http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/state&id=6907613

~~~~~~~~~~

As I have been saying for sometime!
It is about time.
Now, I am hoping that the guy in Ohio wins his battle vs Checkpoints.

I know Cops will use other tactics, like rolling checkpoints and sitting on bars, but atleast the citiznes of the United States of America, can drive home at night, without having to deal with the German checkpoints.

MADD...go back to going to schools and teaching about the dangers of drinking and driving and stay the hell out of Local/State and Federal govts.
I am tired of this group, attacking society based on false numbers and getting in the pockets of the religious nut jobs.

....Damned liberal activist judges!

....Damned liberal activist judges, making law from the bench as they see fit and taking that right from the people!!!!

Looks like a complete non issue in Ohio.

Even the article states that field observations like glassy eyes, slurred speech and field sobriety tests should continue to set the probable cause standard for OVI. That's already the case in Ohio.

The Breathalizer come after an arrest, and high results kick the offense into another category. Plenty of people get convicted after refusing the breathalizer.

By the way, even trying to humorously compare this to Nazi Germany is phony. When you apply for a driver's license, you contractually agree that you must submit to a chemical test any time probable cause is established. If you choose to break the contract, you lose your license. Either way, it's your choice.

I've never even heard of an officer joking about taking someone in for a breath test without probable cause.

There's a certain "I'm a victim" mindset that pervades issues like OVI enforcement, which makes me laugh. I'm glad for the comic side to the issue. Picking up body parts from OVI wrecks has been the miserable side.

murf is still hung up on the ideas that 3 beers for a 90 lb woman will not result in the same BAC as 3 beers for a 230 lb man, and that someone who has been drinking for a while has more tolerance than an alcohol newbie, which this ruling has nothing to do with.

"I think I will try to stick to conversations that don't involve politics." - murf, April 17 2009

Actually... ;the title of this thread should be "chalk one up for the gat guy"

"Well, it ain't braggin' if it's true
Yes sir, yes sir
It ain't braggin' if it's true
Muhammad Ali said that
Back when he was a young man
Back when he was Cassius Clay
Before he fought too many fights
And left his brain inside the ring"

The cops, do not have a right to illegal search and siezure.
You can't call it anything else.
You can't even call it probable cause, b/c it is an illegal checkpoint.

Look...if you are drunk and a danger to society, you should be in trouble.
This is not about safety, this is about revenue generating.
The last study on an OVI chekpoint was less than 3% of the drivers were nailed for being drunk under the limits of the law, and they were close to the limit, so toss in the actual data being not so accurate and you have an easy win.
Out of 300 something cars that rolled thru, over half got a ticket for something stupid, like seat belts, lights being out, outstanding warrants for misd. violations ect. ect.

So calling these GERMAN style checkpoints, something other than revenue enhancers, is just a flat out lie of the facts.

"By the way, even trying to humorously compare this to Nazi Germany is phony. When you apply for a driver's license, you contractually agree that you must submit to a chemical test any time probable cause is established. If you choose to break the contract, you lose your license. Either way, it's your choice."

It is not like you get to negotiate that. The government sets up the rules, and forces you through the checkpoints.

The founding fathers were quite clear that one should have the freedom to move around. Regardless of what legal fiction you, or the court try to muster, this was not the intention of the framers of the Constitution.

There are 10 types of people in this world, those who undertsand binary, and those who do not.

Even though I am against people who drive their car intoxicated (though I have done it as well), I have always detested the Supreme Court's butchering of the 4th amendment and People's expectation of Privacy in these cases.

The Supremes authorized these checkpoints due to "public safety concerns", which I think is total B.S.

Should the police be allowed to enter your home and check for narcotic because of "public safety concerns"?

This is the exact government interference the founding father feared when they wrote the Bill of Rights. Its dispicable and absolutely no probable cause exits to question a driver when they have done nothing wrong. This is one case I hope the Supremes eventually overturn. I suspect it will if the Court ever switches more towards the left in the majority.

"The American Cancer Society says uninsured patients are 60 percent more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis."

Why can't I "call it anything else?" Because an uneducated, disingenious rage addict says so?

Ironically, Murf, if you were right, the trial lawyers you detest would eat these programs up if they were in fact "illegal."

Sobriety checkpoints may be debatable, but there are significant safeguards to 4th ammendment rights in place. Police officers don't invade your homes. You go on public roads. And you go through checkpoints that have been pre-announced.

Murf, you have a long history of pulling stuff out of your arse, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on your "last study on an OVI checkpoint." Please provide the link that verifies your stat that over half the driver's got minor tickets. I'd be surprised if the average checkpoint surpassed 8%.

If you can't, no one will be surprised. And only you can categorize a warrant arrest as "stupid."

I've been part of OVI enforcement. Never once, and I absolutely mean NEVER ONCE, has any Warren County police department operated an enhanced OVI enforcement program for money. I suspect that's the case in Cincinnati as well.

You've always been factless. And your frothing-at-the-mouth rage makes you look witless to boot.

If you don't like checkpoints, be an American and try to find and/or support political leaders who will discontinue their use. You've got a repetitive streak to proclaim victimhood.

Phony rage doesn't make you a victim. It makes you comical.

The term "probable cause" has always intrigued me. Hook you and bronco etal. can probably shed some light on this for me. Let's take a hypothetical situation, that I've heard has happened to a friend of mine.

A driver gets pulled over in Fairfield, Ohio for what I call D.O.C.I.F., *Driving Old Car In Fairfield.* The stated reason for the stop is a crooked license plate or something quite minor. But this driver is young, and he has two young friends with him. So the Police Officer asks the driver if he has any drugs or alcohol on him. He says no. Then the PO asks politely, "do you mind if I look through your car and in your trunk then?"

Now here is where things get dicey I think. If the driver declines to let the PO search his vehicle he looks guilty. Surely someone with nothing to hide wouldn't mind if he looked through their car right? So then the question becomes, is looking guilty probable cause? And if it isn't probable cause does the PO have the right to tell the driver to "just wait here until I can get a K-9 unit." So, the driver and his friends have to wait for a K-9 unit to arrive and the dog starts sniffing around for dope. If the dog alerts, then the PO will conclude he has probable cause. But, at this point doesn't any evidence collected become 'fruit of the poison tree' since he didn't have probable cause to call in the K-9 unit in the first place?

Just curious...

This is exactly the kind of scenario question that gets presented to cadets who study criminal law in police academies.

Probable cause is the facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been, is or will be committed.

Notice that it doesn't say a significant,important or any type of adjective. Something as minor as a missing front license plate is a violation of the Ohio Revised Code and, therefore, constitutes probable cause for a traffic stop.

Seeing or smelling contraband while lawfully performing a law enforcement function constitutes further probable cause to search the vehicle. Certified canines that are present during a lawful traffic stop and that smell contraband (i.e. drugs) provide PC to search the car, arrest occupants, etc.

Now merge it all together. If it's established that the normal duration for a minor traffic stop would only last about 20 minutes and it took 45 minutes or more for the canine to arrive, the occupants were detained for an unreasonable time.

Since this isn't Nazi Germany, these kids could be guilty as hell but the greenest public defender is going to get them off the hook in a suppression hearing. Heck, if they know the law, they wouldn't even need an attorney, but I would never advise anyone to go that route.

In Warren County, there aren't canines available in all areas at all times. It's often no use calling one in from 25 miles away because of the unreasonable time element.

If the officer had a reason to stay engaged on the stop longer, such as the driver not having a license on his person, he or she would be on firmer footing to get a dog there, even if it travelled across the county.

