This weekend a City of Washington checkpoint at the Hwy 47 bridge.  Pulled up, they asked for license, I pulled out my wallet, dug around and pulled out the license, cop looked at it, handed it back to me, said thank you and I drove off. Total time of contact maybe ~30 seconds.

Going back the other way I already had the wallet and license out, cop looked at it, handed it back, said thank you and I drove off.
Total time of contact ~20 seconds.

I didn't hand over the Franklin Co. CCW card, which is non-photo anyway.
No duty to inform, so I didn't bother.

Hadn't been through a sobriety checkpoint in 15 years. This was the first one since CCW law changed. I didn't even think about it until afterwards.

Non-event and not really worthy of a post, but here it is anyway.  

Anything to discuss?

Hell no don't give them your CCW......Don't give them ANY information they did not ask for.  Furthermore, I am hesitant to give the ANY information even if they did ask for it.  "I respectfully decline to answer" anything about where I'm coming from, going to, or are lawfully transporting in the car.  Not trying to be a dick--I'll engage in conversation--but I'm not giving them free information especially in this circumstance when I'm being delayed for no reason.  There's never been anything in the law that says we have to inform....traffic stop, checkpoint, etc.  Only if asked you have to produce the card--don't have to say what/where/if you're carrying, just have to produce the card.

I'm on the fence about these sobriety checkpoints.  I despise drunk drivers and hope they get caught, but at the same time if the supreme court says they can do this, what's next?  What's the next "checkpoint" they're able to get through.  Makes me nervous.  There's still a gray area about what happens if they come across something else illegal during these stops.  They're not supposed to be looking for anything else.  But if you have a bloody knife and a bag of cash on the passenger seat, you think you're going to be free to go???  LOL.....That's kind of extreme, but what if it's just something else that catches their eye for some reason.

Last one I went through, I had half of our U-14 girls soccer team on board the mini-van.  In uniform, loud and ready to kick butt.  I was waved on through.

IF you have to work a 10-50J4 (accident w/ fatalities) and it a 3 year old girl and her 5 year old sister, caused by a fucking drunk driver I think your opinion might change. (the St. Joseph News-Press published a photo of a Trooper at the scene broke down in tears)

Or if you arrive on the scene of an accident where the (drunk) driver was trapped and burning to death you might change your mind. (I woke up in a cold sweat smelling burning flesh for two weeks)

Until this country has had enough of the senseless slaughter on the roads and actually tightens up the DWI laws this will continue.

Drivers will get revoked and get right back behind the wheel drunk and THEN will get a slap on the wrist and get BACK behind the wheel drunk.

Now, I have to ask you....if it was your two young children that was killed by a drunk driver would you think that a Sobrity Check Point is wrong?

And people wonder why I don't drink, EVER!

Back on Joes topic, I never volunteer any info. at a checkpoint. I'll greet them, but after that if I'm not asked anything I'll just be sitting there waiting.

If you'd ever responded to a mass shooting at a school you'd probably change your mind on guns.   What you've seen is awful, and I thank you for doing it, but liberty should never be exchanged for safety.  It is a slippery slope.

I don't roll down the window.

I'm not doing anything wrong. Leave me the fuck alone and go solve a crime.

I completely agree with you there.  I also think that lax laws and light punishments are also why we're losing the WOD.

Emotionalism aside, checkpoints are just a bad idea.  Inconveniencing 1000 to catch 1 is no way to help the police's image among honest people.  They're constitutionally dubious.  And, IMO, exacerbate the DWI problem.  When I was in high school in the 90's everyone knew about the local checkpoint within an hour after it was set up.  It didn't make anyone stop drinking and driving, it just made us take backroads.  Plus since all the county cops were tied up at the checkpoint we knew we could get away with a lot more, and we did.  All that before cell phones and social media.

And for the record I am, and always have been, a tea totaler.

Dude, I worked in EMS for 10 yrs and completely agree with you.  You know how many scenes I was on where a innocent person was J4 and here I am transporting the drunk--saving his life.  What a freakin nightmare, and it has a lot to do with why I am no longer in it.  Saving the lives of the drunk, stoned, and stupid gets old quick.

