DUI checkpoint discussion

[fordlltwm]

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.

I got stopped a few weeks ago (in the UK), blues and twos on and indicators to pull into a layby (sp?), got asked to step out of the car, breathalised, had the number plates run, a look in all the windows, checked my tyres, had a few questions asked of me, "travelling alone? where've you been? this your car?" e.t.c which lasted at most 5 minutes and then I was free to go, I don't recall ever been asked for my driving license.
To be fair I was driving home from a notoriously drug infested town at 1 a.m. but it didn't bother me that much, although the look on the coppers face when I answered no to whether it was my car was priceless, I then added it was my parents after a short pause.

[SCRawl]

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.

I thought that this was all understood, but the fact that you've posted it hopefully removes all misunderstanding about the relevant terms. And I'm finding that I agree with the positions you've taken here.

[Stark]

That seems backwards to me. How is a random stop for literally no reason less intrusive (in whatever rights way people are concerned about) than pulling people over for 30s to bust drink drivers?

I don't think I've ever even heard of cops stopping someone for no reason here. What would be the point? When US cops do this, are they searching databases or whatever? Is it some clumsy 'establish a presence' thing?

[Flagg]

That seems backwards to me. How is a random stop for literally no reason less intrusive (in whatever rights way people are concerned about) than pulling people over for 30s to bust drink drivers?

I don't think I've ever even heard of cops stopping someone for no reason here. What would be the point? When US cops do this, are they searching databases or whatever? Is it some clumsy 'establish a presence' thing?

It doesn't happen. Legally it cannot happen to my understanding. I was just saying I'd take no real issue with it happening.

[RogueIce]

I don't think I've ever even heard of cops stopping someone for no reason here. What would be the point? When US cops do this, are they searching databases or whatever? Is it some clumsy 'establish a presence' thing?

Well, no. US police don't just stop you randomly, they can't. They need a reason. KS can get into the more technical side of what might constitute "reasonable suspicion" but the very basic way of stating it is that they need to witness some form of traffic violation (speeding, tail light out, illegal lane change, etc) before hitting the lights and pulling you over.

The impression I've been getting in the thread is that non-US cops don't need a "reason" they could, in theory, just light up whoever. Now in practice they may not do this and instead wait for some cause to initiate a stop, but legally there's no reason they couldn't.

If that's incorrect please let me know.

That seems backwards to me. How is a random stop for literally no reason less intrusive (in whatever rights way people are concerned about) than pulling people over for 30s to bust drink drivers?

Well in terms of checkpoints vs random traffic stops, the difference (at least for me) is that a checkpoint is "neutral" whereas a traffic stop is the officer singling me, personally, out for attention.

To go with the earlier airport security example, going through a TSA checkpoint is "neutral" because everyone going into the terminal has to do it (specifics of TSA search policies aside). So if I'm boarding a flight or going into a courthouse or whatever it's just the procedure, and everyone else going to that same place is also being "searched" as it were. Whereas a random traffic stop would be like me walking along the street and a police officer walks up, tells me to hold my hands out to my side and does a patdown. No reason, just checking to see if I was carrying a weapon.

So a DUI checkpoint is me blowing into a breathalyzer because I was driving along some stretch of road, and everyone else driving down this road has to do the same. Which, to me, is different than they just picked my car out at random to pull me and have me blow, because I got unlucky that day or something.

[Stark]

I can see the distinction between random stops and checkpoints, but it's fascinating to me that Americans believe the police would use any ability they have to annoy people as much as possible (especially considering American police are already way more annoying than those in other countries). What's the motive to do this? What would drive a police an to just annoy people, and why wouldn't they just get disciplined for wasting time and pissing people off?

It seems that as much as Americans are afraid of police abusing whatever powers they may have, people in other countries can't understand why they'd even bother. This is what I mean with the cultural differences between trying to prevent a behaviour (harassment) and actually making it worse, and just expecting police to not be annoying pricks. Cops in Australia almost certainly have all the confirmation bias and frustrations of American police (minus the constant fear of random death of course) and yet they use their apparently broader powers less. That's what interests me - if Americans have 'rights' that 'protect' them, why are your cops so much more annoying/violent/oppressive/whatever? Clearly these 'rights' are not working.

