the two drunk drivers could have potentially killed someone? are you really arguing that taking even 1 drunk driver off the road wouldn't have been worth it?

12/15/2008 10:51:26 AM

Quote :

"the two drunk drivers could have potentially killed someone? are you really arguing that taking even 1 drunk driver off the road wouldn't have been worth it?"

I'll accept getting stopped for no apparent reason if it means that officer's persistence pays off with preventative actions - like giving someone a DUI or worse.

12/15/2008 11:03:15 AM

Let me respond to IRSeriousCats comment

Quote :

"reducing the limit from .1 to .08 has resulted in no change in alcohol related deaths and only had a change in number of people arrested. despite this fact, if you have a .08 you still get arrested yet your being in custody has no benefit to society since the .08 and .09 level adjustments have had no impact on alcohol related accidents. thus its about money, pure and simple."

Your assumption on this is completely wrong and i will tell you why. on most DWI stops a cop will use a PBT, which will test the BAC but this test is not admissible in court but it is allowed to help make PC on the side of the road when combined with Standard Field Sobriety Tests. Anyways, generally speaking, if the person blows a .08 or a .09 on the road and does not completely and terribly screw up on the SFST, most cops will simply tell them to call a ride, walk home or simply wait in the car for a little while until they are sober. and most people when given this choice instead of going to jail will happily take the offer. the reason is because DWI paperwork and processing is so time consuming, and there is an automatic half hour wait before the official BAC test anyways, its not worth it to take them to jail (also how long will the ride to jail take) because by the time they blow they may not even be over the limit. so yes, believe it or not, cops do give warnings on DWI stops and we do use common sense. Now if you test someone and they blow a .08 or .09 on the road but completely screw up the SFST and are wobbling and cant keep their balance and are showing a lot of impairment, thats a different story because now you have a much greater case for impairment and their BAC level may actually be going up instead of down. The entire case for DWI is based on Appreciable Impairment, which means if you stop someone and they blow an .08 or .09 but they are not showing a huge amount of impairment, most cops will use common sense and discretion.

[Edited on December 15, 2008 at 11:29 AM. Reason : ']

12/15/2008 11:28:25 AM

the logic of some of you people amaze me..

12/15/2008 11:31:54 AM

what do you mean

12/15/2008 11:33:46 AM

Isn't NC a state where you can get a DUI blowing lower than the "legal limit" if you show signs of impairment during the sobriety test? Like you could blow a .05 but still get a DUI?

Or get a DUI regardless of age or BAC if you have a traffic infraction? I.e. you drift left of center and a cop pulls you over for it then you blow a .05?

[Edited on December 15, 2008 at 11:39 AM. Reason : ]

12/15/2008 11:37:28 AM

Quote :

"Anyways, generally speaking, if the person blows a .08 or a .09 on the road and does not completely and terribly screw up on the SFST, most cops will simply tell them to call a ride, walk home or simply wait in the car for a little while until they are sober."

No offense, but I have never in my life heard of that happening.

I just wish there was an accurate way for people to measure their own BAC instead of playing guessing games.

12/15/2008 11:46:05 AM

Quote :

"Isn't NC a state where you can get a DUI blowing lower than the "legal limit" if you show signs of impairment during the sobriety test? Like you could blow a .05 but still get a DUI?"

First off, in NC its DWI not DUI.....and yes, to answer your question, technically you can. however you would need a lot of proof about their impairment to even make it worth your while. i mean their driving and field tests would have to be horrendous to even consider it. and also technically you can be impaired on anything really under the law, illegal or prescription drugs come to mind. the law is driving while impaired, meaning your driving ability is compromised. but again you would have to show a ton of impairment signs to have a case

Quote :

"No offense, but I have never in my life heard of that happening."

trust me on this, im being completely honest, it does happen. its a case by case basis. i personally have done it several times for people



[Edited on December 15, 2008 at 11:55 AM. Reason : ']

12/15/2008 11:46:36 AM

^ and any lawyer worth half a fuck would have no problem getting it dismissed from court, or at the very least, reduced to careless and wreckless.