In Fairfield, I'm pretty sure that specific department has a dog working every shift. It could be on the scene of most any traffic stop in a few minutes.

Time--that's the element that gets debated in most of these canine-related suppression hearings. Every scenario is different. But a prolonged wait for the sole purpose of getting a dog on the scene makes the search "unreasonable."

I've seen some defendent victories in suppression hearings. United States Judges take the 4th ammendment very seriously.

That's what makes these Nazi Germany comments disgusting, although considering the source I have to agree they have a comic element.

"D.O.C.I.F., *Driving Old Car In Fairfield"

Hey JB, try DOCIBA Driving Old car in Blue Ash. Same thing happended to me a while ago, I was missing a front license. The officer then said we can let this off with a warning...care if we check your car. They checked the car, drove off with a warning. Check the road next time, about 25% of cars have no front, think this was profiling, I feel violated.

I believe I posted the link the last time this topic came up, but I will search for the story again.
Who has phony rage? I dont' have any rage at all and if it was a subject that got me fired up, it would not hit the rage level, that is just another liberal tactic, that is pointless to even to get into a debate about...i will stay on subject.
lol...

You have calimed in the past and in this thread, that once you it the streets, you can be treated like a criminal and the cops have every right to detain you and search you b/c you are simply on the streets.
By law, you maybe correct, but it shocks me that you can say that and be happy about that.
We fight wars to free people from govts like this.

As far as the check points go and the OVI test.....
There is a lawsuit on the table and I am pulling for the little guy on this one.
I am a big supporter of cops and have tried to be a cop, but there is a few things that I believe are just flat out wrong.
When the numbers tell a seperate story than what you are trying to sell, it is even more evident what the revenue enhancers are.
First off, every ticket written during any type of stop, has a price tag attached to them.
An OVI citation, the state gets a ton of money from the kick backs form the Insr. companies b/c the insr. will then rape your azz for atleast five years after getting a DUI, plus your fine and fees to the state to get your liscn. back plus your court cost and fees from the locals that nailed you.

So yes, they are revenue enhancers.

Cincinnati seldom holds DUI checkpoints b/c they are too busy dealing with violent idiots.
When they do, the razor backs from the state show up and do most of the conducting, a ton of Cincy cops don't want to work them.

As I have stated before, if you are drunk and a danger to society, you should be nailed and deal with the bullsh!t.
What I am against, is the manufactured OVI citations and the test that help cops convict people.
I have stated for a long time that the machines are not accurate and you can't assume all human being react the same to the same amount of alcohol. I am glad the courts got a chance to over turn that deal.
The Simon Says routine and the smell of alcohol and the red eyes...that is all subjective evidence and can be picked apart in court.
Again, I am not talking about someone who is trashed and driving..I am talking about the people that have had a few drinks over the course of the nght and if they did blow, it would be just at or over the so called legal limit.

"Despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama bin Laden, there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death."

Thanks Hook that was a good explanation. For clarification purposes then the PO didn't have probable cause to call in a K9 unless he smelled dope or the driver and/or passengers showed signs of being on dope. Would it be ethical for the PO to use the threat of a K9 and a long wait to pressure the kid into opening the trunk just so he could be on his way then? I ask this because it seems to me that if this ever happens to me my first inclination will be to deny the PO access to my vehicle. But I can foresee getting pressured to do so once I deny the request. And I assume that pressure would come in the form of a veiled or outward threat that I'm going to be stuck out there for a long time unless I cooperate. I could also see this threat being the difference between getting a warning or a citation. So there's another reason to let the PO search, but I think I would have to maintain my stubbornness based on principle and just wait it out.

I wish there were a simple answer to all this. I know everyone here could easily set up a police checkpoint one day out of the year that would nab plenty of obviously drunk drivers. Just setting up a checkpoint near a place I know of that has a huge OSU Michigan party every year (1000+) would net plenty of DUIs.

I dont' want a bunch of loaded drivers on the road but I am not a fan of the "show me your papers" no probable cause checkpoints either. If we can do this is is a stretch for some new government branch to show up at our homes to have a quick look inside under the guise of public safety?

No doubt the swerving reckless driver is probable cause to stop a vehicle but random checkpoints are up there with random IRS audits.

_____________________________________________
January 6,1991: The last post season victory for the Bengals.

That is the point...
We are talking about the gov't here. Give them an inch, udner the umbrella of "public safety" and they take a mile.

The gov't simply cna't be trusted and should never be trusted to treat everyday law abiding citizens like criminals.

"Despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama bin Laden, there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death."

"You have calimed in the past and in this thread, that once you it the streets, you can be treated like a criminal and the cops have every right to detain you and search you b/c you are simply on the streets.
By law, you maybe correct, but it shocks me that you can say that and be happy about that."

Let's see, how many times have I in the past and in this thread said that cops have the right to treat you like a criminal and search you just because you're on the street? Oh, that's right. ZERO.

You're making crap up again. Your accuracy with facts is about as bad as your spelling.

And since you didn't post some sort of link to verify your claim about 50% of all checkpoint drivers receiving minor tickets, you most likely made that up as well.

I saw in the news this morning that an OVI checkpoint in the Fairfield area resulted in over 400 random stops, and 11 OVI's. If there were 11 other citations issued, I'd be surprised.

Did you not state, that you are free game when you are on public streets?

46,000 drivers had to sit thru checkpoints last year.
Less than 1% were cited for a DUI.

So, if you are spending a ton of money to set up these illegal checkpoints, and only getting less than 1% of the OVI offenders, then why do you think they continue these German style checkpoints?

Maybe, b/c they can generate cash with seat belt citations, and the rest of the revenue enhancing tickets.



"Despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama bin Laden, there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death."

Why are OVI checkpoints, like the one Butler County operated Friday night, operated? Geeze. The answer is so simple and so transparent.

It's like explaining why the Bungles lose so much under Mike Brown. You're so obsessed with contrived/invented demons that you won't accept the obvious.

Checkpoints are operated for public safety. Simply announcing OVI enhancement programs provides a deterrent for many drivers. Arresting 11 for OVI in Fairfield added one more safety element to that community.

Where was your link to substantiate that OVI checkpoints bring in substantial money by busting half the drivers for low level infractions? That's right. You had no substantiation. You made it up.

You lied. You were busted. Again.

Actually if you count the value of the Officer's time, the personell time at the jail, the time value of court personell and all the people who have to get involved in any citation that results in a driver being taken into custody I am pretty sure it outweighs the fine paid by the driver. Using fines as a revenue enhancement measure is highly unlikely to achieve the desired result IMO.

I agree DUI checkpoints are set up to enhance public safety but I also question the legality of them. It does seem overly intrusive. Some would argue it's an inefficient way to reduce drinking and driving because of the time spent stopping mostly sober people. The usual way of catching drunk drivers such as observing erratic driving behavior and going after them seems more efficient. But at least the courts have ruled checkpoint locations must be advertised in advance. The simplest thing would be just to avoid the checkpoint.....unless of course your name happens to be Odell Thurman, the only person in history to be too stupid to play football.

Checkpoints are operated for public safety.
~~~~~~~~~~
lol!
Then why are the people in the back of the car checked out? What danger to society can that person be?