[Silver Jedi]

it's fascinating to me that Americans believe the police would use any ability they have to annoy people as much as possible (especially considering American police are already way more annoying than those in other countries).

Part of this may be the prevalence of purely anecdotal evidence of it happening. That is, there are enough people who claim to have been harassed/unfairly stopped, etc, combined with a few high profile cases of it actually happening that it has become a cultural meme.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I can see the distinction between random stops and checkpoints, but it's fascinating to me that Americans believe the police would use any ability they have to annoy people as much as possible (especially considering American police are already way more annoying than those in other countries). What's the motive to do this? What would drive a police an to just annoy people, and why wouldn't they just get disciplined for wasting time and pissing people off?

It fascinates me as well. The motive is likely racism or ego boost. As far as getting disciplined for wasting time and pissing people off. Well, the other side of the coin regarding complaints is that some are false. So, how do you separate false complaints from valid?

It seems that as much as Americans are afraid of police abusing whatever powers they may have, people in other countries can't understand why they'd even bother. This is what I mean with the cultural differences between trying to prevent a behaviour (harassment) and actually making it worse, and just expecting police to not be annoying pricks. Cops in Australia almost certainly have all the confirmation bias and frustrations of American police (minus the constant fear of random death of course) and yet they use their apparently broader powers less. That's what interests me - if Americans have 'rights' that 'protect' them, why are your cops so much more annoying/violent/oppressive/whatever? Clearly these 'rights' are not working.

Our society is much more annoying/violent/oppressive.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I object to being called an idiot for opposing DUI checkpoints when Scientific studies as the one in 2003 referenced in this AAA website are shown to be just as effective or more effective in eliminating drink drivers from the road. The issue is that the checkpoints are not more effective than non-checkpoint methods, so the police are using checkpoints to intrude in the lives of law abiding people for no good reason.

[Stark]

That page links to a study that is 404 and in their page on 'sobriety checkpoints' says

A systematic review of 15 studies conducted for The Community Guide to Preventive Services concluded that strong evidence exists for the effectiveness of sobriety checkpoints in decreasing the incidence of DUI (CDC, 2002). These checkpoints were found to decrease fatal crashes between 20% and 26%, and property damage collisions by an average of 24% (Elder et al, 2002). While sobriety checkpoints have been shown as effective, one study found that only 38% of drivers with a BAC of 0.08 or above were detected during a routine sobriety checkpoint (Wells, 1997), indicating the challenges law enforcement have in consistently detecting hardcore and other drunk drivers.

Which appears to suggest even broken American checkpoints (which only catch 38% of drunk drivers because of hopscotch) have a measurable and positive affect on road safety.

In AU, you'd get better results by placing out four witches' hats and having two police and a traffic cop.

Kamakaze Sith, do you have any experience with the mentality behind the sort of harassment people talk about? In other news stories (around more violent situations like warrant issuing and drug busts etc) people have talked about the adversarial relationship cops have with regular people due to the 'warlike' situation they are in. I'm curious if this sort of mentality might actually be added to by the frustrations of enforcement.

EDIT - HAHA! In the funniest shit to come from this, this says that while cops aren't allowed to get an actual real scientific sample of breath, they can use PASSIVE ALCOHOL SENSORS to DETECT ALCOHOL IN THE CABIN!

Talk about fucking backwards.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Sorry about the lack of a good source. Here's another one to correct for that:

Agencies voluntarily move away from DUI checkpoints and toward saturation patrols

[SCRawl]

I don't get the 404, so here's the relevant content:

Definition: Saturation patrols involve law enforcement deploying additional police officers to targeted roadways during select time periods to detect and apprehend impaired drivers.

Executive Summary: The primary focus for officers during these patrols is to find impaired drivers by observing changes in driving behaviors, while also looking out for any traffic violations by motorists. The behaviors most often assessed are: lane deviation, following too closely, reckless or aggressive driving and/or speeding (Greene, 2003). The intention of this heavier police presence is to increase motorists’ perception that they will be arrested if they drive drunk. Saturation patrols are legal in all 50 states, and do not present many legal issues beyond those associated with routine traffic stops.

