California Police Taking Enforcement Of Drunken Driving Laws To A New Level


Updated: March 10th, 2006 02:04 PM EDT


Fresno Bee (CA) (KRT)
Fresno Bee (CA)


Mar. 8--The police officers blend into the thriving party scene, milking drinks in the corner of a north Fresno bar.

They are undercover -- a man and a woman -- watching for partiers who are obviously drunk or are downing drink after drink.

Fresno police are taking enforcement of drunken driving laws to a new level -- which officers expect will bring both success and outrage. Saturday night, the traffic unit unveiled a new operation in which plainclothes police officers stake out bars and target drunk patrons. If the heavy drinkers get behind the wheel, officers in unmarked cars follow them and call in marked police cars to pull them over.

Four people were arrested during a four-hour operation at two bars in northeast Fresno.

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

Hall say it's necessary because of a string of DUI collisions -- some of them fatal -- in which drivers had come from drinking at a bar or restaurant.

Gerardo "G" Franco, manager of The Dirty Olive, said he supports police efforts to get drunken drivers off the road, but putting undercover officers in bars will make his customers uneasy.

"It completely makes our patrons feel uncomfortable," Franco said. "They have no idea who is a police officer and who is not."

Franco doesn't believe it will hurt his business, because he said The Dirty Olive is doing its best to ensure patrons get home safely.

Tony Brisceno, co-owner of Veni Vidi Vici in the Tower District, said he believes bar profits will be affected.

"It'll keep people from staying out so late, having more drinks," he said. "They might just stay home and buy some alcohol."

Traffic detective Mark Van Wyhe said that while he expects some people to be upset, he's trying to make the community a safer place.

"If they're going out there and they're being responsible, I don't think it should bother them a bit," he said. "I think they should be happy that we're trying to prevent others from being involved in a DUI collision.

"We're not trying to discourage them from going out and having a good time. We just want them to be smart about it, whether that's getting a designated driver or a taxicab."

Van Wyhe and a crew of officers conducted its first-ever bar surveillance operation on Feb. 10 but didn't go public with the program until the second go-round Saturday. In the first one, six people were cited on DUI charges after undercover officers were inside El Molino Rojo and El Dorado nightclubs.

Police will target bars in areas that have the most DUI collisions.

Saturday night, Van Wyhe focuses on The Dirty Olive and TGIFriday's. The operation gets started before two undercover officers are positioned inside The Dirty Olive, off Friant Road.

As unmarked police cars pull into the parking lot about 10:30 p.m., an officer notices a man stumbling to his car with a woman.

Van Wyhe follows the man, later identified as Timothy Lancaster, as he drives a newer-model BMW left onto Fort Washington Avenue. A motorcycle officer catches up and pulls the car over as it turns onto Champlain Avenue.

Lancaster, 41, tells police he had been dining with his girlfriend at Sakanaya restaurant, next to The Dirty Olive. It's a special occasion: They just got engaged.

Lancaster tells officer Jason Ciavaglia he had two beers at the restaurant. But he is cited with DUI after blowing a 0.08 in a Breathalyzer test, Ciavaglia said.

Back at The Dirty Olive, one of Fresno's most popular bars, the undercover officers set up camp in a corner after getting some drinks at the bar. Van Wyhe and Sgt. Bruce Owen are keeping a low profile outside in a white sport utility vehicle with tinted windows.

The bar is packed. The officers decide to move around to observe the clientele.

An hour passes. As the bar nears its closing time of midnight, patrons pour into the parking lot. The officers are people-watching from a table near the door, then move outside and linger.

The next half-hour is the busiest of the night. The plainclothes officers pound Van Wyhe with phone calls, describing patrons who appear visibly drunk as they walk out.

Van Wyhe and Owen, in turn, keep tabs on the cars and their direction of travel, while dispatching patrol units to go after them.

"It's like someone opened the floodgates," Van Wyhe said. "Everybody was just running crazy in the parking lot being blatantly drunk."

It results in a spate of traffic stops within a half-mile of the bar. On nearby Friant Road, three motorists have been pulled over in a 300-yard stretch.

One of them, Thomas Miller Jr., 33, was pursued after Owen sees him and a passenger urinating on the tires of Miller's Range Rover. During the traffic stop, Miller tells police he had four or five beers at The Dirty Olive. He refuses to take a Breathalyzer test, so officers take him to have his blood drawn. He is cited with DUI.

Miller's brother, 31-year-old Tim Miller, stands on the roadside, sorting out the details of his brother's arrest with police. He is told about the new operation.

"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. â?¦ That's one more step the government's taking, and I don't like it."

Up the road, 24-year-old Nicole Gonzalez of Clovis is put in the back of a patrol car. She tells an officer, Mark Bradford, that she works at The Dirty Olive but is off that night. She told officers she had two shooters there before leaving. But she, too, refuses to take a Breathalyzer test and calls her lawyer. She is cited with DUI and taken away for a blood sample.

After her blood is taken, Gonzalez runs into Bradford. "See you in court," she says.

"I'll be there," he replies.

