DUI checkpoint

[splinter]

I don’t drink alcohol any more so blowing my salsa and fruitcake breath on a LEO at checkpoints is of no concern.

Fourth Amendment infringement, implied consent notwithstanding, is troubling as its intent and other privacy protections continue to be relentlessly eroded
(e.g., the Patriot Act).

Upside is impounding vehicles of unlicensed and/or uninsured motorists that infest our roads like cockroaches “out of the shadows.”

 

[oilpsi2high]

Most people have a hard enough time driving safely while sober let alone after a drink.

 

[andrewg]

To me a mandatory stop to check for drinking/driving is without merit.

If they have a cause to pull somebody over...fine.

I see drunks on the highway all the time though. Just a shame that the penalties aren't even worse.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: Nate1979
Every new vehicle should be equipped with a breathalyzer starter device. The number of drunk driving would be almost zero. Cheat the system or drink after starting the car and face severe consequences.


I'm a DPS certified Ignition Interlock Provider.

Why would you want to put me out of a job? What did I ever do to you?

Several manufacturers have been working on alcohol detection systems.

One uses a "halo" to detect the presence of alcohol on a driver's breath.
If you use perfume, cologne, aftershave...etc... the alcohol on your skin will be detected and you cannot start.

One uses a skin monitor similar to the SCRAM bracelet. (aka: the Lindsay Lohan ankle bracelet) It takes a skin reading when you push the start button. Problem? If you use hand sanitizer (120-125 proof) before starting your car, you contaminate the sensor and you aren't going anywhere for a long time.

And then there are the breath sample devices.

Almost all the providers use an alcohol specific fuel cell. Only one (that I know of) uses the Taguchi cell. The T-cell monitors will fail you for countless things that are not alcohol. They are terrible. Fuel cells just read alcohol. But alcohol is present in a lot of things.

Out of the thousands of clients that I have, about 5% of them have problems providing the NHTSA approved breath sample size.

Others just cannot remember to NOT test with alcohol based mouthwash in their mouth.

And others will test with their mouths full of food or drink. How many times have I had a client report a problem with the unit just to have them bring it in and have the pump full of a beverage and the fuel cell saturated? Or they will test with a mouthfull of food. I've been working with these things for well over a decade. Yeast products will cause a reading. Yeast produces 3 things in its life cycle. It propogates its species, it produces carbon dioxide and .....wait for it.....alcohol.
I have to have a whole donut in my mouth to get any kind of significant reading. It is difficult to provide a test like that and you are certainly aware that the food is there. Yet I get at least one call a day from someone who got a reading from a donut.

 

[SumpChump]

Mandatory stops are an affront to the constitution. However, pulling someone over weaving isn't. And I'd propose that all first time offenders, who didn't kill anyone yet, be horsewhipped in public. And I mean with wreckless abandon. You see, although we are creatures of reason, we do things that feel good because the physical pleasure outweighs the pain. So in this case a good hard horse whipping is simply behavior modification.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: KD0AXS
Instead of checkpoints, they run what they call a "DWI Task Force". Essentially what they do is target a certain area and flood that area with extra officers. Then they pull over people for any minor violation they can find. This gives them reasonable suspicion to make a traffic stop, and seems to be quite productive in getting drunk drivers off the road.


That's what's so funny about the checkpoints...the one near here, over 4,600 breath tests, and less than a half dozen DUI arrests...makes no sense from an enforcement point of view (unless it's a campaign to get us used to stop and search).

The ones that really get results are the ones that you describe, intensive patrols, stopping people, and checking them and their vehicles out...they have success factors in the whole numbers of percent.

Every state opposition for years has pointed out that people seeing marked patrol cars changes behaviours now and into the future, while speed cameras hiding behind bushes are for revenue...

Then when they get in, they cite budget pressures, make more hidden cameras, and more stealth cars to catch money rather than display the presence that changes people's minds.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: NHHEMI


I also wish when people are caught driving drunk they would be penalized a lot more harshly. Mandatory jail time, a HUGE fine, and loss of license for say 1-2 years minimum on the FIRST offense not only after multiple DUI's. Get caught twice and you are done behind the wheel period.


Wealthy 7X DWI offender avoids jail time

It varies from state to state.

I have had professional athletes, celebrities, and legitimate 1%ers as clients. I've installed in a Rolls Royce with the $400,000 window sticker still in the car.

I've installed two Gallardos. beautiful machines. Very simple to install.

I haven't been beaten by a car yet. I am sure there is something out there, probably a hybrid, that the wiring is just so multiplexed and doesn't have a starter, that it cannot be installed. The ultra-wealthy will just buy that.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog
The portable handheld breathalyzer results are usually non-evidentiary. Their results cannot be admitted into evidence in a court of law.

The permanent mount models like the Intoxilyzer 8000 are spectrographic testers and they can be.

The cops here aren't really using the spectrographic testers anymore. If they feel that they have probable cause they take you into custody and have a blood sample drawn. If you refuse, they call in a judge, get a search warrant, strap you in a restraint chair and take it by force.


