DWI's are treated too lightly . The jackass that hit my wife was convicted of THIRD OFFENSE DWI . And the Prosecutor said that he had two more that were too old to count . In my wife's situation he was given credit for time served since he couldn't make Bail , and given a fine .

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
If the government really wanted to stop intoxicated drivers they would implement vehicle forfeitures for first time offences. 5 years drivers license revocation.

Second offence: mandatory 3 year prison sentence and lifetime ban on driving.

I agree. But there's way more money in the fine and legal cost revenue stream than in auctioning off a beater car one time. Repeat offenders are gold mines for the system's coffers.

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
If the government really wanted to stop intoxicated drivers they would implement vehicle forfeitures for first time offences.

That would certainly screw a lot of banks and loan places that hold title to most of the vehicles out there, as well as manufactures who lease the cars.

In some states there are certain requirements, Massachusetts has quite a few to include,
Prior notice and publication of location, date and time, also frequency of vehicles stopped every 5th or 7th etc, limited and specific questions, more stringent than if you’re stopped for a traffic infraction. Been to a few suppression motions on them and most time the government loses, can’t produce records or publication history, officer can’t recall what he said. Not done here much do to extra requirements by our state constitution.

If you have ever worked a checkpoint, you might be glad checkpoints exist. I assist our department at these frequently over the past 20 years.

We are all driving around with high risk individuals, with various issues and having illegal items. Checkpoints can and do identify such drivers.

The number of people receiving valid and meaningful citations at our checkpoints is amazing. As is the professionalism of our officers who interact with a typically short-tempered public.

I have not seen a DWI check point since before moving to Florida 23 years ago from New Jersey. In New Jersey they had to publish in the local daily news paper their locations.

I worry just as much about the ass holes who are driving while fucking with their phones as I do the drunk drivers.
I was Talking to an FHP officer a few month ago and said that some day cell phone distracted drivers are going to kill more people then drunk drivers, his response was, they already are.

quote:

Originally posted by Hammer1967:
I never understood why they didn’t set up in front of bars when they let out.
Ya know hunt where the ducks are kinda of thing.

Who says we didn't? We used to do that all the time. I hate DUI's. Arresting them was a passion of mine. I posted up in front of our bars in my city all the time. Just watching the people stumble out and climb in the vehicle. We had a cowboy bar in town and I was 100% when watching for cowboys leaving alone in there truck. Find a violation. Stop violation. Busted hundreds of DUI's that way.

We also used to foot patrol the cars in the parking lot. We looked for open containers for the after party and then just waited. Good times...

As for the DUI check points this cop refused to work them. Happily after many arguments I got the chief to give up on the idea of doing them. Mainly because he saw how easy it was to pinch these idiots.

Pulled a late-nighter at work, trouble-shooting a problem. Stopped for a burger and coffee on the way home, about the time that bars were closing. Guy at the diner advised us of a DUI checkpoint just down the road.

We had not had any alcohol, and wanting to be ready to get through the checkpoint quickly, dug out license, registration, and insurance card, instead of waiting until we got there to search and fumble.

Cop walks up, my co-worker who was driving quickly hands over the documents. Cop is surprised that everything was ready and at hand, and asks if we had been stopped earlier that night.

"Nope, but we heard that you were interviewing tonight." Cop cracks up and motions for us to be on our way.

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:
If checkpoints for warrantless stops are fine then why not just go door (public or private) looking for a crime?

Homes have a higher expectation of privacy than motor vehicles.

Last time I hit one, in 2010 or so, I had been out shooting clays and had two shotguns, maybe 200 more shells, and about 600 fired hulls in two open top boxes. The fired hulls gave off their usual pheromones, and it was clear he smelled it, but couldn’t place the smell.

Off he goes on a fishing expedition asking if I’d been drinking, where I was coming from and going to, pure fishing expedition.

I said “Can I have my license, registration, and insurance card, please.”

He handed them back and said “Move along.”

It's funny how some people (on both sides) are perfectly OK with the violation of rights if it involves their pet cause.

It's all or nothing folks.

quote:

Originally posted by mcrimm:
I've never come across one of these in over 50 years of driving.