About 1 a.m., the police head to the next bar. When Van Wyhe rolls into the parking lot of TGIFriday's, an officer in a marked police car has mistakenly parked there. Van Wyhe asks him to go somewhere less visible.

The plainclothes officers make their way into the bar. It's not nearly as crowded as The Dirty Olive, but at 1:23 a.m., the female officer calls Van Wyhe to say there are several people who are obviously drunk.

Minutes later, two young women leaving the bar openly talk about whether they're sober enough to drive. Van Wyhe calls for motorcycle officer to follow one of the women, who is driving a white Lexus.

On Herndon Avenue, the officer pulls over 21-year-old Jacqueline Garcia. She tells an officer she has had two cocktails, and says she is a recovering alcoholic, Ciavaglia said.

During field sobriety tests, Garcia can't walk straight or say the alphabet, the officer said. She is cited with DUI.

TGIFriday's doesn't yield any more action. Van Wyhe calls off the operation at 2:15. He says he is pleased with the results, but next time wants more uniformed officers to keep up with the flow of patrons. Meanwhile, he's expecting a strong reaction from the community.

"There may be people who are offended by officers conducting surveillance in bars," Van Wyhe said, "but the harsh reality of it is that people continue to drink and drive, and we're going to take whatever measures necessary to stop this senseless crime and save lives."

The reporter can be reachedat [email protected] (559) 441-6465.


I would rather see them doping this than checkpoints.

Yup, they really know how to keep the community safe

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.

Probably have a much higher success than sitting in front of a church on Sunday morning!




I actually dont mind the beer or two folks, but the drunks shouldnt be drivng. Period.

Book 'em Danno.

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.

Like the way you think
And, if you park in sight down the "right way" more of them will probably turn the wrong way

Lessee...

The police are well within their powers to actually be somewhere in the community.

They are simply looking around, not bothering anyone, not shooting dogs, just noticing who might have had one too many.

Having found someone like this, they casually observe to see if any laws are being broken.

When it appears a law is broken, they apprehend a suspect and conduct a brief investigation.

I thought this was exactly what police were supposed to do - be a presence in the community as a deterrent to crime and as a quick response to it.


Of course, if the police are also drinking alcohol during this exercise, all bets are off.

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.

they've been doing this for years in MT.  the cop sits in the bar and watches for obvously drunk people to leave.  he then follows them outside and watches the vehicle they leave in and calls it in.  you can spot this guy by watching him go in and out of the bar.

another trick is to park about half a block away, hidden, as you pull out of the bar parking lot if you don't come to a complete stop or forget to turn on your headlights for half a block... he's got you!!!

people learn to park a few blocks away and walk to the bar pretty quick when the cops start to pull these tricks.  the bar will be packed with only a few cars in the parking lot.  

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.

We always send one sober guy down the wrong way while everyone else hauls ass.

In Illinois it is illegal to allow an intoxicated person to drive. I guess its ok for the police to do that in California. I have no problem arresting drunks. I do it myself from time to time. Allowing a stumbling drunk to walk from a bar and drive away is a bad idea. If he hits someone or something prior to being stopped the undercover cops may find themselves in a trick bag when the civil suit is filed.

Quoted: 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. We always send one sober guy down the wrong way while everyone else hauls ass.

Thats an expensive ticket to take for the team.

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.

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.

To me, this is a DUH!

<CHP Officer to self>
Hm,....I want to catch drunk drivers before they kill someone.  Where should I go?  Hey, let's go watch the drunks at the local bars and nab the ones who try to drive their cars.   (DUH!)  

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)

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.

They do that kind of shit here in AK too.

They think their sneaky by...Making a smudge mark on the the trunk or tailgate of your truck with their finger every half hour.  So when they see you driving down the road later and you have 4 marks they know you've been at the bar for two hours....

I was parked near a bar for 3 hours one day at a friends house got pulled over and accused of being at the bar.   I caught on to their little game one day when I caught the police in the act.

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.

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.

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.

And homeless people

and people walking to work

and people driving to work

and people doing their morning runs

and people out trying to break into places

There are a number of people out and about to illegitimate and legitimate reasons. Also you forget drunk drivers end up putting their vehicles into people's resdidences during these hours.

There have recently been a rash of drunk-driving related accidents (several being fatal) in the Charlotte area... all have occured between 1am and 4am

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.

Yeah, screw the delivery drivers and truck drivers out making a living after dark.

Screw the late shift workers coming home or heading into work. Some morons who had too much to drink need to drive home!

You know, I made a mistake. When you first joined, I thought you were a troll. I was wrong. The truth is probably that you post the things you do because you're just not that bright and you don't know any better.

 Four people were arrested during a four-hour operation at two bars in northeast Fresno. 

I HATE DRUNK DRIVERS, that being said, I am no LEO, but driving around here for half and hour on Friday or Saturday night, I can spot at least 10.   Sounds like a waste of resources to me.

Quoted: Four people were arrested during a four-hour operation at two bars in northeast Fresno. I HATE DRUNK DRIVERS, that being said, I am no LEO, but driving around here for half and hour on Friday or Saturday night, I can spot at least 10.   Sounds like a waste of resources to me.