And if that happens here, I will give serious thought to starting to carry suicide pills. (Note: I haven't had a drink in almost 20 years.)

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted By: Nate1979
Every new vehicle should be equipped with a breathalyzer starter device. The number of drunk driving would be almost zero. Cheat the system or drink after starting the car and face severe consequences.


Never seen one I couldn't bypass in ten minutes. But sure, I'll do it: you pay for it!

 

[Jarlaxle]

duplicate-please delete

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI


I also wish when people are caught driving drunk they would be penalized a lot more harshly. Mandatory jail time, a HUGE fine, and loss of license for say 1-2 years minimum on the FIRST offense not only after multiple DUI's. Get caught twice and you are done behind the wheel period.


Wealthy 7X DWI offender avoids jail time

It varies from state to state.

I have had professional athletes, celebrities, and legitimate 1%ers as clients. I've installed in a Rolls Royce with the $400,000 window sticker still in the car.

I've installed two Gallardos. beautiful machines. Very simple to install.

I haven't been beaten by a car yet. I am sure there is something out there, probably a hybrid, that the wiring is just so multiplexed and doesn't have a starter, that it cannot be installed. The ultra-wealthy will just buy that.


I have seen a couple of them...and honestly, I suspect that I could bypass most in a few minutes. Offhand, I could start my wife's truck-1986 K-5 Blazer-in ten seconds with a long screwdriver. I once bypassed a (malfunctioning) alarm in an Astro the same way...told the dude not to shut it off until he got back to the shop that was fixing it. (He was impressed...I recall the tip was $30.)

Serious question: could you put one in a Tesla?

 

[splinter]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog
..I have had professional athletes, celebrities, and legitimate 1%ers as clients..

It's pitiful and hard to fathom just how and why these folks with 'everything' feel compelled to get drunk and/or be irresponsible.

Being rich or poor seems to make little difference. At least the wealthy amongst us can swing a taxi or limousine instead.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle

I have seen a couple of them...and honestly, I suspect that I could bypass most in a few minutes. Offhand, I could start my wife's truck-1986 K-5 Blazer-in ten seconds with a long screwdriver. I once bypassed a (malfunctioning) alarm in an Astro the same way...told the dude not to shut it off until he got back to the shop that was fixing it. (He was impressed...I recall the tip was $30.)

Serious question: could you put one in a Tesla?


I haven't had a Tesla yet.

I think I can through the brake switch and a hold module.

IIDs can be bypassed in much the same way that you would bypass an aftermarket alarm.

The device will record the bypass and will quickly go into an early recall state.

About 15 years ago, you could by-pass most breathalyzers with a simple 12v compressor

By-pass techniques have made the devices very complex. The best manufacturers have facial recognition, photo identification, measure the breath sample temperature/humidity, biometrics.....a crazy amount of stuff to make certain that it is a human taking the test and that the person taking the test is the driver.

The crazy amounts of anti-circumvention technology have made the devices more difficult to use. Because a few people cannot behave themselves.

 

[antiqueshell]

Originally Posted By: SumpChump
Mandatory stops are an affront to the constitution. However, pulling someone over weaving isn't. And I'd propose that all first time offenders, who didn't kill anyone yet, be horsewhipped in public. And I mean with wreckless abandon. You see, although we are creatures of reason, we do things that feel good because the physical pleasure outweighs the pain. So in this case a good hard horse whipping is simply behavior modification.


I like your thinking on this issue. Makes a
lot of horse sense.

 

[The_Jeff]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog

I haven't been beaten by a car yet. I am sure there is something out there, probably a hybrid, that the wiring is just so multiplexed and doesn't have a starter, that it cannot be installed. The ultra-wealthy will just buy that.


I've always thought that an appropriate sentence to aggressive driving or on-road bullying would be getting a pink geo metro and having to drive that for a year. This would do the richie richers well too.

Since they don't make them anymore, I guess the Mitsubishi Mirage will have to do. 3 cylinders, 75 hp, 1900 lbs. Hope another drunk doesn't clobber you!

 

[Tom NJ]

Originally Posted By: NHHEMI

I have zero tolerance for anyone who takes even one drink and then drives. No excuse for it. If you will get behind the wheel leave the booze alone and that includes just 1 glass of wine at diner. Again, no excuse for it.


So you are suggesting we all have to drink only at home? And if we have guests over we should not serve any alcohol? And we should have to walk to bars and restaurants? Moderate drinking is a perfectly normal social behavior, has been for thousands of years, and provides great enhancement to life, not to mention health. The problem is drinking too much.

According to the online blood alcohol calculators, a man my size can enjoy two glasses of wine over a one and a half hour dinner out and my blood alcohol level would be only 0.17%, less than 1/4th the legal DWI limit, and less than half the "impaired" level. This does not make me dangerous on the road, in fact I can argue I drive better when a bit relaxed. I have been enjoying a couple of glasses of wine with dinner virtually every night for over 40 years and never had an accident or even a ticket after drinking.

