Traffic Check Points: Good or Bad?
 

The earlier post about police brutality when getting tickets for running/not running a stop sigh got me to thinking. In almost every city in the San Diego area there are places where police cars sit and wait for people to break a law that most times is never enforced. I know of one on Las Vegas, Huntington Beach, Venice Beach, San Diego, La Jolla, Delmar and of course in my home of Chula Vista and it is very interesting to watch. I was eating lunch at the Burger King near the Costco on East "H" street a few days ago and the police were raking the tickets in, here's how and what I think they were writing for: Going west bound there is a right turn lane and it DOES NOT have a green arrow, so you can guess what happens next. The m/c officer stands around the corner and waives every car that fails to stop (about all of them in a 20 minute period) into the Pep Boys parking lot where other officers hand out the tickets. Almost everyone is a Mexican woman talking on their cell phone ($$$$$), NOT wearing their seat belt ($$$$$) and kids in the back jumping around with no car seat ($$$$$$$$$) and of course the failure to stop ($$$$$$). There may have been some others and I did get to see 3 cars get towed and the women were sure pissed off it seemed!? From what the ladies at the credit union up the street tell me that is done at least once a week, maybe more often!

There is one that is also run outside the court houses in Chula Vista and also San Diego on DUI arrest days and that pulls everyone over and I hear 80% of the cars get towed as the driver just lost their license!

If anyone else has interesting spots like this feel free to list them......

Good if you are a good guy, bad if you are a bad guy.

Rolling through a red light/stop sign while making a right turn may be a ticky-tack infraction. But I don't have a problem with writing people up for breaking that law. I'd grumble (to myself) if I got such a ticket, but I'd pay it if I did it. It's the manufacturing of infractions (when you did nothing wrong) that I have a problem with.

Talking on the cell/not wearing a seat belt/not having car seats/not having license or registration are all infractions, too. If you don't want to get ticketed for those offenses, then don't talk on a (non hands free) cell phone, wear your seat belt, put your kids into car seats, have a valid drivers license, and have insurance and registration for your car. Oh, and stop for red lights and stop signs. Problems solved.

While I'd rather the cops go after the real dangers on the road, of which there are plenty and from which they'd raise at least as much revenue, I have less of a problem with them pulling people over for an actual reason than running roadside sobriety checkpoints. I have a real problem with getting pulled over for having done nothing wrong so they can go on a fishing expedition.

I understand your point about the sobriety checkpoints, Rick. We've had OT and PARF discussions before about the Constitutionality of sobriety checkpoints. At the same time, count me as one of the roll-over weenies that is OK with them, as I think they serve more good than evil.

If they stop me for no reason, they can be sure I'm gonna waste a lot of their time, ask for the supervisor and generally make myself way not worth their while.

It is all about revenue generation.

All that tells is that they have too many police in that town, and that much of that town's budget is dependant upon traffic infraction generated revenue. I have a real problem with that. I don't think that's the America most of us would like to live in; it's way more like some third world shytehole banana dictatorship.

John, I know that area well. Although it's a minor infraction, I'm happy that they manage to tag those women for the cell phone/seat belt/car seat/registration/insurance things too. That area is unbelievable for the number of women in large SUV's blasting down the road, changing lanes abruptly, while gesturing, talking & texting on their cell phones and yelling at their kids at the same time. Downright dangerous to be on the road!!

Hypothetically:

Suppose you were the father of a 17 year old girl who was minding her own business and was killed by a drunk driver with three convictions on his record yet was still driving. Drunk.
Would you still oppose random check points?
That happened to someone I work with.


OK different hypothetical scenario:
suppose your wife was jogging along pacific coast highway in the middle of the day and was run over by a drunk driver who didn't have a license because of prior DUI's and had just been let out of a half-way house.
Your wife is now a quadriplegic and can't take care of herself, much less her two young kids. Her medical bills are into the hundreds of thousands of dollars and her in-home care will add up to about 70% of your take-home pay.
How would you think about random DUI checkpoints?
That actually happened to a friend of the family.


People suck. Letting people get away with sucking because you don't want to be inconvenienced for 15 seconds sucks too.

I'd gladly give up 15 seconds of my time to help make sure some POS doesn't kill someone I care about.

If we could keep the sucky people off the road we wouldn't need check points. But it's against the law to shoot them, go figure.