More Detail: Measured in arrests per working hour, these blanket patrols are viewed by some as the most effective method of apprehending drunken drivers (Greene, 2003). Saturation patrols can be as effective, or more effective than sobriety checkpoints in apprehending hardcore drunken drivers who often evade checkpoints. Many police departments favor them over sobriety checkpoints for their effectiveness, reduced staffing, and the comparative ease of operating saturation patrols. Adequate publicity is needed though, to reap the deterrence effect more commonly associated with sobriety checkpoints.

I'm finding it hard to compare apples to apples here. The sobriety checkpoint successes are measured in reductions in negative outcomes, whereas the saturation patrols are measured in arrests per working hour.

EDIT:

For the record, I'm in favour of whatever works. If saturation patrols get more drunks out of cars and into jails, then do some saturation patrols. If sobriety checkpoints increase awareness (and fear of being caught) enough that fewer drunks get into their cars in the first place, then do that too. (You'll notice that your second article mentions that the CMPD is still doing both of these, probably for the same reasons.) Do these things in the optimal proportions to achieve the most favourable results for the least resources. That has the making of good public policy.

[Stark]

Its the link in the 'sources cited' bit below that (ie the actual content) that is broken. I found something similar above.

Its pretty funny to compare the number of DUI arrests between the numbers in Ohio (ie fuck all, some thousands) to the 32,000 DUI arrests in Queensland alone in a year. PS, Queensland has like 4 million people. :V

EDIT - Everything I've seen talks about the educational and deterrance value of checkpoints (although obviously this is more useful in non-American countries) but a lot of what I see is reports by or for the police, so I'm not sure if they're not just spinning it, given the more man-hours per arrest they entail.

An Australian study (warning, actual study, hells dry) includes near the start a hilarious set of recommendations that are basically 'don't be America'. When looking at NSW road statistics from 76 on, they say

The direct relationship between increases in testing levels and reductions in serious accidents has important policy implications. It is obvious that not all serious accidents are alcohol-related and also that because of the slowly diminishing returns even alcohol-related accidents cannot be eliminated entirely just by increasing testing levels (even if such a policy were practical). Nevertheless, the model suggests that even modest increases in the number of tests conducted each year could result in worthwhile reductions in accidents. For example, a 10% increase on current testing levels (which are around 6300 per day) is predicted to produce a reduction of about 3.5% in serious accidents.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The "fear" factor or intimidation of checkpoints which are required by the supreme court to be published in advance of when they occur and are at a fixed location versus a dozen unmarked cars surging around a group of bars and nightclubs around closing in a saturation patrol is a dubious claim by a group invested in checkpoint promotion at best.

[Stark]

The "fear" factor or intimidation of checkpoints which are required by the supreme court to be published in advance of when they occur and are at a fixed location versus a dozen unmarked cars surging around a group of bars and nightclubs around closing in a saturation patrol is a dubious claim by a group invested in checkpoint promotion at best.

Is this a paranoid fantasy you made up, or do you honestly think police in America would do this?

By contrast, in the real non-insane world, AU cops just set up down the road from an offramp on friday night and arrest people for being drunk. SURGING THE NIGHTCLUBS!

[The Duchess of Zeon]

That is what a saturation patrol IS, and I have witnessed them before and was pulled over in one once for having a busted licence plate light, though let off after promising to fix it at the auto parts store two blocks on, as nothing else was wrong. It is not a fantasy, it is the described alternative to DUI checkpoints and I've regularly seen them in Washington and Oregon where DUI checkpoints are illegal, a good 8+ patrol cars, at least half unmarked, roving down the main drag of a town with lots of bars and flipping on their lights to pull over anyone on the slightest cause, paying especial focus on anyone weaving.

That's the described kind of patrol which gets 4+ times as many DUI arrests, and I consider them lawful, constitutional, and acceptable, and didn't have a problem with it. Big difference from a checkpoint which is creating a roadblock to summarily do a papers check of everyone going through.

[Mr Bean]

Is this a paranoid fantasy you made up, or do you honestly think police in America would do this?