A tail light out or signal light is out, or a seat belt violation?

C'mon, you can't be serious on this.

Who lied? lol!
The numbers are there dude, look them up, it is all public record.


"Despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama bin Laden, there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death."

Hey, you're the one who made this crap up. Where is your substantiation, your "public record," that 50% of the screened cars resulted in minor infractions? Heck, where is your substantiation that checkpoints even come out revenue-neutral?

You're retreating after being called out. That must be a practiced habit for you.

Once again, there are a million links to Data.
You want to waste your time trying to debate me on this, then go look up the sh1t yourself.
My original comment on this, was based off an Indiana story, just outside Indy.
I believe I posted that link, but not positive.

Read another the other day.
2,000 cars...3 OVI citations.
12 child safety citations.
20 non insr. citations
and numerous other infractions.

You can hide behind the OVI--for public saftey all you want, but when the results point to something other than DUI'd, then maybe it is time to name them for what they are...illegal revenue enhancers.

OVI checkpoints are designed to get drunk drivers off the streets...no problem with getting the drunks off the streets, but there are many ways to accomplish this without the German style checkpoints.




"Despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama bin Laden, there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death."

"Checkpoints are operated for public safety. Simply announcing OVI enhancement programs provides a deterrent for many drivers. Arresting 11 for OVI in Fairfield added one more safety element to that community."

But at what cost to our Reasonable Expectation of Privacy? People should be able to drive their vehicles without intrusion from the government. This is exactly what the Founding Fathers were most concerned about. I know the Supreme Court ruled in your (the cops)favor, but I definitely disagree with their rationale.

Actually, Bronco, I sort of respect the misgivings some have about checkpoints. However, the judicial evaluations have been thoughtful. And our elected officials could end them, in the classic American tradition, if society gave them the mandate to do so.

It's the demogogic mischaracterizations (that means the lies) that I find disgusting on one hand, but ironically amusing on the other.