NB 4th Ave at the bottom of the hill where CVS Pharmacy is...M/C cop sits behind white van at Vista Paints on 4th and pulls people over turning right onto 4th from C St (Where DMV is) Seems they changed that intersection awhile ago to no turn on red.

SOME checkpoints have their place, but generally no...nothing but a revenue stream.

I wrote a letter once to the Fairfax Co. cops, asking them to set up a patrol or checkpoint at the Vienna Metro station because cars were simply not stopping for pedestrians in the crosswalk going to a neighboring parking garage. Several times I came close to getting hit when there was no excuse at all for the cars to not see people in the crosswalk, both during daylight and night time hours. A few weeks later, sure enough, the cops were there on foot pulling people over and handing out tickets. Yeah, they probably got plenty of revenue from that, but they fixed the problem pretty quickly and were doing it for a safety issue.

In another spot in Springfield, VA, cops hid behind a large sign to nail cars going straight from the left-turn-only lane. Problem here was that the signage for the restricted lane was pretty bad, there was not much room to change lanes before the intersection and if you missed it, you had a lot of work to do to make a U-turn farther down the road. And the cops also caused a lot of traffic with their stops. THis was a case of revenue raising. They could have easily done some painting and added a sign or two to fix the problem. But it was worth too much $$ to keep it the way it was.

Yes, I would still oppose them.


I would still oppose them.


Living in a police state really sucks, too. One of my dearest friends grew up behind the Iron Curtain, actually having escaped Communist Czechlosavakia in 1972. At that time, the police could stop anyone at any time for any reason and make up anything. He risked his life to escape that. I'll never understand why folks are so eager to see it here.

The real answer is to demand meaningful sentences for those who break meaningful laws, not to pick away at essentially good people with and endless array of nuisance laws. We punish too many people for too little, and we do not punish those who need it nearly enough.

Our DUI laws, for example, as "tough" as they are, are badly in need of reform. We treat someone who blows an .08 the same way we treat someone who blows a .20 or .30. The latter belongs in jail for a good long time; the former, maybe a stiff fine and loss of priviledges for awhile.

What is the average time served for a murder one these days? Years ago it was about eight years. You've got to be farkin' kidding me. Guys have been behind bars for longer for non-violent crimes, like pot possesion for example.

This situation, in which honest citizens are regularly punished for totally innocuous "offenses" while hardened criminals walk free among us, has eroded public respect for law and order. We need to fix that.

Bad if you are an American.

If we're going to have stop at intersection - seatbelt - cellphone - carseat laws, they should be enforced. Might as well do it as efficiently.

sammyG2 says it best, Jeff Higgins is nuts

Sure its income generation, whats the problem with having idiots pay more than their share

If Jeff Higgins is nuts, give me a double shot of whatever he's drinking.

Because that's the kind of nuts we need more of in this country, and the kind of nut i identify with.

Count on it, if you are ever in Seattle.

Funny how to some, those of us who espouse liberty and privacy are somehow "nuts". The (now sadly eroding) principles upon which this great nation were founded seem to be lost on these guys.

Like Ben Franklin said, "those who would sacrifice some measure of liberty for some measure of security deserve neither".

These guys were probably playground and/or hall monitors in grade school.

The situation that was described I do not have a problem with. We have an elementry school down a few blocks and you see the very same rolling stops, cell phones etc. If these drivers feel that this is a minor infraction what other things will the pick and choose to obey. That could be the difference in them hurting someone.

As I suspected, there are some who agree with the rules and those that feel there should be few if any. But as Sammy said, many of the pain in the ass laws were made because of really stupid people causing problems to others. Case in point, many years ago I had a home in Phoenix and their school zones had signs saying to slow down but no real enforcement at all. Then later after several children were run over and maimed/killed the signs got blinking yellow lights AND a patrol car with radar at nearly everyone when school opened and when it let out. It did take a while and lots of *****ing and "interfering with my rights" but people mostly got the message and now they go SLOW when the lights at the school zones are blinking! I know as there is a new school just North of the PIR raceway and they catch trucks pulling cars all the time there.

The San Diego chapter of the ACLU is raising hell about the traffic checkpoints saying they are targeting Mexicans but when the highest percentage of people without a license are here illegally I guess that makes sense? A writer into the SD Union-Tribune said they hoped the head of the SD ACLU would have a family member hit and maimed as they had by an illegal, then maybe they would change their mind?

