Cops stake out bars to catch drunk drivers - Page 2

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Cops stake out bars to catch drunk drivers (Page 2 of 3)

Posted: 3/11/2006 1:57:05 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
I've always felt there should be a window in which drunk driving is legal. Say, 2-4 AM. During those two hours it should be legal to drive 3 sheets to the wind.

that is the dumbest thing i have heard so far, im sure you are only looking for neg responses.

Posted: 3/11/2006 1:57:32 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I've always felt there should be a window in which drunk driving is legal. Say, 2-4 AM. During those two hours it should be legal to drive 3 sheets to the wind.

that is the dumbest thing i have heard so far, im sure you are only looking for neg responses.

Read all responses up to page 2.

Posted: 3/11/2006 1:59:06 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just one more step towards a police state.

How?

We'll just always be wondering who's a cop one day. Who will inform, who's safe to talk to? Call me paranoid, but compare today to 30 years ago, then you'll think twice about calling me that.

Sorry, I dont see this as a step towards the police state everyone cries about. Sounds like th epolice actively doing something to address the problem of drunk driving. If you dont want to be busted for criminal activity, dont do it in public or dont tell others about it.

What if they were using video cameras. Put a video camera outside of every bar. Would that be considered a police state?

That's quite a bit different than having the police inside mingling with the patrons, casing out prospective "criminals".

Is it really that different?

I think it is. You have a piece of stationary mechanical equipment compared to a human interacting with others on the false pretense of being one of them, and in effect, spying.

Posted: 3/11/2006 2:00:16 AM EDT

[#4]

Never mind... read the response incorrectly

Posted: 3/11/2006 2:01:03 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just one more step towards a police state.

How?

We'll just always be wondering who's a cop one day. Who will inform, who's safe to talk to? Call me paranoid, but compare today to 30 years ago, then you'll think twice about calling me that.

Sorry, I dont see this as a step towards the police state everyone cries about. Sounds like th epolice actively doing something to address the problem of drunk driving. If you dont want to be busted for criminal activity, dont do it in public or dont tell others about it.

What if they were using video cameras. Put a video camera outside of every bar. Would that be considered a police state?

I'd see that as an ineffective response.

Posted: 3/11/2006 2:02:45 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I've always felt there should be a window in which drunk driving is legal. Say, 2-4 AM. During those two hours it should be legal to drive 3 sheets to the wind.

that is the dumbest thing i have heard so far, im sure you are only looking for neg responses.

Read all responses up to page 2.

still the dumbest thing i have ever heard.

but i know see youare just playing inhte sandbox.

Posted: 3/11/2006 2:03:51 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
You have a piece of stationary mechanical equipment compared to a human interacting with others on the false pretense of being one of them, and in effect, spying.

- Go to the source of the problem. You see the offender from start to finish. Nothing wrong with that in my book

Posted: 3/11/2006 2:30:56 AM EDT

[#8]

Speaking of getting them off the streets....Kansas has a unique solution. They impound your car. If I remember, for up to a year.

While I'm not against getting drunk drivers off the streets, I'm not entirely ok with siezing personal property to do it. That said, revoking licenses is about as effective as a restraining order. If they really want to, their going to. Siezing the car is a surefire way to keep them off the streets.

Posted: 3/11/2006 3:14:59 AM EDT

[#9]

We can seize a car here, but its not on the 1st offense

Posted: 3/11/2006 3:24:03 AM EDT

[#10]

Good enforcement, what better place to find drunks?

Posted: 3/11/2006 3:37:58 AM EDT

[#11]

"That's dirty," Miller said. "I'm kind of torn with that. I think it's good to get drunk drivers off the street. But to go in and sit in bars and watch people, I think it's underhanded. That's one more step the government's taking, and I don't like it."

Am I missing something? These officers are in public, observing people in public, looking for signs of intoxication and then pulling over those people if they get into their car and drive away. How is there anything remotely wrong or unconstitutional with this?? I don't care how 'underhanded' it may seem to some people, if it isn't unconstitutional then I (generally) don't have a problem with it.

I do have a problem (unconstitutional) with police stopping all drivers at a checkpoint simply because they are all driving a car.

Posted: 3/11/2006 3:52:20 AM EDT

[#12]

Back home they would go to bars in the winter time and clean off one headlight on every car in the bar parking lots. After one AM they would just wait and pull those cars over.

Posted: 3/11/2006 4:24:39 AM EDT

[#13]

"It's a new idea[/new]," traffic Capt. Andy Hall said. "It's a new way to address the problem of drunk driving."

yeah, new idea maybe 100yrs ago...