As has already taken place? Here's a fun thing, go to Google video search type in "police brutality" and "DUI checkpoint" in Google and you can find quite a few videos like this one about things going south to citizens stopped. Switch out "police brutality" for "illegal roadblock" and you can find stories of Republican districts deciding to hold DUI checkpoints at the only route out of a major Democratic party meeting in that state, or Republicans finding dozens of roads mysteriously closed for road construction and a DUI checkpoint on the only way out in a Democratic district.

We've already covered thus, America has a long history of abuse by authority, we fear it. America has a long history of racism that makes Australia look like Iceland. And last we have simple effectiveness, shutting down road traffic is only effective if your targeting something. That something is normally a bar, and in most places that something is normally a not nice to cops bar.

As Duchess just covered in the post above, if you wanted to argue any of the above three points (As a tool of Abuse, as a method of Racial segregation and on effectiveness merits) your going to have to come to the table with something better than "Nu-uh!"

A cop who pulls me over for a bust tail light, aggressive or dangerous driving is acting within his purview as an officer of the law. Once he's stopped me for such a reason and he wants to preform a sobriety test, he's within his powers to ask for one as I'm in my power to refuse to take that test.

[Stark]

The reasons you use to cling to your talisman and reject (apparently effacious) methods don't really interest me beyond America having an outrageously fucked culture. As I asked KS above, I'm interested in the idea that the distinctive restrictions placed on American police add to this problem, rather than reducing it as I imagine the restrictions intuitively should.

And sorry, Zeon posted studies that don't even appear to say what she thought they did. There's a broader issue here than your fears, and I think it's stunning that even handicapped American methods can produce useful results. All the people who die because the methods are handicapped? Oh well.

[EdgarjPublius]

In Texas (and possibly elsewhere) we have an interesting alternative to DUI checkpoints or 'Saturation Patrols'.

Preselected dates (typically holiday weekends, dates with elevated rates of drunk driving) are designated 'no refusal'. Really this just means stepped up presence of patrol cars, and enough judges are on call over-night so the police can get a warrant to take a blood-sample from anyone they pull over who refuses a breathalyzer.

I like that it involves judges more in the process compared to other drunk-driving crackdowns, even if they are basically rubber-stamping warrants.

I'd like to see more in the way of actual studies on the effectiveness of various methods on reducing the incidence of drunk driving though. It seems like the subject is under-represented in the literature.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Kamakaze Sith, do you have any experience with the mentality behind the sort of harassment people talk about? In other news stories (around more violent situations like warrant issuing and drug busts etc) people have talked about the adversarial relationship cops have with regular people due to the 'warlike' situation they are in. I'm curious if this sort of mentality might actually be added to by the frustrations of enforcement.

I would have to say no for traffic violations, including DUIs. Compared to drug related investigations traffic and DUI are very easy and those officers assigned to DUI enforcement usually do just fine on a given night.

However, for more serious enforcement offenses that is a possibility. I can think of one situation in which this may have come into play. In this situation this officer, whose primary responsibility is street level drug interdiction, had passed a car that was parked in a dark parking lot of a closed business. He recognized the occupants of the vehicle as persons with a history of possession with intent to distribute. He detains them. During the investigation he is not able to develop probable cause for a search. They refuse to consent to a search. So, he begins to look around for "No trespassing" signs so he can arrest them for that and subsequently search them. He isn't able to find any. When all is said and done he ended up detaining them for at least 45 minutes without anything coming of it.

The restriction likely increased the time these individuals were detained. To them it may have appeared to be harassment. To the court it would only become harassment if it exceeding the scope of the stop. I think it bordered on doing so. He stopped them because he suspected them of possessing drugs. He investigated under that mindset and when it didn't provide he switched to a trespassing investigation...even though it was brief.

[Kamakazie Sith]

A cop who pulls me over for a bust tail light, aggressive or dangerous driving is acting within his purview as an officer of the law. Once he's stopped me for such a reason and he wants to preform a sobriety test, he's within his powers to ask for one as I'm in my power to refuse to take that test.

Going straight from DUI suspected traffic violation to request for sobriety test would result in a very weak case without anything in between. However, I can tell you that if you are personally showing signs of intoxication then a refusal makes it a lot easier since the tests are what defense attorneys frequently attack to suppress the rest of the evidence (chemical test).