12/15/2008 11:48:25 AM

yes thats true as well

12/15/2008 11:49:50 AM

and you are correct, it does happen. I have gotten pulled over twice where I have blown a .09 and allowed to call a ride to come get me. Like you said, it is case by case basis, and it all depends on how you act during the investigation.

12/15/2008 11:53:16 AM

thank you for making my point

12/15/2008 11:53:37 AM

In fact, both times the officer told me "I know by the time I get you downtown and you blow down there, you will probably blow under the limit. So there is no point wasting my time"

12/15/2008 11:54:32 AM

yeah pretty much

12/15/2008 11:55:28 AM

The return on investment for checkpoints is not very high. It is more of a public preception thing than getting people off the road.

12/15/2008 12:31:27 PM

you say that until some drunk ass redneck T-bones you and puts you in a wheelchair for the rest of your life.....

12/15/2008 12:47:38 PM

Quote :

"what a waste of tax money"

you think those officers had anything better to do???

12/15/2008 1:04:45 PM

Quote :

"you think those officers had anything better to do???"

A lot of the time, the check points aren't being operated by officers who would normally be working, instead they are over time shifts.

Quote :

"you say that until some drunk ass redneck T-bones you and puts you in a wheelchair for the rest of your life....."

yay, an emotional argument.

Check points don't work because people avoid check points.

[Edited on December 15, 2008 at 1:07 PM. Reason : .]

12/15/2008 1:06:25 PM

yeah i can imagine... gah...


i've been through 3 check points in the past 2 weeks....


[Edited on December 15, 2008 at 1:08 PM. Reason : .]

12/15/2008 1:07:12 PM

I go around check points because they waste my time. I fondly remember a time pulling into a friend's drive way and the cop who sits and waits for people pulling illegal turns came over to make sure I wasn't trying to illegally avoid the check point.

Either way it didn't matter since you have a legal right to legally avoid a checkpoint if you see it in the road in front of you.

12/15/2008 1:14:52 PM

Quote :

"you say that until some drunk ass redneck T-bones you and puts you in a wheelchair for the rest of your life..... "

[Edited on December 15, 2008 at 1:19 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on December 15, 2008 at 1:20 PM. Reason : ..]

12/15/2008 1:19:02 PM

There are 100s of other methods available that cost a whole lot less that would keep drunks off the road.

12/15/2008 1:22:05 PM

^Yep, like making the consumer pay for a mandatory in car alcohol detection system.

http://www.dadss.org/

[Edited on December 15, 2008 at 1:29 PM. Reason : consumer as in auto-buyer, not alcohol consumer]

12/15/2008 1:26:00 PM

That is an even dumber idea.

12/15/2008 1:31:17 PM

i cant really think of a way it wouldn't be a hindrance on people who don't consume much alcohol.

12/15/2008 1:33:12 PM

Quote :

"..and where did you get your "facts". did you just make them up"

NHTSA annual review. I think the one where they go into detail about the .08 vs .1 BAC effects on driving was 2003, and all the ones following that have comparison tables where it shows accidents before 1997 -2000 and ones following the instated .08 rule.

Quote :

"I don't think you understand correctly how the Constitution applies to searching vehicles."

as far as i can tell, i do and you do not. then again i'm only basing my interpretation of how it applies based multiple instances of case law which either forbid such checkpoints or as a rule post about the checkpoint and allow for an alternative passage way without interruption. what is it, pray tell, are you basing your interpretation and how is it that you perceive it?

Quote :

"Anyways, generally speaking, if the person blows a .08 or a .09 on the road and does not completely and terribly screw up on the SFST, most cops will simply tell them to call a ride, walk home or simply wait in the car for a little while until they are sober"

i believe that you actually do this, and i commend you for it because that is the way it should be. however, at checkpoints (which is what we're discussing) the BAT mobile has the intoxalyzer 5000 within it and people can blow on the spot thus the concern of them being under the limit by the time of test is irrelevant. Also, and i could definitely be mistaken on this point, I thought it was only a mandatory 20 minute observation period and an optional 30 minute (which includes the 20 within it) to wait for a witness should you so choose to do so?