I was hoping for more interesting traffic stops, but maybe it is just here in So Cal?

I think you're confusing checkpoints with traffic enforcement. I have no problem with cops stopping someone who has committed an infraction. Checkpoints, however, are a gross violation of the 4th Amendment, in that police are allowed to detain citizens at random with ZERO probable cause or even reasonable suspicion of their having committed a crime. If cops really wanted people to slow down, they would place themselves in a conspicuous area and keep their lights on. Everyone would then slow down. Hiding and running radar traps doesn't do anything to slow anyone down except the guy they just ticketed.

Law enforcement screws up the flow of traffic in Austin, on a daily basis. Cash cow only. What can be deduced other wise? Check points have to be advertised here, I have no problem, so long as I'm not held up.

Concerning cell phone users, I have a huge problem. They ought to be stopped. Those people are foul and need to be awakened with the harsh realities that they kill more than cancer.

Most laws state DUI or DWI as having xxx bac or without normal bodily faculties. When slapping Johnny in the back, you're without. Lock em up, throw away the key.

I steer clear of accidents waiting to happen. It's out of control, the sober ones are worse by far.

Spiper and Jeff, I've got a Bells Ale waiting for both of you in Mich.

Of course there are two sides to every argument. At one extreme is obvious police over enforcement and on the other is society gone wild.
While I appreciate the line of police cars pulled over on the side of the highway during the holidays, I certainly don't want a nanny-state vehicle akin to OnStar. "Miss your meeting? Sorry we remotely disabled the wrong vehicle. That will be $240 to reactivate your ability to drive your purchased-and-owned vehicle ".

The hypocracy is that we've had threads here where members have no qwalms about pushing slower drivers off the road into a ditch or running over cyclists. Alcohol wasen't even involved in the senario. Lack of sleep, dehydration, tight scheduling, cell phones, kids, or just being a jerk by nature all play part in a driver's attention and habits.

We simply cannot pass enough laws to make stupid people behave, much less smart. The idiots out there will always be idiots, no matter how many different ways we try to slow them down and out smart them. "Never underestimate the brilliance of a fool" when it comes to new and creative ways to fukk up and make themselves a hazard to the rest of us.

The hand-wringing ninnies (the worst sort of fools, by the way) see the passing of endless laws, of endless layered and often contradictory laws, as a "solution". These ninnies assume too much. They give their adversaries too much credit. They actually think the fools are paying attention, and will straighten up and fly right if the law tells them to. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The net result of all of this, the only tangible result of all of this, is that the police and other officials have ever more justification to harangue honest, peaceful citizens. And not for any harm they did, really, but for what could have happened. They bust citizens' balls over "crimes" or "infractions" with no victims. Add to that the new-found profit motive for enforcement in every little god damn one-horse town, and even in the bigger municipalities, and we are faced with one hell of an unholy mess. Profit-driven, victimless "law enforcement" targeted at the non-criminal, non-violent citizen population.

This simply has to stop. It "prevents" nothing - the target audience isn't paying attention, and never will. The rest of us shouldn't have to put up with the b.s. preventative enforcement and its encroachment on our liberties.

This is not even about law enforcement anyway, it's about revenue enhancement.

They were pulling people over, doing random smog checks on my commute this morning, if he had tried to wave me over for that stuff, I would say, "No thanks, going to work."

If law enforcement wants to have Safety/DUI/License Check points, I am all for it. If someone has no license, no registration then they definitely don't have insurance and that could affect ME. If they don't have any ID, how do you know who they really are? Take the car so there is a little motivation to get a license, registration, insurance. Now when HELL freezes over and California passes some kind of law like AZ they will need a bunch of buses at the check points to ship all those undocumented immigrants (Illegals) back to Mexico.

I'll buy a round, too! SmileWavy

Patently unconstitutional.

Either a cop has probable cause (observed a violation) or doesn't. If he/she doesn't, there absolutely should be no basis to go digging around for things to justify their own existence.

One of the things I absolutely love about Pelican is that you can occasionally (upon sifting through all the usual boring, repetitive blather) discern a really valuable nugget of insight or wisdom. This is one such nugget. JH gets a gold star for his post - absolutely dead on the mark and well-put. It'd be my honor to buy you a beverage of your choice someday.