For a victim wannabe to equate a professionally operated and judicially-sanctioned checkpoint program with Nazi tactics is phony. It reminds me of the jackasses who used such language about the federal police who were killed by the criminals called Branch Davidians at Waco, Texas,

If you went through a checkpoint, you were treated politely, respectfully and you weren't searched merely because your vehicle was picked. And there has never, ever been a checkpoint, or any OVI enforcement program, that was motivated by revenue in any Police Department. These lies came from a source that was never involved in a program.

I noticed that our resident prevaricator punked out when challenged to substantiate his phony claims. Exposing his lies might be like fishing in a barrel, but I do take some recreational delight in reading his tortured, grammar-challenged tirades after being floored.

Hook, what I am surprised to hear is if this is an OVI checkpoint, I wouldn't think if you found something else you could site them for it, for example seat belts. I don't know, I am asking, if you have a warrant for lets say drugs and you find something else illegal, could you arrest them for that? I thought no, but I don't know if these OVI check points run the same legal route as search warrants.

For a victim wannabe to equate a professionally operated and judicially-sanctioned checkpoint program with Nazi tactics is phony.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Are you forced to go thru a checkpoint and show your papers, and be subjected to an illegal search and siezure of every single person in the car? Yes or No?
The answer is yes!
You claim these illegal checkpoints, are designed to protect society from drunk drivers and nothing else.
Yet, you avoid the data, and no, I refuse to go searching for the exact story, when you know as well as I do, that it would take you all about five seconds to look up the data for yourself.
The data shows and illegal search and siezure program. Why do you search the passengers in the car?
If you look at the numbers, 2000 cars, 3 OVI's! That tells me that most of the drivers are sober and you are still handing citations for seat belts, child safety restraints, turn signals being out ect...so once you have the "probable cause", law officers take it upon themselves to nail you for the most innocent of charges.

Who is trying to be a victim?
I have never recieved a DUI or OVI or whatever they want to call it.
I am more worried about the actual manufactured OVI citations than a drunk driver.
If you are drunk and you get nailed for it, then oh well, you play the game.
The manufactured OVI cases, with a machine that is junk science, during an illegal search siezure practice, is my concern.

You are correct, society can stop these by going after the so called leaders and demanding them to stop.
Problem is, society is stupid and as a group, fall for the misinformation of the gov't. (See smoking ban and strip club halo rule.)

So you can try to be a typical left wing nut job and play the arrogant jackazz, all you want, but the truth is the right there.

They should be illegal. They use the OVI checkpoints to hand out minor citations, that enhance revenue and the machines they use to manufacture OVI's are based on junk science and seldom stick in court.
So why support the checkpoints?



"Despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama bin Laden, there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death."

"Are you forced to go thru a checkpoint and show your papers, and be subjected to an illegal search and siezure of every single person in the car? Yes or No?
The answer is yes!"

The answer is no. You project phony rage based on phony and invented facts. Vehicles can't be lawfully searched just because they go through a checkpoint. And you would have to search long and hard to find an example where a police officer abused the law on that score. I've never heard of one.

You also shamefully lied and then backpedaled about revenue enhancement aspects, your so-called minor tickets. There are a few given out. Homey addressed the issue with a much more rational question.

Homey, any time an officer observes an infraction and/or some sort of illegal contraband while performing his or her job, the officer can lawfully take action. In legal circles, this is called the "plain view" doctrine.

A few months ago, I went to an apartment to notify the family of a 16-year-old's arrest. A drug-dealing uncle with warrants opened the door, who I recognized. I immediately arrested him and found dope. I didn't need a search warrant and no attorney even attempted a suppression hearing. I was there on legitimate business and he presented himself openly.

"You claim these illegal checkpoints, are designed to protect society from drunk drivers and nothing else.
Yet, you avoid the data, and no, I refuse to go searching for the exact story, when you know as well as I do, that it would take you all about five seconds to look up the data for yourself.
The data shows and illegal search and siezure program. Why do you search the passengers in the car?"

I don't so much claim it as observe it. I've been part of briefings and you haven't. I interact with many officers from many departments. I've never even heard one joke about using checkpoints as a contrived "gotcha" opportunity for minor infractions. I've never seen or heard anyone else reflect that passengers are searched merely because they are present.

Murf, have you ever noticed that the more you make things up, the more incoherent your sentence structure and grammar becomes? That's just a tangential comment.

"If you look at the numbers, 2000 cars, 3 OVI's! That tells me that most of the drivers are sober and you are still handing citations for seat belts, child safety restraints, turn signals being out ect...so once you have the "probable cause", law officers take it upon themselves to nail you for the most innocent of charges."

Well, I've never issued, or seen issued, a citation for turn signals, missing headlights, missing front license plate or most other minor infractions. I have seen summons issued for open alcoholic containers. Number one, no apologies. Anyone so recklessly stupid to have their open beer bottle sitting on the console as they drive up to an officer deserves it. Number two, something like that happens probably less than one percent of the time.

I haven't seen it, but I did hear of one officer who cited a mother for having a baby laying on the passenger seat. The child was in plain view and the citation was lawful and reasonable.

"If you are drunk and you get nailed for it, then oh well, you play the game.
The manufactured OVI cases, with a machine that is junk science, during an illegal search siezure practice, is my concern."

OVI enforement detection is based on exhaustive scientific studies. Officers go through extensive training in proper field sobriety test procedures that align to sophisticated scientific studies. Chemical tests are also sophisticated. Victim wannabes are not.

"They should be illegal. They use the OVI checkpoints to hand out minor citations, that enhance revenue and the machines they use to manufacture OVI's are based on junk science and seldom stick in court.
So why support the checkpoints?"