I have been driving for about 70 years. Drove in virtually every western Europe country, both military vehicles and POVs. Spent a year in Iran as a military advisor and drove all over that country and North Africa. But then I never had an occasion to get involved with their police forces.

10,000 people per year who can't seem to stay the hell off of the streets when people are drunk driving are behind these storm troopers.

When will they learn?

They knew the job was dangerous when they took it.

Now they want us to feel bad for little jimmy, Joan and jasper because he died under a drunk guys pickup

quote:

Originally posted by AKA T.S.:

quote:

Originally posted by Hammer1967:
I never understood why they didn’t set up in front of bars when they let out.
Ya know hunt where the ducks are kinda of thing.

That Bar, and its suppliers, pay a lot of taxes. Most non violent laws are revenue producing schemes. They have to balance the take.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "balancing the take," but if you are inferring that "they" [police officers] are concerned about how much revenue is generated by arrests, you are dead wrong.

I sat outside of bars for years during DWI enforcement patrol, and what I saw, without fail, were potential killers leaving the bar with piss-stained pants, falling down in the parking lot as they walked to their 4,000 pound missiles, and driving off down the road, without a second's thought about you, me, or our families. It was my life's pleasure to pull those criminals out of their vehicles, make them stand in front of my patrol car in the take-down lights so that passing motorists could see their piss-stained jeans, and take them to jail. You can damn well bet that I never once considered revenue, taxes, or "balancing the take." I did it to save innocent lives, and I'm confident that I'm speaking for other officers.

As for the constitutionality of checkpoints, Michigan v. Sitz (1990) ruled checkpoints to be Constitutional because motor vehicles have a lesser expectation of privacy than residences, must be done in a specific sequence (i.e., every 10th car), not at random which eliminates selective "profiling," and with pre-checkpoint planning and media advertising. The purpose of a sobriety checkpoint, and advertising in advance, is DETERRENCE, not arrests; therefore, no "revenue schemes," or "balancing the take." If you make a DWI arrest, good, but if you keep drunks off the road, that's great.

Drunk drivers kill 10,000 plus people every year without fail. Because of this, I'm personally not bothered if I'm stopped for 5 minutes at a sobriety checkpoint.

I've delivered death messages to parents whose kids were killed by drunk drivers. Believe me, I'll take being briefly stopped at checkpoints all day long.

quote:

Originally posted by 71 TRUCK:
I have not seen a DWI check point since before moving to Florida 23 years ago from New Jersey. In New Jersey they had to publish in the local daily news paper their locations.

I worry just as much about the ass holes who are driving while fucking with their phones as I do the drunk drivers.
I was Talking to an FHP officer a few month ago and said that some day cell phone distracted drivers are going to kill more people then drunk drivers, his response was, they already are.

They are. A local PD officer I know said “At least the drunks try to drive” referring to these idiots face down while driving. He says the same thing, it’s worse than drunks. I don’t understand why society tolerates one thing and vilifies the other. Same shit as far as I’m concerned. If Chad or Karen want to play on their pacifier while driving, pull them over, and lock their asses up.

Slight thread drift, but this is a good place for my question rather than starting a new thread.

Are there alternative field sobriety tests for folks who are not able to do the standard tests (walk toe-to-toe or stand on one leg)?

A couple of months ago, I was in a minor accident and the LEO who responded decided he was “sure” I’d been drinking (I hadn’t been). He asks me if I’d be willing to conduct a field sobriety test. I tell him ‘Sure’ but add that I’d stumbled over some toys my grandkids had left out, had injured both knees and an ankle, and didn’t think my knees and/or ankle would hold up.

The LEO says ‘So, you’re refusing the test?’ I told him again that I was happy to try, but was pretty sure I’d be physically unable to do so. I tried and, no surprise, could not complete either test. (I also did the ‘hold still and follow my finger’ test. I thought I did fine. The LEO said I failed that too.)

After all this, he had me do the chemical breathalyzer. To his obvious surprise, it cleared me. But, I was was wondering what happens if a driver is physically incapable of doing the field sobriety test because of age, injury, etc?