Posted: 3/11/2006 4:48:05 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
I've always felt there should be a window in which drunk driving is legal. Say, 2-4 AM. During those two hours it should be legal to drive 3 sheets to the wind.

What an idiot.

Yeah only drunks are out at 2-4.

No sober people with a real job to get killed by the drunks.

Get a grip.

Posted: 3/11/2006 4:57:21 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I've always felt there should be a window in which drunk driving is legal. Say, 2-4 AM. During those two hours it should be legal to drive 3 sheets to the wind.

What an idiot.

Yeah only drunks are out at 2-4.

No sober people with a real job to get killed by the drunks.

Get a grip.

yeah 0 usually when you hear of a drunk driving accident between 2-4 one party is usually not intoxicated

Posted: 3/11/2006 5:23:43 AM EDT

[#16]

I think that in this type of operation, the police are actually doing good police work, by doing observation of the activity in progress, watching the "perpetrator" performing the illegal act, and apprehending the "perpetrator".
There is nothing inherently wrong with this kind of police work, although I'm sure it is not a popular thing with the perps.

However, I think that if these officers see these drunk people leaving the bars to get in their cars, it would be alot better for them to stop these drunks before they get into their cars, and tell them that they will be apprehended and tested if they get into the car, and point them to a phone to call a sober driver.
This would drastically reduce the tickets given, make some people alot more respectful and friendly with the officers, and generate an overall feeling of better relationships with the police, than "lying in wait for the arrest".
The people are already drunk, the police are already there and watching, so it is simply a matter of how they handle the situation. They apparently choose to "lie in wait for the arrest", instead of doing some public service to "head off" a crime situation.

While some may think this to be foolish, I think that it would engender a better feeling toward the officers, as people looking out for the public's best interest, instead of "sharks" waiting to pounce on people.

Some drunks may be belligerent and get in the car anyway, and they can be arrested.
However, many people will have their faith in the police increased, and may come to view them as the "friendly police officer" that many in America yearn for.

Posted: 3/11/2006 5:30:53 AM EDT

[#17]

When ever I see a story like this, it just tells me it is a schedualed dog and pony...

But hey, drunk drivers are selfish could be murderers that should get loked up. Almost every bar in certain area's around here I see cops parked at waiting. They don't do it in other area's, I am sure eonomics is a root cause.

Posted: 3/11/2006 5:34:17 AM EDT

[#18]

I'm sorry, this is the damn stupidist thing I have ever read.

Just what is the rational reason other than a bigger fine for letting drunk get behind the wheel of a car?

How again is allowing a drunk to drive off in a car protecting society?

I mean who's more irresponsible here, the drunk for driving or the two cops who failed to arrest him for public drunk or the second he pulled on the road?

Oh I get it, drunks can drive safe for a certain distance.

I mean that thing reads like well he broke the law but let's wait till he kills someone before we arrest him.

Tj

Posted: 3/11/2006 5:36:44 AM EDT

[#19]

The've been doing that for decades.

Posted: 3/11/2006 5:38:40 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
I think that in this type of operation, the police are actually doing good police work, by doing observation of the activity in progress, watching the "perpetrator" performing the illegal act, and apprehending the "perpetrator".
There is nothing inherently wrong with this kind of police work, although I'm sure it is not a popular thing with the perps.

However, I think that if these officers see these drunk people leaving the bars to get in their cars, it would be alot better for them to stop these drunks before they get into their cars, and tell them that they will be apprehended and tested if they get into the car, and point them to a phone to call a sober driver.
This would drastically reduce the tickets given, make some people alot more respectful and friendly with the officers, and generate an overall feeling of better relationships with the police, than "lying in wait for the arrest".
The people are already drunk, the police are already there and watching, so it is simply a matter of how they handle the situation. They apparently choose to "lie in wait for the arrest", instead of doing some public service to "head off" a crime situation.

While some may think this to be foolish, I think that it would engender a better feeling toward the officers, as people looking out for the public's best interest, instead of "sharks" waiting to pounce on people.

Some drunks may be belligerent and get in the car anyway, and they can be arrested.
However, many people will have their faith in the police increased, and may come to view them as the "friendly police officer" that many in America yearn for.

Yup.

Posted: 3/11/2006 5:39:14 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
I'm sorry, this is the damn stupidist thing I have ever read.

Just what is the rational reason other than a bigger fine for letting drunk get behind the wheel of a car?