You're wrong about the minor citation motivation, you are wrong about the junk science description and you're amazingly delusional about the conviction rates. I'm 100% in my OVI arrests for convictions, although they are usually plea bargained to reckless operation, as is the case throughout most of the state. (Refer to the various Bungle busts)

That's not an unusual record. I suspect that fewer than 2% of all OVI charges are simply dismissed. The scientific sophistication that is intertwined in the detection and prosecution makes any other outcome unlikely.

"Vehicles can't be lawfully searched just because they go through a checkpoint. And you would have to search long and hard to find an example where a police officer abused the law on that score. I've never heard of one."

I'm not sure I can go along with you on this one. Policemen alsways ask permission to search the car. If the permission is not granted, they "find a way" to get probable cause. My criminal law and criminal procedure textbooks are filled with questionable police tactics in this area.

If you drive a crappy car in an affluent area or if you are black in (realistically) any area, the likelihood of your car being searched compared to a white couple in a Mercedes is pretty good. JMHO

"The American Cancer Society says uninsured patients are 60 percent more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis."

I'm not sure exactly where you're coming from with this Bronco. If a stop is lawful, an officer is suspicious and he sees, hears or smells somthing, the plain view doctrine allows him to follow up.

But every officer that comes out of every Police Academy pretty much has the fear of God put into him or her that violating someone's 4th Amendment Rights is a pathway to losing a career, any life savings and possibly even their freedom.

Maybe it's natural for defense attorneys to think they lose too many suppression hearings and for police officers and prosecutors to think they lose too many. But it's clueless to think that, in today's America, police officers aren't respectful of 4th Amendment Right consequences.

I've walked away more than once when I asked, and was refused, permission to search a car. In this day and age, with just about every stop audio and videotaped, it would be crazy to go on a fishing expedition. Those tapes are fair game for defense attorneys, who obviously know 4th Amendment Rights.

Now, are some of the dumber criminal elements easy to coaxe into an incriminating utterance? Sure. And some will have dope laying in plain view, like a joint behind an ear. And an amazing number will give consent to search with bags of dope or weapons in the car, apparently hoping that the contraband won't be found.

But this whole premise that OVI enforcement programs, such as the checkpoints, are a contrived method of searching cars and writing minor traffic violations is classic garbage from a classicly ignorant blowhard.

OVI checkpoints have the agenda of OVI prevention and prosecution. There never was another agenda and there most likely never will be.

It's disgusting, yet in a way hilarious, to read the evil-government-is-out-to-get-us rant that got me started. Revenue generation is a non issue for OVI enforcement programs.

I got a ticket in Clifton around 1996 or 1997 for an illegal lane change. My girlfriend at the time was giving me a hummer--and I must have been weaving all over the road like an amateur. LMAO. He knew exactly what I was doing--which was why he was probably peeved when he pulled me ovah. I know one thing--the blowjob definitely WASN'T worth the $125.

Why pay when you can get it for free?





"So he got fired? Big deal. It's happened to the best of us. So he got kicked out of his house by his 400 lb'ed wife?!?!? That's probably better for him anyways."-OldSchooler on ChrisMBHater's absence

"But this whole premise that OVI enforcement programs, such as the checkpoints, are a contrived method of searching cars and writing minor traffic violations is classic garbage from a classicly ignorant blowhard."

I agree with that for the most part. However, let's not kid ourselves, there are plenty of little towns in and around Ohio that make some money for their local government by writing tickets.

"The American Cancer Society says uninsured patients are 60 percent more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis."

http://www.daytondailynews.com/money/content/oh/story/news/local/2008/06/28/ddn062808oviweb.html



The answer is no. You project phony rage based on phony and invented facts. Vehicles can't be lawfully searched just because they go through a checkpoint.
~~~~~~~~~~~
I am talking about the actual checkpoint itself...you are forced to go thru a checkpoint, that should be unlawfull restraint.
Then you are forced to be subjected to an ilelgal search..., well, let me refrain, most idiots don't understand that they can tell the cop to get lost on the search, but must cops know this, so they take advantage of the idiots and conduct a search of person and car.
Why on earth, if you are conducting an "OVI CHECKPOINT", do you have to search and identify the person in the back seat?
The answer is, b/c the gov't is conducting an illegal practice and getting away with it, based on the false claim of it being a DUI checkpopint for public safety.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Murf, have you ever noticed that the more you make things up, the more incoherent your sentence structure and grammar becomes? That's just a tangential comment.
~~~~
Nice BA move here, can't win the debate, so find a negative off subject...I did not realize that I was dealing with a grammar expert.
Dork.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