The problem is drunk drivers don't give a shit and can still get in a car anytime.......e.g. the guy with 5 DWI's that killed the motorcyclist two weeks ago at 270 & Gravois.  The system didn't stop him.  That SOB should have been in jail years ago, but the system let him out and gave him access to loaded weapons (in this case, alcohol and a car).

I can't really argue anything else when comes to DUI checkpoints EXCEPT if we give them that power how bad is it going to be exploited and turned into something else.  Give them in an inch, and they'll take a mile, right?  If it's stays nothing more than a sobriety checkpoint, morally, I cannot find one reason to be against it.  It just scares me what it could eventually be morphed into (which will have NOTHING to do with sobriety anymore.)

EDIT:  Also, the only argument I could add is that anymore with Facebook, Twitter, etc having "DUI Sobriety Checkpoint" pages & nortifcations the surprise factor is gone, and these people just adjust their routes.  I've heard from local restaurant & bar owners that their business tanks when the local cops start up with them.  I think "good", but you know the drunks just went to the next town over that night which makes their drive home even longer.  

I'm at the point to if you kill someone while driving under the influence, it should be an AUTOMATIC DEATH PENALTY!!!

As far as I'm concerned it meets the definition of Premeditated, why?

Even alcoholics know what can/will happen if they drive impaired.

I WILL state this, if a drunk driver kills a member of my family, they will be discussing it with God in short order.

No...I think its all been covered.

 
Respectfully, this reeks of the same "think of the children" arguments that anti-gunners like to trot out when looking to restrict our second amendment rights... and I say that as someone who rarely drinks and despises drunk drivers.

I would sacrifice an immeasurable amount of innocent life in order to preserve liberty.

DWI should be mandatory jail time.  Kill someone while DWI, minimum 20 years.

Frankly, I will not sacrifice my children for your "right" to drink and drive.

 

No one said anything about a "right to drink and drive."

Then choose your words more carefully.

 

I stand by my words, which in no way promoted drinking and driving.

Checkpoints are one of the most unamerican, unconstitutional things this country gets away with.

Amen.

Then do you think that you shouldn't be required to have a Drivers License? Insurance? You think that you should have a right to drive impaired?





I've had to deal with "Sovereign Citizens" who believe this. If we stop trying as Law Enforcement then we WILL become Mogadishu Somalia. Anarchy will be the norm.











Joe Bob isn't hurting anyone but himself when he drives drunk....





Randomly inserting graphic images is a CoC violation, warning sent...VA-gunnut




IN 2013, 10,076 PEOPLE DIED IN DRUNK DRIVING CRASHES - ONE EVERY 52 MINUTES - AND 290,000 WERE INJURED IN DRUNK DRIVING CRASHES.
 

There is so much wrong with this, how could one know where to start?  This is the type of tripe I expect to hear from Josh Sugarmann or Amy Schumer.  Without making any more of a leap than you did, I could surmize that you believe civilization is incompatible with liberty.  



 

 
UnAmerican? Meh.  Lots of things done in the name of "America" that certainly don't represent my values. Like "sacrifice an immeasurable amount of innocent life in order to preserve liberty. "  Because you don't get to decide about sacrificing my innocent child's life to make your fight for "liberty".




Unconstitutional?  High Court of the land disagrees.  Lots of cases I'll state that the SCOTUS got wrong.  However, under con-law, case law precedence (ie:  SCOTUS ruling) wins.  




Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz




ETA:  little SCOMO






Yep.  They put restrictions on them but at the same time stated that if the directives were followed its constitutional.  



 

You just aren't capable of discussing an issue without putting words and or intent into someone else's opinion that aren't there are you?

Once again, no one said anything about your kids, my kids, or anyone else's kids.

Do you seriously believe that innocent blood wasn't shed in the creation of this country?  Do you not believe that what our founders created should be preserved?  

By all means, lock up as many drunk drivers as you can find.  I just prefer you do it without infringing on the liberties of the innocent.  That isn't possible with a checkpoint.

 
Fixed it for ya

I haven't said it wasn't constitutional, at least as defined by SCOTUS.  Doesn't mean I will ever support it or stop asking my elected reps to make it unlawful.

Well I guess that settles it, the supreme Court is always right....

Sometimes police make it harder to like the police.

 
Not trying to make people like me.  I need someone for that, I have friends, family and dogs.  Hell, even my kid's cat thinks I'm ok whenever I feed it.