How again is allowing a drunk to drive off in a car protecting society?

I mean who's more irresponsible here, the drunk for driving or the two cops who failed to arrest him for public drunk or the second he pulled on the road?

Oh I get it, drunks can drive safe for a certain distance.

I mean that thing reads like well he broke the law but let's wait till he kills someone before we arrest him.

Tj

Yup.

Posted: 3/11/2006 5:41:12 AM EDT

[#22]

On a similar note, I was playing designated driver for some friends who wanted to go out drinking (ooooh--novel concept--buy a friend dinner in exchange for his driving your drunk ass around) one night. One of the friends is a cop. She decided she wanted to see just HOW drunk she was, so she called up one of her squadmates (the bar was in her beat) and he popped over with the Alco.

I have NEVER in my life been so entertained as I was when the bar emptied out at closing time and everyone saw the cop car in the parking lot, just outside the door, with the cop doing FST's and giving my friends the Alco.

We probably averted 50 people from taking their cars out on the street.

I hate drunk drivers. If you want to drink, get hammered at home or at a friend's house, or call a fucking cab. The booze is cheaper, and nobody needs to risk a ticket or an accident....

GT
and the free drunk driving hours thing is dumb. my wife gets off work around then, and the drunks are already out.

Posted: 3/11/2006 5:44:16 AM EDT

[#23]

Whats next? They actually go into the bars and everyone that has had atleast one drink will be documented and then tested for sobriety upon leaving the bar?

Posted: 3/11/2006 5:45:38 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
I think that in this type of operation, the police are actually doing good police work, by doing observation of the activity in progress, watching the "perpetrator" performing the illegal act, and apprehending the "perpetrator".
There is nothing inherently wrong with this kind of police work, although I'm sure it is not a popular thing with the perps.

However, I think that if these officers see these drunk people leaving the bars to get in their cars, it would be alot better for them to stop these drunks before they get into their cars, and tell them that they will be apprehended and tested if they get into the car, and point them to a phone to call a sober driver.
This would drastically reduce the tickets given, make some people alot more respectful and friendly with the officers, and generate an overall feeling of better relationships with the police, than "lying in wait for the arrest".
The people are already drunk, the police are already there and watching, so it is simply a matter of how they handle the situation. They apparently choose to "lie in wait for the arrest", instead of doing some public service to "head off" a crime situation.

While some may think this to be foolish, I think that it would engender a better feeling toward the officers, as people looking out for the public's best interest, instead of "sharks" waiting to pounce on people.

Some drunks may be belligerent and get in the car anyway, and they can be arrested.
However, many people will have their faith in the police increased, and may come to view them as the "friendly police officer" that many in America yearn for.

+1

Posted: 3/11/2006 5:47:51 AM EDT

[#25]

Look for my article to be published in May in the Journal of American Drunkologists - "The Rise of the Designated Decoy: Patterns in Public Intoxication"

Posted: 3/11/2006 5:49:22 AM EDT

[#26]

The drunks will counter with a designated decoy.

Posted: 3/11/2006 5:50:39 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
My preferred DUI enforcement tactic is simple. Park near the bar at 1am. The street in front of our busiest bar is a one way street. Stop every car that leaves driving the wrong way on the one way.

HAHAHA. That's awesome.

As for the article ... if you're going fishing, look where the fish are I guess...

Posted: 3/11/2006 6:14:30 AM EDT

[#28]

The house across the street from me used to be a rental. It was rented by a string of drug dealers from the same street gang. The cops in my opinion were being paid or were just to gutless to do anything about it. They had major drug buys with look outs posted at the corners, high traffic and people dragging stolen property and guns into the house. A list of tag numbers I provided netted 13 felons including one of the areas most wanted. This suprised the cops and they asked me to "let them know if they came back", I pointed out they came back daily, because, THEY FUCKING LIVED THERE!!!!! The druggies threw pipe bombs in the yard one afternoon and rattled windows around the block. THERE WAS NO POLICE RESPONSE EVER,,,,,,,YOU SIMPLY COULD NOT FIND ANY LOCAL COPS WITH BALLS, THEY ARE BASICALLY CROSSING GUARDS WITH GUNS.

After two years, it took a written request TO THE CITY ENGINEERS for a traffic light and cross walk so we could make it down the street during major drug sales periods and 45 complaints to Code Enforcement about the condition of the home and yard and the out of state landlord to get him to evict them. The drug dealers simply moved away. I was quite suprised the police didn't offer a van for their shit.

