on blues and twos behind me) - including 3 times in a row one night by 3 different units (to be fair it was about 2am on a Monday morning coming back from a LAN with a car full of people and computers so did look kind of suss). In these cases it's usually more thorough - check your license, registration and do a quick visual check of your vehicle.

The only time I've ever had to get out of my car at a police check like this is entering Tasmania via the Spirit of Tasmania ferry - because Tasmania is very lucky to be geographically isolated they've got very strong quarantines in place to keep it as disease and pest free as possible. Often this will be combined with a police dog sniffing cars too as it would have to be one of the major entry points for drugs into the state. You have to get out of your car because they'll usually want you to open your boot and let the quarantine folks have a look in there and a dog have a sniff if it's on duty.

[Rogue 9]

The only time I've had to get out of a car at a traffic stop was when there was a tornado-producing storm bearing down and the cop thought if he was going to stand in it, we all had to as well. He then patted us all down for no apparent reason before letting us go.

[PeZook]

I'm just not sure what the plan was with 'funded by enforcement' was in the first place, since it's obviously such a horrible idea. Police chase revenue when it benefits them directly? WHO FUCKING KNEW??!?!?

That reminds me of something: over here, automated speed cameras can be operated by the police (which is a national organization) or by the local government. Police do not get to see revenue from speeding tickets, that goes straight into state coffers. Local governments get to keep all the cash from automated camera tickets.

The police always place warnings before the sites where their cameras are located ; Local governments never do.

COINCIDENCE?

[Raw Shark]

And for fuck's sake people, how much do civilians hate cops over there?

Depends. Those of us who have had Probable Cause manufactured in an excuse to harass us, who have been stopped for crimes such as Driving While Black or Driving While in a Taxi, or who have had our property stolen during arrests for crimes we did not commit, generally hate the cops kind of a lot.

[Crown]

This is one of the surreal moments of cross cultural exchange when someone from Australia views the following as a clever little production reminding everyone that the Victorian police will be out in force during the New Year period so New Year's or not, don't over do the drinking. But to our American cousins like Duchess or Alyeska, it is a trailer of a new horror movie with a theme of attack against FREEDOM!

[Losonti Tokash]

It's weird, because I see those same types of ads around major holidays or during football season. I've been stopped at one myself, and it was the previously mentioned "Sir, have you been drinking y/n, have a good night." Friendliest interaction I've ever had with a cop working in their official capacity.

[TheHammer]

Your cross-cultural perception is a bit off Crown. We get essentially the same ads, but without the Australian accent.

Also, our cops apparently have chamelon like camouflage...

[weemadando]

I love the "SHOVIN' THIS BREATHALYSER IN YO MOUTH LIKE A PISTOL" pose at the end of that ad.

And also, why didn't mural cop bust them as soon as they put the keys in the ignition? Plot holes abound!

[Zwinmar]

Here's the thing I don't get: I had to take a test both written and driven to even get a liscense. Also you have to get tags for the car. So already there are more restrictions on a vehicle than there is on guns yet more vehicle deaths than gun. Not to mention alcohol and the whole you can technically drink a limited amount befor getting behind the wheel.

Of course the restriction of travel is in the constitution. So I see a similarity.

[Stark]

It seems like you're interchanging DUI stops with just an arbitrary traffic stop. In Australia when someone is stopped for a traffic violation they don't check their credentials? At a DUI checkpoint that appears to be the case.

The only time a cop has asked to see my licence is when I merged into the highway across three lanes and cut him off. He didn't even ask me to get out of the car, he just wrote it up and left.

[Flagg]

Every time I've been stopped they've always wanted license, registration, and proof of insurance. This is 2 different states, too.

[Kamakazie Sith]

The only time a cop has asked to see my licence is when I merged into the highway across three lanes and cut him off. He didn't even ask me to get out of the car, he just wrote it up and left.

To clarify - How many times have you been pulled over for traffic violations? Out of all those times only once the officer asked for your license?

In Utah we generally don't have people get out of their car for simple traffic violations. Though agencies for different states do it differently.

Every time I've been stopped they've always wanted license, registration, and proof of insurance. This is 2 different states, too.

It should be that way nationwide.

[Flagg]

The only time a cop has asked to see my licence is when I merged into the highway across three lanes and cut him off. He didn't even ask me to get out of the car, he just wrote it up and left.

To clarify - How many times have you been pulled over for traffic violations? Out of all those times only once the officer asked for your license?

In Utah we generally don't have people get out of their car for simple traffic violations. Though agencies for different states do it differently.

Every time I've been stopped they've always wanted license, registration, and proof of insurance. This is 2 different states, too.

It should be that way nationwide.