OVI enforement detection is based on exhaustive scientific studies. Officers go through extensive training in proper field sobriety test procedures that align to sophisticated scientific studies. Chemical tests are also sophisticated. Victim wannabes are not.
~~~~~~~~~
I guess that is the reason for the California high courts to agree with me.
It is pathetic to defend this machine as something other than it is...a piece of garbage created and used for manufacturing OVI convictions...No 2 humans are the same..your mind reacts one way after a few beers, that has nothing to do with the person sitting next to you, after having a few beers...that is common sense.


You're wrong about the minor citation motivation, you are wrong about the junk science description and you're amazingly delusional about the conviction rates. I'm 100% in my OVI arrests for convictions, although they are usually plea bargained to reckless operation, as is the case throughout most of the state. (Refer to the various Bungle busts)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I am 100% correct on the minor violations being handed out during OVI checkpoints
I am 100% correct on the conviction rates...they are becoming harder and harder, b/c the lawyers are attacking all of those great scientific tests, that is the reason for the plea deals...


The story I posted, was a quick search...I have read several other sniplets like this and they are all the same...
More minor traffic violations than OVI's in just about every single one of them.
Still want to dispute me on this?


"Despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama bin Laden, there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death."

"According to the sheriff's office on Monday morning, results included: Three OVI arrests, 19 charges for driving under suspension and/or no driver's license, four seat belt citations, four other traffic violations, three misdemeanor arrests and one felony arrest."

The article didn't say how many cars were screened. Butler County's recent checkpoint screened over 400, which is typical.

Let's see, you contrived a 50% stat about how many people screened were ticketed. That lie was easy to identify.

In this Dayton story, there were eight "minor" violations, which would amount to less than 2% of Butler County's total. There were 27 total non-OVI violations, which would account for less than 7% of Butler County's total.

No one, at no time, suggested that checkpoints wouldn't result in crime fighting. If a driving under suspension or warrant arrest falls into an officer's lap, of course he's going to act.

But you lied about it being Nazi Germany tactics. You lied about the financial motive.

It's sort of interesting to ponder what motivates you to lie. Is it because you're ignorant and uneducated? Or is it because you're a paranoid? Or is it both?

Either way, I understand why you didn't cut the mustard on Cincinnati's PD qualification test.

First of all Barney, I scored a 91 on the test, and passed every single test given.
Still on the table there jackazz, but when the tax paying idiots voted down the jail, everything was placed on hold.

Back to the subject....
So your typical liberal twist, was to infuse your own thinking into the real facts..
Nothing like avoiding the facts of the case and adding your opinion and stats.

I did not base my opinion on this story, as I have stated several times in this debate, I based my opinion on this debate from a news story outside of Indy.
Then I looked up some data on DUI's and they all end up being the same.

More tickets are handed out for other "crimes or violations", than OVI citations.
So why call them OVI checkpoints...just call them what they are...REVENUE ENHANCERS.

I am not paranoid or angry.
I don't like checkpoints, and believe they should be illegal and have become a huge waste of time.
They do generate money and that is the reason for doing them.
Think about it, you claim that they are not making any type of money off of them, yet in a bad economy, we continue to have them?
They drill you to the wall with fines and fees and insr. cost and when you try to get your liscn. back, that is another huge cost, then add the minor tickets and they all have a price tag attached to them.



"Despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama bin Laden, there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death."

WSLS News Staff
Published: May 27, 2008

Danville Police call their sobriety checkpoint over the weekend a success.

The checkpoint happened on Saturday, May 25th, at South Boston Roads intersection with Old Halifax Road. The DMV helped pay for the checkpoint. It ran from 9:00 p.m. to Midnight.

Officers checked about 750 vehicle during the night.

Police tell us they wrote multiple citations, including:

DUI - 1
No child safety seat - 11
Suspended operators license - 10
No operators license in possession - 9
Expired state inspection sticker - 9
No operators license - 8
Expired Virginia registration
Defective equipment - 3
Identity fraud - 1
Object suspended from mirror
No motorcycle endorsement

Now,since you refuse to listen to me, this is a sample of the many stories on the net.
Look up Checkpoint Results and you can find about 40-50 pages of these little sniplets and most are about the same.
One county in Colorado had insane numbers, but that was over a 2 day stretch between seven or so counties... anyway....

Read it slowly....750 cars
1 DUI---1 DUI--
54 other citations...
So stop trying to pretend that law officers do not create minor citations during these chekpoints.
Almost every single results page that I looked up, was about the same...low DUI citations, but a bunch of other citations.
What do citations do? Enhance revenue...so what should we call these...REVENUE ENHANCERS.
Are they legal under the laws of the federal gov't? I don't think so, unless the 4th adm. was just a typo and we should give the gov't a free pass to just violate our rights at any given time as long as they use the term "FOR PUBLIC SAFETY", then hell, do home checks weekly.
Just walk into the homes of "probable cause" people and turn the house upside down...after all, it is all about the safety of the public.

Sell that bullsh!t to your idiot liberal nut jobs...I am not buying it.
Illegal revenue enhancers!

For the record...if they did the so called "saturation patrols", I would not have that big of an issue with it.
Atleast if you get pulled over, they better have decent probable cause and I am not wasting my time sitting in some line waiting to be treated like a criminal, plus there will be video of the stop, and questioning..


"Despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama bin Laden, there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death."

"Read it slowly....750 cars
1 DUI---1 DUI--
54 other citations..."

Do the math slowly. In this apparently highest percentage case study you could find, 7.2% of the cars resulted in non-OVI citations.

You lied about the 50%. Your ignorant rants are comical, and your reference to Nazi Germany are disgusting, and even unpatriotic.

Have you ever found any statistical substantiation about checkpoint programs being a positive revenue enhancer? Why would you want facts? You've avoided them apparently your whole life.

If you put an extra eight-officer crew out for general road patrol only, they would generate more traffic tickets than your Dayton example, which is typical. And if they were aggressive they could write 50-60.

Again, as someone who's served on road details, there has never, ever been a command officer or county official who sanctioned enhanced OVI detection for revenue. The programs are expensive to operate and in fact are sometimes grant-funded because local departments can't afford to run them on their own.