The important question in my mind is whether government authorities have the right to stop and search ordinary citizens without any probable cause whatsoever. The catch-all excuse of "for the public safety" is far too broad and vague to justify violating our rights under the forth amendment, and can be used to rationalize just about any such intrusive activity.

Tom NJ

 

[MalfunctionProne]

Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI

I have zero tolerance for anyone who takes even one drink and then drives. No excuse for it. If you will get behind the wheel leave the booze alone and that includes just 1 glass of wine at diner. Again, no excuse for it.


So you are suggesting we all have to drink only at home? And if we have guests over we should not serve any alcohol? And we should have to walk to bars and restaurants? Moderate drinking is a perfectly normal social behavior, has been for thousands of years, and provides great enhancement to life, not to mention health. The problem is drinking too much.

According to the online blood alcohol calculators, a man my size can enjoy two glasses of wine over a one and a half hour dinner out and my blood alcohol level would be only 0.17%, less than 1/4th the legal DWI limit, and less than half the "impaired" level. This does not make me dangerous on the road, in fact I can argue I drive better when a bit relaxed. I have been enjoying a couple of glasses of wine with dinner virtually every night for over 40 years and never had an accident or even a ticket after drinking.

The important question in my mind is whether government authorities have the right to stop and search ordinary citizens without any probable cause whatsoever. The catch-all excuse of "for the public safety" is far too broad and vague to justify violating our rights under the forth amendment, and can be used to rationalize just about any such intrusive activity.

Tom NJ

Amen, brotha.

Well said.

And NJ is a Police State.

 

[SumpChump]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle

I have seen a couple of them...and honestly, I suspect that I could bypass most in a few minutes. Offhand, I could start my wife's truck-1986 K-5 Blazer-in ten seconds with a long screwdriver. I once bypassed a (malfunctioning) alarm in an Astro the same way...told the dude not to shut it off until he got back to the shop that was fixing it. (He was impressed...I recall the tip was $30.)

Serious question: could you put one in a Tesla?


I haven't had a Tesla yet.

I think I can through the brake switch and a hold module.

IIDs can be bypassed in much the same way that you would bypass an aftermarket alarm.

The device will record the bypass and will quickly go into an early recall state.

About 15 years ago, you could by-pass most breathalyzers with a simple 12v compressor

By-pass techniques have made the devices very complex. The best manufacturers have facial recognition, photo identification, measure the breath sample temperature/humidity, biometrics.....a crazy amount of stuff to make certain that it is a human taking the test and that the person taking the test is the driver.

The crazy amounts of anti-circumvention technology have made the devices more difficult to use. Because a few people cannot behave themselves.


I have a feeling that the same congress that can't get real health care for all citizen people will be amazingly swift at getting breath test in every car just to drive. Very focused bunch they are.

 

[jimbrewer]

Originally Posted By: Pajamarama
In my opinion, the more DUI checkpoints the better.

You're right -- a DUI is a very big deal. This is exactly the way it should be.


I disagree.

Want to improve the DWI situation? Work on the drivers who are legally obligated to drive with an interlock who don't have one. In my state there's only a 50% compliance rate and I expect that's typical. They drive without interlocks and when they get caught they spend a few hours in jail, bond out and then plead to "no driver's license" instead of driving on a revoked. Maximum fine $150.

Car immobilization and asset forfeiture initiatives are also proven to be effective, but they are fraught with lots of injustices and require a lot of organization and resources in any case. Make sure that the interlock people caught driving without one do their four or five days in jail in about 90% of the cases and you would see another leg down on the DWI fatality rates.

If there was ever a time DWI checkpoints were effective, its long gone. My Waze app would immediately flag it as a traffic jam, even though its not actually geared to specifically identify them. Its kind of fun for the cops to congregate at those things, and no doubt they catch a lot of other things, but when you see in the paper that a Saturday night checkpoint with ten cops nabs four or five DWIs, that's a failure. a "wolf-pack" patrol in the nightclub district for a few hours would almost certainly be more effective.

 

[jimbrewer]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI


I also wish when people are caught driving drunk they would be penalized a lot more harshly. Mandatory jail time, a HUGE fine, and loss of license for say 1-2 years minimum on the FIRST offense not only after multiple DUI's. Get caught twice and you are done behind the wheel period.


Wealthy 7X DWI offender avoids jail time

It varies from state to state.

I have had professional athletes, celebrities, and legitimate 1%ers as clients. I've installed in a Rolls Royce with the $400,000 window sticker still in the car.

I've installed two Gallardos. beautiful machines. Very simple to install.

I haven't been beaten by a car yet. I am sure there is something out there, probably a hybrid, that the wiring is just so multiplexed and doesn't have a starter, that it cannot be installed. The ultra-wealthy will just buy that.


Is it true the Chevy Trailblazers are the hardest to install? If not, what kind of car is?