I agree. I'd be for random traffic stops to check for insurance if it wouldn't likely result in targetting of minorities.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I agree. I'd be for random traffic stops to check for insurance if it wouldn't likely result in targetting of minorities.

I'd say about 90% of the time when I've stopped someone I don't know ethnicity until I walk up to the car. However, I don't have an issue with skin color so it isn't something I look for.

Insurance is one of the primary reasons I stop someone. I run license plates all the time. In Utah the registration will show if they have an insurance issue. It's not 100% accurate though. A company called Insurite checks all vehicles registered in Utah to see if they have insurance. It seems they perform this check twice a month.

If a person doesn't have insurance or there is a problem then the information under insurance status will read "Not found as of (date)". Like anything else though this system has its issues. Sometimes if they have out of state insurance Insurite won't be able to find it or the persons insurance company doesn't do what they're required to do then it will show as not found. Anyway, if that status is shown it is considered to be reasonable suspicion for a stop and if they are unable to provide proof of insurance then a citation can be issued. It escalates too. The DMV will send out letters to the registered address telling them to come down to the DMV and show proof of insurance. If they fail to do this then the DMV will revoke their registration and then the car can be impounded.

[RogueIce]

I agree. I'd be for random traffic stops to check for insurance if it wouldn't likely result in targetting of minorities.

I'd say about 90% of the time when I've stopped someone I don't know ethnicity until I walk up to the car. However, I don't have an issue with skin color so it isn't something I look for.

Insurance is one of the primary reasons I stop someone. I run license plates all the time. In Utah the registration will show if they have an insurance issue. It's not 100% accurate though. A company called Insurite checks all vehicles registered in Utah to see if they have insurance. It seems they perform this check twice a month.

If a person doesn't have insurance or there is a problem then the information under insurance status will read "Not found as of (date)". Like anything else though this system has its issues. Sometimes if they have out of state insurance Insurite won't be able to find it or the persons insurance company doesn't do what they're required to do then it will show as not found. Anyway, if that status is shown it is considered to be reasonable suspicion for a stop and if they are unable to provide proof of insurance then a citation can be issued. It escalates too. The DMV will send out letters to the registered address telling them to come down to the DMV and show proof of insurance. If they fail to do this then the DMV will revoke their registration and then the car can be impounded.

That sounds like quite a hassle, mainly because of the false positive thing.

I mean they have valid insurance but it's from out of state/their company didn't check the boxes from some other company and it shows as "no insurance" and so you get to go to the DMV and prove it? Does the DMV do these checks or do those letters only go out in response to an issued citation?

Are out of state tags exempt since presumably their insurance is also out of state and so it seems likely Insurite won't find it?

I guess the question is how many false positives you (the general you, as in officers statewide) would be getting with this system. If it's "a lot" I would be in support of altering policy so as not to do stops based on this system, at least until something more reliable comes along, because I can see it being really really annoying to get stopped for lack of insurance when, in fact, you do have it.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

Do US police departments receive funding according to the number of persons arrested, or something like that? And for fuck's sake people, how much do civilians hate cops over there?

In 2011 Virginia changed the defintion of "reckless speeding" from 21 miles over the speed limit to 11 miles over the speed limit. The VA DOJ published a press release last summer basically bragging about how much money the state troopers were taking in now because of it. It pissed off a lot of people, I'll tell you what.

I read on Cracked.com (can't find the article) something about speed traps in traffic lights. It basically went that traffic light accidents are soaring because the yellow-light time was axed to the point where it was impossible to catch it (tenths of a second), so people who would've just passed a yellow are now forced to pass a red and jump in the intersection. All to fine two more jerkoffs with some bullshit traffic light violation.

[RogueIce]

Do US police departments receive funding according to the number of persons arrested, or something like that? And for fuck's sake people, how much do civilians hate cops over there?

In 2011 Virginia changed the defintion of "reckless speeding" from 21 miles over the speed limit to 11 miles over the speed limit. The VA DOJ published a press release last summer basically bragging about how much money the state troopers were taking in now because of it. It pissed off a lot of people, I'll tell you what.

I read on Cracked.com (can't find the article) something about speed traps in traffic lights. It basically went that traffic light accidents are soaring because the yellow-light time was axed to the point where it was impossible to catch it (tenths of a second), so people who would've just passed a yellow are now forced to pass a red and jump in the intersection. All to fine two more jerkoffs with some bullshit traffic light violation.

That's been an issue with red light cameras in some areas, according to some articles I've read. While I've not read of increased accidents per se or things as extreme as "tenths of a second" there have apparently been cases where jurisdictions will install the cameras and then reduce the yellow light frequency to below the recommended length (which IIRC is something like 1 second per 10 MPH posted limit, though that's just memory so take with a hefty grain of salt) so people are more likely to get tagged.