The best arrests were made when I sat along the road about a half mile from the checkpoint. Make an illegal U-turn and get stopped.
Drunk. Seriously drunk, not two beers.
Under License Suspension. And drunk.
Multiple warrants.
I was a winner of the county wide M.A.D.D Award one year. No real effort made on my part. I just worked the wrecks.
It was common to arrest a drunk on one night and see his car in the bar parking lot the next night.
Answer for CoolRich: The FST only part of building PC for an OMVI arrest. I often would find people who were not able to stand long enough to complete the test. Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus is one test for someone who may not be able to complete the FST. One Chick I stopped fell over a guardrail and down an embankment before I could grab her.

quote:

Originally posted by CoolRich59:
Slight thread drift, but this is a good place for my question rather than starting a new thread.

Are there alternative field sobriety tests for folks who are not able to do the standard tests (walk toe-to-toe or stand on one leg)?

A couple of months ago, I was in a minor accident and the LEO who responded decided he was “sure” I’d been drinking (I hadn’t been). He asks me if I’d be willing to conduct a field sobriety test. I tell him ‘Sure’ but add that I’d stumbled over some toys my grandkids had left out, had injured both knees and an ankle, and didn’t think my knees and/or ankle would hold up.

The LEO says ‘So, you’re refusing the test?’ I told him again that I was happy to try, but was pretty sure I’d be physically unable to do so. I tried and, no surprise, could not complete either test. (I also did the ‘hold still and follow my finger’ test. I thought I did fine. The LEO said I failed that too.)

After all this, he had me do the chemical breathalyzer. To his obvious surprise, it cleared me. But, I was was wondering what happens if a driver is physically incapable of doing the field sobriety test because of age, injury, etc?

^^^^^
Yes. They were developed for DUI/DWI boaters. I used to see them all the time when I worked in an area with several reservoirs.

quote:

Originally posted by CoolRich59:
Slight thread drift, but this is a good place for my question rather than starting a new thread.

Are there alternative field sobriety tests for folks who are not able to do the standard tests (walk toe-to-toe or stand on one leg)?

A couple of months ago, I was in a minor accident and the LEO who responded decided he was “sure” I’d been drinking (I hadn’t been). He asks me if I’d be willing to conduct a field sobriety test. I tell him ‘Sure’ but add that I’d stumbled over some toys my grandkids had left out, had injured both knees and an ankle, and didn’t think my knees and/or ankle would hold up.

The LEO says ‘So, you’re refusing the test?’ I told him again that I was happy to try, but was pretty sure I’d be physically unable to do so. I tried and, no surprise, could not complete either test. (I also did the ‘hold still and follow my finger’ test. I thought I did fine. The LEO said I failed that too.)

After all this, he had me do the chemical breathalyzer. To his obvious surprise, it cleared me. But, I was was wondering what happens if a driver is physically incapable of doing the field sobriety test because of age, injury, etc?

Hello. I hope I can help you. The Standardized Field Sobriety Testing battery consists of 3 tests that are done the same way each and every time. The officers are looking for standardized "clues," which have been scientifically proven to indicate impairment.

2 of the 3 tests involve physical movement, and divide your attention on a simultaneous mental and physical task. These tests have been validated through NHTSA testing; however, there are times when some of these tests may not be practical (uneven surface, stopped on a hill, weather, traffic volume, advanced age, physical infirmity, etc.).

In the eye test you received, a person under the influence of alcohol exhibits an involuntary eye response. This eye test does not require physical effort and is also the most reliable indicator of impairment. This eye test, along with the odor of intoxicants, reddened eyes, slurred speech, and a breath test, are the best tools for an officer who is dealing with a person of limited physical mobility.

WRT to MI vs. Sitz, isn't it just amazing how the SCOTUS can come up with the mental gymnastics of how something is Constitutional as long as it's random, advertised in advance, etc? When the fook did those become exceptions to the Fourth Amendment? I want drunks taken off the roads as much as anyone else does. But I also don't just accept a SCOTUS decision as "Oh, it must be Constitutional then."