The motive is, was and always will be public safety.

Knowing that you couldn't pass the mustard to become a police officer, I understand what feeds some of your irrational perspective.

You're also ignorant (no surprise) about the use of cameras at OVI checkpoints. They almost always, and perhaps are always, used.

Telling non-truths is such a habit with you, sometimes it's hard to tell when you're just being an ignorant moron or a lieing moron. You live on both sides of that dismal boundary.

Do the math slowly. In this apparently highest percentage case study you could find, 7.2% of the cars resulted in non-OVI citations.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I did the math....1 DUI out of 750 cars, forced to sit in German style checkpoints!
54 citations, that have absolutely nothing to do with PUBLIC SAFETY, they are using that nonsense to create revenue by giving out minor violations.


If you put an extra eight-officer crew out for general road patrol only, they would generate more traffic tickets than your Dayton example, which is typical. And if they were aggressive they could write 50-60.

That is my point, atleast I would not have to sit thru a checkpoint, if I am doing something wrong, or a bored cop wanted to pull me over for having the smallest infraction, then so be it.
Depending on what the so called violation was, would determine my mood, I have been pulled over at 3:00am for having a liscn. plate light out...no suprise, he said he was part of a DUI task force and that was a reason he pulled me over, I had my wife and boys in the car with me and was not drinking, he ran my information and I was on my way...
I have no problem with that action..

I do however, have a huge problem with checkpoints and despite your pathetic attempt at pretending that you are offended that I called them German Style checkpoints, I stand my comment...In Germany, they set up checkpoints to search for people and illegal things.
What on earth do you call a checkpoint that investigates every single person in the car at a checkpoint.
God forbid someone had a joint or beer in the car, now it is search and siezure time.


Knowing that you couldn't pass the mustard to become a police officer, I understand what feeds some of your irrational perspective.
They are the same thing....the end result is not the same, but the style and illegal actions, are the same.

LOL...what part of this don't you get...I did not fail, I am still in the hiring phase, losing intrest in the job, and with the local idiots voting down the jails, and city talking about laying off 100 cops, it seems like a long shot to start with, but I am still in there...The city is a tad bit harder to get hired, than some part time mayberry sh1t you got working.

You're also ignorant (no surprise) about the use of cameras at OVI checkpoints. They almost always, and perhaps are always, used.

Did I ever claim that the cameras were not used?

And again...look up the data...of course you will go and say that this one sniplet I posted is rare checkpoint
lol...
You my friend make BA look tolerable.

I have stated several times, that my initial data came from a checkpoint oustide of INDY...
Look it up.....

Still waiting to hear how the public is safer by a cop giving someone a seatbelt citation?

Murf, you can try to change your original phony lies, but you can't hide from them. Your garbage about 50% of screened cars being ticketed is exposed. Your ignorance about what the 4th amendment means and how it's respected by cops is exposed.

I never made a claim about an occaisional seat belt ticket being issued is a significant public safety achievement. I just pointed out, factually and accurately, that the motive to OVI prevention programs, like checkpoints, is public safety.

If you did in fact go through a checkpoint, you were treated respectfully and not like a criminal. I'm confident about that even if it did happen in a different county.

If you were a criminal and got spotted as such by a trained officer, it sucks to be you. No apologies.

Frankly, if they were money-makers, there would probably be more of them in some communities. They aren't motivated by revenue.

They are a deterrent to those who would operate a vehicle while intoxicated on roads that the public paid for. The public, through its representatives, has occaisonally authorized its employees to screen some of those who operate vehicles on these public-financed roadways.

The screening is done in a transparent, respectful and professional manner by many Ohio departments. This is no Nazi program.

When officers make arrests for OVI, they use sophisticated scientific detection models, including field sobriety and chemical testing. The dismissal rates are nearly zero, largely because the science and training is superb.

Your lies are comical. Your irrational ignorance explains why you'll never be a police officer.

You are already a laughingstock by being a closet Mike Brown defender. Your ignorant rants about Nazi Germany shows you to be a buffoon even beyond the world of sports.

So, you just ignore the data...Nice liberal tactic.

Whatever, I proved my side, gave you data, and anyone who looks up Checkpoint results, will see my point.
Very few DUI citations in almost every checkpoint vs minor citations that all carry a fine or fee.

Tax payer money funding the operation, so that would be all money brought in, would go directly to that local area.
We are talking about the gov't, the only way they do something, is if a price tag was attached.



"Despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama bin Laden, there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death."

In your ignorant rant and referencing some of your own links that you were so reluctant to use, you lied about the 50% standard.

You lied about the programs being Nazi type tactics, when in fact they are transparent, videotaped, 4th-Amendment coordinated and judicially-sanctioned operations.

You lied about the scientific nature of OVI detection and prosecution, and the dismissal rates of such prosecutions.

And you can't even come close to proving that OVI checkpoints are motivated by revenue generation. For that matter, you can't even come close to proving that they are even revenue neutral.

So a state safety council offers a county grant money because it wants the county to run sort of fund-raising operation? What an insane paranoid.

You proved nothing but a shameless willingness to exaggerate on your best day, and lie to pad your embellishments on most others.

In reminds me of your lie that you were arrested for felonious assault in your younger days, and then you didn't even know what the purpose of the pretrial was, or even if you had one.

You embellish, and then you lie. And you're so ignorant, you're incredibly easy to trap in your lies.

Hook, don't waste your time arguing with Murf. regardless of what you say to him, he will think he's right and you're wrong. that's how his mind works.

Lost in all these personal attacks is a basic question that I think merits consideration. If these OVI checkpoints do not result in a significant number of OVI arrests then why take this tact in the first place? Hook and murf both seems to agree that the number of arrests are low compared to the number of stops. I respectfully disagree with murf that it's being done to create revenue, that just isn't logical to me given the resources it takes to stage one of these events. But with such unsubstantial results it seems to me the deterrent benefit falls woefully short of being an efficient or effective use of the taxpayers money. Just my opinion...