I can see how arresting 21 y/o women for drinking would be about the upper limit to most cops ability. My neighbors cat has more balls than most of the city cops here.

I consider myself a supporter of LEO's with the exception of our local brand of cop. The local PD is currently in the news for assisting a fireman who raped a 16y/o in the station while on duty in hiding evidence and deleting digital pics of him in action. They also lied about their response time and the number of unanswered calls to get a bond passed then went on TV and admitted they lied. Whats not to like???

Posted: 3/11/2006 8:52:52 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
And what do you consider the delineating factor between a 'checkpoint' and an 'observation point' (parking near a bar at 0100)?

Checkpoint stops people who have committed no violation of law. I'm stopping people for specific violations of law. Thats a huge difference.

As for the equal protection issue. When one bar is responsible for over 50% of our calls for service, including car crashes, fights and rapes then they deserve extra attention. Additionally my employer still uses area cars. Meaning you are assigned to a specific part of the city based on your call sign. there is only one bar in my assigned area. If i were to set up on any of our other bars i would be poaching and letting my assigned area go unpatrolled.

Posted: 3/11/2006 9:01:05 AM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I've always felt there should be a window in which drunk driving is legal. Say, 2-4 AM. During those two hours it should be legal to drive 3 sheets to the wind.

Either sarcasim or one of th dumbest posts to date on here (and that is quite a feat)

I AGREE! The roads are just chock fucking full of families out and about at 2 in the morning. And dont get me started on all the little kids I see riding their bikes around at 3 AM. And the 3:30 elderly walkathon that happens every day.

Yeah, it would be a real mess.

Depending one where you are talking about, there is a fair degree of foot and vehicle traffic during your 2-4am window.

Hookers and drug dealers, so yes I agree with you.

I used to drive home from work at 3:00AM

Posted: 3/11/2006 9:01:30 AM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
I'm sorry, this is the damn stupidist thing I have ever read.

Just what is the rational reason other than a bigger fine for letting drunk get behind the wheel of a car?

How again is allowing a drunk to drive off in a car protecting society?

I mean who's more irresponsible here, the drunk for driving or the two cops who failed to arrest him for public drunk or the second he pulled on the road?

Oh I get it, drunks can drive safe for a certain distance.

The burdon of proof for Drunk in public is "unable to care for yourself" not simply impaired by alcohol like with DUI. So they dont have a crime until the driver drives the car. meaning actual movement of the vehcicle. Are you advocating the cops detain and warn for "precrimes?"

Posted: 3/11/2006 9:12:18 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm sorry, this is the damn stupidist thing I have ever read.

Just what is the rational reason other than a bigger fine for letting drunk get behind the wheel of a car?

How again is allowing a drunk to drive off in a car protecting society?

I mean who's more irresponsible here, the drunk for driving or the two cops who failed to arrest him for public drunk or the second he pulled on the road?

Oh I get it, drunks can drive safe for a certain distance.

The burdon of proof for Drunk in public is "unable to care for yourself" not simply impaired by alcohol like with DUI. So they dont have a crime until the driver drives the car. meaning actual movement of the vehcicle. Are you advocating the cops detain and warn for "precrimes?"

As long as there is no arrest ,the "precrime" thing is a red herring. You would also think that the cops could talk to more people if they didn't have to go through the paperwork of an arrest each time, thus making the streets even safer. Of course, the DA couldn't brag about his conviction rate in the next election cycle, so I guess the tradeoff isn't worth it.

Posted: 3/11/2006 9:14:58 AM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm sorry, this is the damn stupidist thing I have ever read.

Just what is the rational reason other than a bigger fine for letting drunk get behind the wheel of a car?

How again is allowing a drunk to drive off in a car protecting society?

I mean who's more irresponsible here, the drunk for driving or the two cops who failed to arrest him for public drunk or the second he pulled on the road?

Oh I get it, drunks can drive safe for a certain distance.

The burdon of proof for Drunk in public is "unable to care for yourself" not simply impaired by alcohol like with DUI. So they dont have a crime until the driver drives the car. meaning actual movement of the vehcicle. Are you advocating the cops detain and warn for "precrimes?"

It happens here. If you have the keys and are within the car, even if it isn't running and you aren't driving, you have actual physical control and will be busted.

Posted: 3/11/2006 9:18:09 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm sorry, this is the damn stupidist thing I have ever read.

Just what is the rational reason other than a bigger fine for letting drunk get behind the wheel of a car?

How again is allowing a drunk to drive off in a car protecting society?