Random traffic checkpoint/stops have become the rage around here--they are called "aggressive driving checks, or courtesy patrols" total BS. What they really are is a bunch of cops setting up on random roads, waving people into nearby parking lots and running plates, checking licenses, insurance, etc.

And the cops that I have seen doing these checks and stopping people are the total douche variety--tinted shades, mustache, hard-ass attitude--WTF?

some would say, if you have nothing to hide, what's the problem?

others might say, if police are running gauntlet-style check points and asking for licenses/registration, they're going to catch a lot of illegal aliens in their fishing expeditions.

other folks say that it's just a revenue generator and good honest people are getting tickets that are unwarranted and unjust

others point to a police power grab, intimidating the citizenry to compensate for their (supposed) low self esteem and reliving their bully days in high school.

others make the claim that the inconvenience of a checkpoint is part of the price of driving on safer roads.

who is right?

What are the many and varied roles of Police in our Society?

Are Police accountable to their local bureaucracy? Who ultimately defines their mission?

Are Police accountable to their local Citizenry?

If you answer no to the last point, what needs to be done to change that dynamic? or can nothing be done and we are all just poor little lamb victims?


My own personal perspective? In 26 years of driving, I've only been stopped unfairly by the police one time. I don't fear the police. I've never been burdened by too many laws. I've never had to go to extraordinary measures to comply with any laws. It's pretty easy to stay within the limits of the law and when I break the law, I expect to pay the consequences.

Around here, they have old school buses just after the checkpoints. they are typically filled to the brim with illegal aliens, drunks and cell phone/texting abusers caught in such checkpoints and there is a local lottery by which you can win the chance to drive them down to Mexico (all of them) and dump them off over the border.

It's not a check point, but in weekly travels from Atl to Chucktown, SC and back I see the cops in GA on I-20 (from Covington to Lake Oconee) have pulled over a car or two and are searching it inside and out. Who's the driver? Just about everyone I see is either a black or Hispanic male.

Is it profiling or just dumb luck they get pulled over? I see money here when I see county cops patrolling their portion of the highway.

I-20 inside 285 is another hot spot for cops. Multiple state troopers, Fulton and Dekalb County cops every day looking for speeders or HOV violators. Surely the resources can be better utilized.

Wow. Where to start...

First you need to establish that DUI checkpoints have had an impact on the rate of alcohol related crashes. You have not.

Second; The Constitution was not designed to be ignored when it "seemed like the right thing to do". This document is your only protection against tyranny. It's shocking that anyone would support illegal search and seizure because the target is unsympathetic.

Well said!

If this ever happens to me, I'd demand to know why they stopped me, ask for a supervisor and then file a complaint. People should put up with this BS. And searching my car? Yeah, that'll ever happen.

There have been several posts about the "check points" being unconstitutional so I asked a law professor when I was at school teaching last night and he referred me to a site that explains what each part of the constitution means in words we normal folks can understand and also cites cases. Here is an excerpt that covers DUI check points and such.

The original post I made mentioned a check point at the court houses and a NON check point where the motor officer was sitting at a corner observing the way people were driving. I think there is a big difference there?

Quote: Investigatory Stops Of Motorists At Sobriety Checkpoints.

The unique situation in which the Supreme Court has approved suspicionless searches in the traditional law enforcement context. See Michigan Dep't of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 ('90). The Sitz Court relied on well-settled law that motorists have a lessened expectation of privacy regarding stops and visual searches of automobiles on the nation's roadways. Id. at 450 (explaining the importance of the context of 'police stops of motorists on public highways'). At these sobriety checkpoints, which motorists may choose to avoid, only the initial brief stop and preliminary questioning may take place without individualized suspicion: 'more extensive field sobriety testing' requires justification. Id. at 450-2.

Like the highway sobriety checkpoints, the 'special needs beyond normal law enforcement' rationale supports searches on lesser grounds than probable cause only in a very few, carefully tailored regulatory contexts that do not involve apprehension of criminal perpetrators. See, e.g., National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656, 65-66 ('89) (applying the special needs exception to suspicionless quasi-consensual drug testing of Customs Service employees seeking transfer to positions having a direct involvement in drug interdiction).

And did you know you can also refuse field sobriety tests? In fact, you should ALWAYS refuse them, as the cops are by then just collecting evidence against you. Don't help them. They have usually decided to arrest you before they even ask you to perform the tests.