Actually, I appreciate that question, JB. And for the record, I'm not completely at ease about the appropriateness of the checkpoints either.

I'm just respectful of the thoughtful nature of the arguments pro and con, and I'm very aware that 4th Amendment Rights were at the center of those judicial reviews.

These aren't sinister police state activities on the one hand, or revenue-motivated on the other. Those were outlandish lies from an individual that's in no credible position to comment. When OSP does them, their Posts get not one nickel.

Checkpoint proponents emphasize the deterrant function that all sorts of OVI enforcement policies achieve. That's everything from Billboard advertising to paying for expensive checkpoints.

Checkpoints are operated, at great expense, for public safety only. It costs communities far more to convict, sentence and jail repeat OVI and DUS offenders. This is often the case because they can't afford to pay fines.

The cost is absorbed because it makes the streets safer. It's no more complicated than that.

By the way, even though I'm a little uneasy about the idea of checkpoints, they are hardly unprecedented on American roads. Truck drivers for decades have to pull into open weigh stations for random checks. That's another public safety program that combines deterrence with enforcement.

But even though I've never driven through a weigh station, I'm comfortable that the law-abiding are treated with courtesy and respect. It's the American law enforcement norm.

Again..........

The data speaks for itself.....
Let me try this another way here....

If you have 750 cars going thru a checkpoint...and you only have 1 drunk driver, and this seems to be the case more often than not, and the officers are spending time and resources writing citations for seatbelts and various other worthless citations, then how can you honestly, believe that these checkpoints are for safety reason only?

I stand by my comments of German style checkpoints.
Did they not force you to drive up to a bunch of officers and demand your papers and illegaly search you?

If you drive thru the modern day nice checkpoints in America...don't they force you to drive thru cones, up to a bunch of officers, demanding your papers and illegaly search you?

The end result is different, but the tactic is the exact same.
The American version is worst b/c we are sopposed to be protected by law, but gov't took money from special intrest groups and skirted the law.

Insurance companies rape DUI offenders and that is backed by the cops and Gov't.
The state rapes you out of hundreds of dollars to get reinstated, only after youhave been raped by the insurance companies, then you have to pay court fines and fees and pay for an alcohol intervention program, and all of this was based off a machine that is now found to be junk science according the California Supreme court.

You want me to believe that these checkpoints are not money driven?
Sell that bullsh!t to your idiot liberal nut jobs who believed Obama was going to walk on water and save the world.
You simply can't hide the facts.

You can liberal twist it all you want...the money train is there.


"Despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama bin Laden, there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death."

"The American version is worst b/c we are sopposed to be protected by law, but gov't took money from special intrest groups and skirted the law.

Insurance companies rape DUI offenders and that is backed by the cops and Gov't.
The state rapes you out of hundreds of dollars to get reinstated, only after youhave been raped by the insurance companies, then you have to pay court fines and fees and pay for an alcohol intervention program, and all of this was based off a machine that is now found to be junk science according the California Supreme court."

You factless paranoid. In our transparent world, cops can't (nor would they want to) make deals with insurance companies. You just keep making up this garbage as you go. For that matter, find an example where any government branch is in cahoots with insurance companies to feed them OVI money.

You can't. You tell so many lies, it's like an addiction. You just keep building them up to a crazier level.

You can't even keep your incoherent, factless rants in focus. On one hand, you complain that few OVI's are written. Then you tie OVI checkpoints into a far fetched conspiracy to feed OVI money into insurance companies.

For laughs, please drive drunk in Warren County. I'd like you to explain to Judge Oda about junk science.

You'd be the classic Warren County Jail Inmate, sobbing about what a victim you are.

Hundreds of cars go through a typical OVI checkpoint. Less than 10 percent get some sort of ticket. You've continued to run like a bitch from your earlier 50% lie.

Hey, some criminals get caught in the process. Too bad for them. Some DUS operators get spotted. Good for all of us. And maybe 2 or 3 percent of the cars get one of your so-called minor citations. You can cry me a river for the inbred adult that doesn't have his child belted and gets a ticket....again for safety.

its worse murf you stupid moron not worst how many times can you make that simple mistake and still expect to be taken seriously. what an idiot!!!

To the coward who did not log in...blow me!
Debate the issue...if you can't, shut the fuch up and know your role!

We have had the grammar police on here before...nobody cares..the only cowards that start worrying about this stuff, are the idiots that can't debate the issue, so they attack spelling and grammar...

Just shows how pathetic they can be!



"Despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama bin Laden, there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death."

To me, there are definitely 2 ways to look at these checkpoints.

I see also that Murf and Hook quietly agree that the number of OVI's are low, percentage wise, at these checkpoints.

If a checkpoint sees 400 cars and only 2 OVI's come out of it, and the amount of alcohol related accidents were lower than usual for that night/weekend (or whatever timeframe you want to use) in that same particular area.... one, at least myself, would make the conclusion that the check-point was a success. The roads were safer. That aspect I agree with.

I have no idea how much they cost taxpayers, etc. I have no idea about the other "small, ticketed, offenses" for generating revenue, or even if people's 4th amendment rights are being violated.

The only thing I have concluded about this thread is that if a checkpoint deters that 1 drunk driver to stay off the road who may have killed, or severely hurt someone, or his/herself while driving, well, I would think that the cost to the state of that checkpoint, would be far less than the cost to the state if he/she did hurt someone.

My entire point is not agaisnt nailing drunk drivers and I agree, if it results in just one person being nailed, that is fine with me, as long as the checkpoint are just for impaired drivers.
Problem is, cops just can't check for impaired drivers, they go searching for everything else and give out pointless citations.

I would rather have the cops do a "saturation" patrol and nail the drunks rather than the (IMO), illegal checkpoints.
I do believe in 4th adm. and I do believe it is being violated by these checkpoints, despite the Supreme Court ruling saying that they are legal.

If the cops were soley in the business of keeping society safe, then they would set up checkpoints in the hood.
Say like OTR or Avondale...drugs, guns, warrants, ect...
Wonder why they never do that?


"Despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama bin Laden, there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death."