I mean who's more irresponsible here, the drunk for driving or the two cops who failed to arrest him for public drunk or the second he pulled on the road?

Oh I get it, drunks can drive safe for a certain distance.

The burdon of proof for Drunk in public is "unable to care for yourself" not simply impaired by alcohol like with DUI. So they dont have a crime until the driver drives the car. meaning actual movement of the vehcicle. Are you advocating the cops detain and warn for "precrimes?"

As long as there is no arrest ,the "precrime" thing is a red herring.

So it would be okay if the cops stopped you any time they thought you might commit a crime?

Posted: 3/11/2006 9:25:13 AM EDT

[#35]

I think Leo's should prevent crimes. If they see a drunk leave the bar, he should be stopped before he commits the crime. Unfortunately, this would prevent the county from collecting a fine. It's all about the money, not making our streets safer. Chief Dyer is an idiot. take a look at his past concerning underage girls.

Posted: 3/11/2006 9:35:56 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
The house across the street from me used to be a rental. It was rented by a string of drug dealers from the same street gang. The cops in my opinion were being paid or were just to gutless to do anything about it. They had major drug buys with look outs posted at the corners, high traffic and people dragging stolen property and guns into the house. A list of tag numbers I provided netted 13 felons including one of the areas most wanted. This suprised the cops and they asked me to "let them know if they came back", I pointed out they came back daily, because, THEY FUCKING LIVED THERE!!!!!
I consider myself a supporter of LEO's with the exception of our local brand of cop.

A lot of different ideas about how things get done in police work, Lonegun looking at your situation here. I used to make my partners nervous for 'me.' They would freak out cause when I knew of a drug house I would park infront of it, or just down the road, to do my paper work at night. I would set up as tactically as possible, and was nervous, but I did it anyway.

I'd also stop EVERY car that came out of there too. When I drove by I ALWAYS spot lighted their windows and HARASSED them every chance I got. I'd do this until they left , I arrested them, or got a warrant signed.

Now back to the bar/drunk driver issue. twl? Said that the officer should call cabs? I sorta see your point, but instead of calling a cab, arrest them for public intox. This way they will not get into the car period. By hailing a cab for them you are letting them go knowing they are drunk. Civil Liability for an officer to do this. Their actions the rest of that night can come back to bite you.

I don't mind undercover officers working bars, campuses, and such. Criminal activity is done in seceret and isn't fair, what's not fair about the good guys being sneeky?

Posted: 3/11/2006 9:36:23 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
I can see how arresting 21 y/o women for drinking would be about the upper limit to most cops ability. My neighbors cat has more balls than most of the city cops here.

Drunk drivers are statisticly the most dangerous criminals there are, injuring over 500,000 people a year.

Posted: 3/11/2006 9:38:33 AM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
I think Leo's should prevent crimes. If they see a drunk leave the bar, he should be stopped before he commits the crime.

Stopped for what? Whats your legal authority to detain? Would you expand on that program to inlcude stopping everyone seen leaving the gun store to warn them against doing a drive by later? Maybe stop every couple on a date to warn the man against committing a rape later?

Posted: 3/11/2006 9:44:51 AM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
Quoted:
The house across the street from me used to be a rental. It was rented by a string of drug dealers from the same street gang. The cops in my opinion were being paid or were just to gutless to do anything about it. They had major drug buys with look outs posted at the corners, high traffic and people dragging stolen property and guns into the house. A list of tag numbers I provided netted 13 felons including one of the areas most wanted. This suprised the cops and they asked me to "let them know if they came back", I pointed out they came back daily, because, THEY FUCKING LIVED THERE!!!!!
I consider myself a supporter of LEO's with the exception of our local brand of cop.

A lot of different ideas about how things get done in police work, Lonegun looking at your situation here. I used to make my partners nervous for 'me.' They would freak out cause when I knew of a drug house I would park infront of it, or just down the road, to do my paper work at night. I would set up as tactically as possible, and was nervous, but I did it anyway.

I'd also stop EVERY car that came out of there too. When I drove by I ALWAYS spot lighted their windows and HARASSED them every chance I got. I'd do this until they left , I arrested them, or got a warrant signed.

Now back to the bar/drunk driver issue. twl? Said that the officer should call cabs? I sorta see your point, but instead of calling a cab, arrest them for public intox.

This story is from California. The elements of the crime for CPC 647f Drunk in public are "unable to care for yourself." Not simply intoicated, not too drunk to legally drive, but falling down drunk making piss angels on the sidewalk. So intoxicated that you will harm yourself if not immediately arrested.