[eyl]

I don't think I've ever even heard of cops stopping someone for no reason here. What would be the point? When US cops do this, are they searching databases or whatever? Is it some clumsy 'establish a presence' thing?

The police here do occasional random checks on drivers (I used to be a Civil Guard volunteer, so I've been on both ends of one). Basically a patrol car flags down random passing vehicles and checks registration, insurance and license validity. The point is to create a disincentive to driving without a license or valid registration, since you may be subject to a spot check.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Stark, in a common law system you can't consider some nebulous concept of public good based on intimidating people into obeying the law. You've got to demonstrate a major advantage of the tactic which is intrusive, which means, arrest rate. This was why DUI checkpoints were originally legalized in many states, and it's why even then they should be replaced by surge patrols immediately, because of the great improvement in arrest rate.

I think that lays out my position, and there's certainly enough evidence for it that I provided. If you don't like it you can resume mocking me, though really I don't much care about that. Less intrusive ways of dealing with DUIs are preferred and would be better for everyone, like a lifetime breathalyzer interlock requirement for anyone convicted of multiple DUI counts, and of course the continuing surge patrol system.

[SCRawl]

Big difference from a checkpoint which is creating a roadblock to summarily do a papers check of everyone going through.

This is what I'm having a hard time understanding, because the bolded part just isn't what happens. Perhaps your experience is different, but every time I've been stopped at one of these sobriety checkpoints -- we call them the R.I.D.E. (Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere) program here -- I've never been asked to provide anything other than a brief exchange of pleasantries and an answer to a question about my recent drinking (or lack thereof). There just isn't time for anything else, and unless there's an officer typing away like a madman on a computer to run everyone's license plate as they file slowly through, no one knows that I've ever been pulled over.

Now, to be fair, I recognize that this happens in Canada, with all that entails with respect to racial relations. I'm not a member of a visible minority or a group that is proportionally more likely to have a bad result when dealing with law enforcement. In these senses I guess I'm kind of lucky. But it seems to me that dealing with the problems for those not as lucky as I am is to do away with the bad police officers, not to throw out an effective tool.

Less intrusive ways of dealing with DUIs are preferred and would be better for everyone, like a lifetime breathalyzer interlock requirement for anyone convicted of multiple DUI counts, and of course the continuing surge patrol system.

We do these too. For instance:

Drivers will be subject to Ontario's Ignition Interlock Program if they are:

convicted of an impaired driving offence under the Criminal Code of Canada
suspended for registering a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.05 to 0.08 three or more times in a five-year period.

After serving the provincial sanctions, including licence suspensions and a mandatory remedial measures program, all drivers convicted of drinking and driving offences that are eligible to have their driver's licence reinstated will have an ignition interlock condition ("I") placed on their Ontario driver's licence:

First-time offenders will have an ignition interlock condition on their licence for a minimum of 1 year.
Second-time offenders will have the condition for a minimum of 3 years.
Third-time offenders will have the condition on their licence indefinitely if it is reinstated after a minimum 10-year suspension.

The program does not apply to fourth-time offenders, as their licence will never be reinstated. Drivers who are suspended for registering a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.05 to 0.08 three or more times in a five-year period will have an ignition interlock condition placed on their licence for six months after serving their 30 day licence suspension.

Drivers who choose to drive while their licence is subject to an ignition interlock condition must register with an approved interlock service provider to have the ignition interlock device installed. The device must be inspected regularly by the service provider.

Drivers who choose not to install an interlock device must not drive until the condition is removed from their licence.

We take this stuff seriously here, at least in our laws. Part of taking this seriously includes the highly visible RIDE program, and it's continued because it's effective; it doesn't get as many arrests as saturation patrols, because that's really not its purpose.

[Enigma]

I've never been stopped by the police except for the two instances of speeding. But for the matter of a DUI checkpoints, I don't have a problem with them as long as they work. Then again I come from Canada and haven't got the hangups about the police and whether they'll try to screw me over.

As for someone here mentioning the airport scanners, they are going to be replaced sometime this summer to a different type of scanner, one that uses L3 millimeter wave.