12/15/2008 1:48:47 PM

Quote :

"pull you over for no reason just to check the sticker, but for a checkpoint set up for a legitimate reason, they're certainly entitled to look at the sticker. "

sigh. you are making my point for me with this sentence.

12/15/2008 1:55:11 PM

A cop can pull you over without any reason. I've been pulled over before and given an inspection sticker ticket without violating any traffic laws. Some of you would probably have a heart attack if you drove through a small town. As a teenager I was pulled over before to see what I "was up to being out this late." Even my mom got pulled several times when she was working 3rd shift to "make sure everything was ok, mam."

[Edited on December 15, 2008 at 2:07 PM. Reason : ]

12/15/2008 2:05:29 PM

I grew up in a small town, point is I don't live in a small town.

12/15/2008 2:07:00 PM

^^ back when i was a teenager i got pulled over just because i was out late, then the Officer proceeded to call my father to let him know i was out late.

[Edited on December 15, 2008 at 2:07 PM. Reason : .]

12/15/2008 2:07:08 PM

^3 anecdotal. because a cop has done it before means that its legal for them to do it? logical fallacy.

12/15/2008 2:11:56 PM

^I could say the same for your BAC limit and accident correlation (logical fallacy).

correlation =/= causation

but I'm pretty sure it's perfectly legal to pull you over, without a reason.

[Edited on December 15, 2008 at 2:15 PM. Reason : ]

[Edited on December 15, 2008 at 2:17 PM. Reason : ]

12/15/2008 2:13:49 PM

oh.my.fuck

12/15/2008 2:14:51 PM

.I wasnt stating if it was legal or not. I didnt have a big problem with it since my dad knew i was out already.

[Edited on December 15, 2008 at 2:15 PM. Reason : oops lol]

[Edited on December 15, 2008 at 2:15 PM. Reason : .]

12/15/2008 2:15:02 PM

Quote :

"but I'm pretty sure it's perfectly legal to pull you over, without a reason."

It's called reasonable suspicion and they must have it.

12/15/2008 2:21:56 PM

You are correct. a cop can pull you over without reason, as long as they do not detain you for an unreasonable period of time without cause.

[Edited on December 15, 2008 at 2:23 PM. Reason : a]

12/15/2008 2:23:00 PM

i don't care if it is legal or not that doesn't mean i have to agree with it. and people are getting too hung up on my inspection sticker example. that was just an example.

what even happens at a DWI check point. do they check every 3rd car or something? so do they just like look in and say "what up" and if they don't suspect anything let them go or does every 3rd car have to do a sobriety test? i mean i'm just curious about what happens. i've never seen a check point OR been through one. and they don't teach you practical things in law school.

i've only been pulled over once and it was because i had a headlight out and didn't know. so i just got a warning. and it was terrifying because i was like omg what did i do wrong. and he asked me and i was like, uhhhh i don't know??

12/15/2008 2:48:45 PM

I have only been through 1 DWI checkpoint. The one I went through the checked EVERY car. You basically pull up and hand them your license. They check your inspection sticker, ask you a couple questions (most likely to see if they can smell alcohol) and if everything is cool, you pull off.

12/15/2008 2:54:08 PM

I dunno if I have ever been through a DWI checkpoint, but I've been through several license checks. The only one I've seen them wave people through without checking was 7 AM right before work in an industrial area and I assume it was because so many people were trying to get to work (there are several large plants/warehouses around where I work) that traffic was backing up out of control.