Posted: 3/11/2006 9:46:36 AM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:

So it would be okay if the cops stopped you any time they thought you might commit a crime?

I don't know about making this universal, but if a cop stopped me in a bar, or while I was getting into a car and said "I don't think you want to be doing that" I'd be profoundly grateful, and have nothing but respect for him.

Posted: 3/11/2006 9:56:10 AM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
I think Leo's should prevent crimes. If they see a drunk leave the bar, he should be stopped before he commits the crime. Unfortunately, this would prevent the county from collecting a fine. It's all about the money, not making our streets safer. Chief Dyer is an idiot. take a look at his past concerning underage girls.

Yup. No ticket, no jail, no magistrate/ Judge....No money....no cops.

Posted: 3/11/2006 9:58:47 AM EDT

[#42]

Why didn't the officer stop Thomas Miller for urinating in public? Wasn't that enough cause to stop him for getting into his vehicle and driving away?

Posted: 3/11/2006 10:02:32 AM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
Why didn't the officer stop Thomas Miller for urinating in public?

California does not have a specific section for urinating in public. Some cities have municodes against it though. Although there is some new case law that says public urniation may be charged as "maintain a public nuisance." www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=444983

Posted: 3/11/2006 10:06:04 AM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
Quoted:

So it would be okay if the cops stopped you any time they thought you might commit a crime?

I don't know about making this universal, but if a cop stopped me in a bar, or while I was getting into a car and said "I don't think you want to be doing that" I'd be profoundly grateful, and have nothing but respect for him.

Sure they will have respect for them and be grateful at that moment because they just got a free pass. The only problem with that is when Officer Friendly isn't around the next night they are going to get in their car and drive off because no one was there to nanny them this time. Irresponsible people lead irresponsible lives, no amount of leniency is going to change their behavior, it is just going to make them think they can get away with it.

Staking out bars looking for drunk drivers sounds like common sense. Like someone else said, if we were talking about sobriety checkpoints/roadblocks I would have a completely negative opinion. However a bar parking lot is one of, if not the best place to catch people driving drunk.

Posted: 3/11/2006 10:24:08 AM EDT

[#45]

Since it's MY property, I'd tell the cops to get the hell out. If my customers no longer come to my bar cause of deputy dawgs spy games I go out of business so I have nothing to lose.

Either that, or get some friends, play a game of PRETENDING to drink, get shitfaced, and get popped down the street with a BAC of zero. It'd screw up their credibility in court if you worked it right.

Don't like drunk drivers but this is fascism at it's best.

Posted: 3/11/2006 10:25:59 AM EDT

[#46]

I listened to Mr. Millers phone call to the local talk show about his arrest. He disputed the accuracy of the story in the newspaper. If I remember the call correctly, never urinated on the tires, doesn't own a Range Rover, other passenger was his wife. I don't know if it's true or not. I do believe the statement that it cost him $800.00 to get his vehicle out of impound. Revenue generating arrest, got to wonder.

Posted: 3/11/2006 10:28:34 AM EDT

[#47]

The Temple Terrace Police pull that shit outside of a bar called the firehouse down here. They pull more sober drivers than drunks though, Just more revenue fishing expeditions typicle of so many "Stand Up" agencies in this country

Posted: 3/11/2006 10:42:38 AM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:
My preferred DUI enforcement tactic is simple. Park near the bar at 1am. The street in front of our busiest bar is a one way street. Stop every car that leaves driving the wrong way on the one way.

if i could only count the number of times that's happened on 6th street in austin...

seriously, though, from a bartender's perspective, the very best DWI prevention tactic is to have a unit stationed very visibly in the parking lot, and if the proprietor agrees, two guys on foot near the entrance.

it won't result in a lot of arrests, but it will cause the vast majority of drunks and borderlines off the road.

and isn't that the point?

Posted: 3/11/2006 10:45:35 AM EDT

[#49]

If a cop is parked near a bar and gets drunk drivers off the street i dont see a problem.

Posted: 3/11/2006 10:48:21 AM EDT

[#50]

What happens when a cop knows a person in the bar, perhaps who had previous arrests, and buys him shots, then gets that person busted?

Hmmmm... how about the bars charging a $15 cover charge, no readmittance without repaying, then when you pay your cover you get $15 worth of drink vouchers, costing the actual patrons nothing more than they were going to spend anyways?

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Cops stake out bars to catch drunk drivers (Page 2 of 3)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us