Sort of seems silly to go into a job that tasks you with enforcing rules of the society in which you work, many of which are unpopular and hope people like you.  


I would think by now most people on here would know that I don't care if you "like" me or not.  I come here to learn and share about a common interest (firearms), share what I know regarding my chosen career, look for bargains and generally just hang out.  I try to say things straight, sometimes emotions plays a part in it.  When emotion does, I understand that its my opinion and not fact.  


Make friends regarding my job?  No.  

Nope.  But until you change their ruling, its the law.  

 

And if you don't support that law and its implementation in our local area, then you support drunk driving.  So goes the logic of your previous post.

 
Nope.  What I said was if you don't like it change it.  What active steps have you taken to change it?  I see no challenges to sobriety check points on the SCOMO schedule for 2015.  A quick google of events in MO show no rallies calling for its demise.  SO, what are you doing to change it?


Bitching about its constitutionality is just that. Bitching. If you don't like it Swanny, what active, substantive steps have you taken to change it?


Here's a shock that many people sometimes can't accept:  just because I don't like it doesn't make it so.  


I live in the US, where I have mechanisms in place that give me the opportunity to change things I don't like.  Opportunity does not equal "will change".  Because I have to convince other members of that society that I am right.  And if I don't, then the will of the "people" that everyone here pounds their chest about have spoken.  


Folks like to throw around the word sheep or sheeple.  I have even used them.  Want to know one of the most frustrating parts about being a police officer?  Seeing the same problem every day and over time developing a solid plan to fix it and guess what:  the people I work for don't want it.  They may not see the problem as a problem.  They may not feel comfortable with the "optics" of the fix.  They may not want to throw money at it.  In the end, it is the popular vote of the populous that affects law.  And I either learn to accept that, or quit and work for QuikTrip.


So, back to the original topic and keeping the spirit of my commentary:  DUI/DWI is a identifiable, quantitative and qualitative issue of our society.  A method, controversial as it may be, has been established and tested in court.  Precedence is now established.  No one says you have to like it.  You can even change it if you can convince law makers and your fellow citizens that your right and the courts are wrong.  But if you are going to respond by saying "law makers won't do anything", or "people are idiots and won't change it" or hell, even "pie".  Then you are just bitching.


When someone says "its unconstitutional" they need to read how our government is structured in large part under the constitution.  Laws are challenge-able; legislation is too.  You may feel that SCOTUS or SCOMO ruled in error.  But by definition it is not unconstitutional.


Gosh, I feel better now! All that and I still haven't had my first cup of coffee yet

Well stated!

The results

So 2 DWI's out of that?  Well done.

Meanwhile, the people who were out drinking and driving went another way and there wasn't any po-po to see how bad they were driving. I'd love to see if there were any DWI related accidents in other parts of the city while this harassment was going on.

ETA: Yes, it was a fishing trip. It's a sobriety checkpoint, not a "show-me-your-papers" checkpoint, yet looky here......

Agendas. Not just for Obama.

For more entertainment, how about a Pitbull thread?

I guess we should just forget about the 650 people who were detained against their will that night while being investigated for no reason.

 

 
DUI Related Deaths by State:  Missouri


2012:  283 or 34% overall

2013:  248 or 33% overall

Why would they be?  If they aren't "afoul of the law"?



 

In 2012 Missouri had 880 gun related deaths and 781 auto related deaths.

When are you going to go door to door checking the papers of gun owners?

 

 
Click bait is going to click....

Sucks when your "logic" falls apart and you've got nothing, doesn't it?

How did it fall a part?  I point out legal, tested and precedented detection techniques.  You lob in a fear of 2nd Amendment supporters that has never occurred in MO.  Please explain how your posting your thinly linked fears to an approved and vetted technique which you have never filed a court challenge to in MO relate?

 
 

 

Or, show me in casenet where you have challenged it?

Knock Knock... Hello?  JAD762  I thought we we discussing my JBT ways???

No you didn't.  You defended detaining 650 people without cause by quoting the death rate attributed to drunk driving.  Logic being that the drunk driving habit of some legitimizes the detainment & search of others without probable cause.

I simply asked you when you were going to apply the same logic based on the death rate attributed to firearms.