^^aren't you a law student (law school thread?), shouldn't you be telling us about reasonable suspicion? Basically what I gather is reasonable suspicion:

1. "Requires minimal level of objective justification." I.N.S. v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 217
2. "May be supported by an "objectively reasonable" good faith belief even if premised on factual error." United States v. Walraven, 892 F.2d 972, 974­75
3. "May rely on information less reliable than that required to show probable cause." Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 330
4. "It need not be correct" United States v. Callerman, 273 F.3d 1284, 1287 AND United States v. Allegree, 175 F.3d 648, 650

(Basically the cops can pull you over for no reason. Well they have to come up with a reason, but it doesn't have to actually be true.)

[Edited on December 15, 2008 at 3:21 PM. Reason : ]

12/15/2008 3:13:14 PM

yea i'm not asking how to look up case law on a subject. and i wasn't even asking about reasonable suspicion. or how do cops decide to pull people over. or what is legal or not legal. i'm asking about the logistics of check points.

i was asking like what actually happens. i am not a police officer, i don't know any police officers, i have been pulled over once (see above), and i have never driven through a check point.

i wanted to know what actually happens when you go through. what cars to they check. do they check all. do you just have to hand over license and registration or do they check everyone for the same thing. like i don't know the logistics of check points. djeternal helped clarify a little. i was really hoping republican would come back in and tell me what happens when they set them up. like what they look for and how they do it. not what the point of check points is or whether they are legal/how to conduct one legally.

^ and i get that. but like i said earlier, just because something is legal doesn't mean i have to agree with it. i just want to know about check points, man. not the legal stuff, the cop stuff. same coin, different side.

[Edited on December 15, 2008 at 3:23 PM. Reason : .]

12/15/2008 3:22:43 PM

I know when I went through I handed him my license and he asked me 3 questions. Do you still live at the address on your license, where are you coming from, and where are you headed?

12/15/2008 3:26:17 PM

Quote :

"Anyways, generally speaking, if the person blows a .08 or a .09 on the road and does not completely and terribly screw up on the SFST"

yeah i actually know two guys who were let go after they blew .08 on the field test. one got to drive off; one had to park then call a friend to take them home.

you are right though unless you snag them leaving the bar why waste the time taking them downtown when most likely their BAC will drop below .08

12/15/2008 5:03:40 PM

so, does .08 mean youre ok, or is it "you have to be below .08".

12/15/2008 5:05:58 PM

^.07 is legal, .08 is illegal

12/15/2008 6:06:56 PM

For khcadwal

G.S. 20-16.3A....

DWI Checkpoint can be conducted if they meet the following criteria:

1. Develop in advance a systematic plan that considers the likelihood of detecting impaired drivers, traffic conditions, the number of vehicles to be stopped, and the inconvenience to the public.

2. Designate, in advance, the patterns for stopping vehicles (i.e. every car, every other) and a plan for requesting drivers to submit to alcohol screening tests.

3. The agency must mark the area to inform the public.

Source: Arrest Search and Investigation in North Carolina, Farb 2003.

[Edited on December 15, 2008 at 7:10 PM. Reason : g/s/p]

12/15/2008 7:09:51 PM

I went through it at about 2:30AM and didn't have to stop. They weren't Clayton cops.

12/15/2008 9:13:17 PM

Quote :

"terribly screw up on the SFST"

Do you have to balance on one foot with your hands in the air for this?

I can't do that sober b/c my feet are messed up.

12/15/2008 9:24:12 PM

just inform them of that and you should be ok

12/15/2008 9:39:27 PM

Quote :

"Basically the cops can pull you over for no reason. Well they have to come up with a reason, but it doesn't have to actually be true."

This is pretty much true. And the PC needed to search your car is pretty fucking low too.

Honestly, you really don't have a lot of rights in your car.

12/15/2008 9:49:05 PM

Quote :

"as far as i can tell, i do and you do not. then again i'm only basing my interpretation of how it applies based multiple instances of case law which either forbid such checkpoints or as a rule post about the checkpoint and allow for an alternative passage way without interruption. what is it, pray tell, are you basing your interpretation and how is it that you perceive it?"

MICHIGAN DEPT. OF STATE POLICE V. SITZ, 496 U.S. 444 (1990)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=496&invol=444

12/15/2008 11:23:09 PM