There's also the accusation that "full stop then turn right on red" at camera intersections is not done in the interests of traffic safety but revenue generation. Don't know what the studies say on that, though.

EDIT: From everything I've heard the best way to increase intersection safety (as opposed to wanting to enforce it more) is to simply have a delayed green: when one side goes red, the opposing green light will not switch for a second or two to give traffic time to clear the intersection. You can still enforce red light runners of course, but if your real interest is safety they should have delayed greens. If some locality doesn't do that and thinks just installing cameras is "good enough" I'd have to seriously question their motivations.

[Stark]

To clarify - How many times have you been pulled over for traffic violations? Out of all those times only once the officer asked for your license?

I guess it depends what you mean; back in the day I got stopped a few times for roadworthiness issues (like tail lights) and however many times for RBTs. Even this case wasn't really a 'traffic violation', the cop was just annoyed. I imagine if they flag you for speeding or whatever they'd have to check your licence.

[Kamakazie Sith]

That sounds like quite a hassle, mainly because of the false positive thing.

I mean they have valid insurance but it's from out of state/their company didn't check the boxes from some other company and it shows as "no insurance" and so you get to go to the DMV and prove it? Does the DMV do these checks or do those letters only go out in response to an issued citation?

Are out of state tags exempt since presumably their insurance is also out of state and so it seems likely Insurite won't find it?

I guess the question is how many false positives you (the general you, as in officers statewide) would be getting with this system. If it's "a lot" I would be in support of altering policy so as not to do stops based on this system, at least until something more reliable comes along, because I can see it being really really annoying to get stopped for lack of insurance when, in fact, you do have it.

It can be a hassle when you get a false positive. It certainly isn't perfect but reasonable suspicion isn't defined that way and since we're talking about it neither is probable cause. In my experience the system is accurate most of the time but I do not have any actual figures.

The DMV sends out of those letters when Insurite flags a vehicle as not being covered by insurance. When you receive that letter then IIRC you must come down and provide proof. I don't think you can do it online or via fax but I'm not totally sure on that.

Out of state tags are only exempt if insurance information from their state is not included. CA transmits insurance information for their vehicles so when I run a CA plate I can see their insurance status.

Again, in my experience the check is accurate most of the time and I've only had a handful of people become irritated.

[Kamakazie Sith]

To clarify - How many times have you been pulled over for traffic violations? Out of all those times only once the officer asked for your license?

I guess it depends what you mean; back in the day I got stopped a few times for roadworthiness issues (like tail lights) and however many times for RBTs. Even this case wasn't really a 'traffic violation', the cop was just annoyed. I imagine if they flag you for speeding or whatever they'd have to check your licence.

Ah, so the thoroughness of the stop depends on the reason. A safety check or DUI checkpoint won't result in your license or registration being inspected but a traffic violation will. Seems reasonable to me.

[RogueIce]

It can be a hassle when you get a false positive. It certainly isn't perfect but reasonable suspicion isn't defined that way and since we're talking about it neither is probable cause. In my experience the system is accurate most of the time but I do not have any actual figures.

The DMV sends out of those letters when Insurite flags a vehicle as not being covered by insurance. When you receive that letter then IIRC you must come down and provide proof. I don't think you can do it online or via fax but I'm not totally sure on that.

Out of state tags are only exempt if insurance information from their state is not included. CA transmits insurance information for their vehicles so when I run a CA plate I can see their insurance status.

Again, in my experience the check is accurate most of the time and I've only had a handful of people become irritated.

That's cool then. And just to clarify I'm not saying if they generate false positives it shouldn't count as reasonable suspicion for a stop. I was just saying that, as a strictly policy matter (rather than legal) if it did give bad info, let's say, 45% of the time or whatever, it should be evaluated whether it's worth the hassle or not until a more reliable system is put into place. Kinda like if you know your radar gun is giving inaccurate speeds you wouldn't use it, you'd turn it in for a new one while they fix whatever's broken.

I guess it depends what you mean; back in the day I got stopped a few times for roadworthiness issues (like tail lights) and however many times for RBTs. Even this case wasn't really a 'traffic violation', the cop was just annoyed. I imagine if they flag you for speeding or whatever they'd have to check your licence.

KS responded but I'll say this anyway, because I think several people aren't quite on the same page with the terminology.

In general when most US posters are talking about "traffic stops" it's the situation where you're driving along, minding your own business and a police car pulls in behind you, turns on the lights and you pull over to the side of the road.

Personally, I don't have an issue with DUI checkpoints and the like, provided that they're being employed in a manner that isn't just a waste of resources. But that's a policy issue more than a legal one.

Now arbitrary, random traffic stops (lights on, pull over) just because the officer felt like checking you out is something else, and I think what some of the US posters (but not all) are taking issue with.