-

Probably much more solid cases being made on these drivers than through the typical traffic stop

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. Yeah, screw the delivery drivers and truck drivers out making a living after dark. Screw the late shift workers coming home or heading into work. Some morons who had too much to drink need to drive home! You know, I made a mistake. When you first joined, I thought you were a troll. I was wrong. The truth is probably that you post the things you do because you're just not that bright and you don't know any better.

And let me be the first to point out the shining beacon of intelligence you are.......

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. Yeah, screw the delivery drivers and truck drivers out making a living after dark. Screw the late shift workers coming home or heading into work. Some morons who had too much to drink need to drive home! You know, I made a mistake. When you first joined, I thought you were a troll. I was wrong. The truth is probably that you post the things you do because you're just not that bright and you don't know any better. And let me be the first to point out the shining beacon of intelligence you are.......

Snappy comeback from a guy who makes ben affleck look like a political genius.

A normal person would wonder why nobody on the board agrees with the point they were trying to make (drunk driving hours).

Instead you dig in and go after the people who point out the flaws in your position.

Quoted: 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. Yeah, screw the delivery drivers and truck drivers out making a living after dark. Screw the late shift workers coming home or heading into work. Some morons who had too much to drink need to drive home! You know, I made a mistake. When you first joined, I thought you were a troll. I was wrong. The truth is probably that you post the things you do because you're just not that bright and you don't know any better. And let me be the first to point out the shining beacon of intelligence you are....... Snappy comeback from a guy who makes ben affleck look like a political genius. A normal person would wonder why nobody on the board agrees with the point they were trying to make (drunk driving hours). Instead you dig in and go after the people who point out the flaws in your position.

I'm trying to agree with you. I dont want to even try matching wits against a mighty bastion of reason and logic such as yourself.

So, while I'm blindly following along with the majority should I also wear any special insignia or wear a certain color of black boots? Do I report "Free thinkers" to any special committe, or am I required to burn a certain number of books a day? Will you tell me to run off to DU in your next post, thats always one of my favorite lines from people.

Oh, and I forgot to add...Thanks. I thought it was a snappy comeback too.
See, we have something in common already.

Quoted: I'm trying to agree with you. I dont want to even try matching wits against a mighty bastion of reason and logic such as yourself. So, while I'm blindly following along with the majority should I also wear any special insignia or wear a certain color of black boots? Do I report "Free thinkers" to any special committe, or am I required to burn a certain number of books a day? Will you tell me to run off to DU in your next post, thats always one of my favorite lines from people.

If you put more effort into developing logical positions and less into trying to sound clever, you might actually get some people to agree with you.

Instead you post bizarre positions that everyone else sees are either not practical or outright ridiculous. And when they try to point out the flaws is your position, you get sarcastic like they're too stupid to see the sheer brilliance of your posts.

You did it on the abortion thread that got locked, you did it here, you do it everywhere you stake out a wacky position that no one buys into. Here's a hint: Maybe the problem isn't them, maybe it's that your 'free thinking' needs to be tempered by a little logic and consideration of cause and effect.

Quoted: Quoted: I'm trying to agree with you. I dont want to even try matching wits against a mighty bastion of reason and logic such as yourself. So, while I'm blindly following along with the majority should I also wear any special insignia or wear a certain color of black boots? Do I report "Free thinkers" to any special committe, or am I required to burn a certain number of books a day? Will you tell me to run off to DU in your next post, thats always one of my favorite lines from people. If you put more effort into developing logical positions and less into trying to sound clever, you might actually get some people to agree with you. Instead you post bizarre positions that everyone else sees are either not practical or outright ridiculous. And when they try to point out the flaws is your position, you get sarcastic like they're too stupid to see the sheer brilliance of your posts. You did it on the abortion thread that got locked, you did it here, you do it everywhere you stake out a wacky position that no one buys into. Here's a hint: Maybe the problem isn't them, maybe it's that your 'free thinking' needs to be tempered by a little logic and consideration of cause and effect.

Ok, I'll give you this much. In this thread I did throw out some wildy fantastic shit just to see where it would go. Sometimes Arfcom is my sandbox, and I just wanna play.

But I do believe what I posted in the abortion thread. And I am, and will always be, Pro Choice.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'm trying to agree with you. I dont want to even try matching wits against a mighty bastion of reason and logic such as yourself. So, while I'm blindly following along with the majority should I also wear any special insignia or wear a certain color of black boots? Do I report "Free thinkers" to any special committe, or am I required to burn a certain number of books a day? Will you tell me to run off to DU in your next post, thats always one of my favorite lines from people. If you put more effort into developing logical positions and less into trying to sound clever, you might actually get some people to agree with you. Instead you post bizarre positions that everyone else sees are either not practical or outright ridiculous. And when they try to point out the flaws is your position, you get sarcastic like they're too stupid to see the sheer brilliance of your posts. You did it on the abortion thread that got locked, you did it here, you do it everywhere you stake out a wacky position that no one buys into. Here's a hint: Maybe the problem isn't them, maybe it's that your 'free thinking' needs to be tempered by a little logic and consideration of cause and effect. Ok, I'll give you this much. In this thread I did throw out some wildy fantastic shit just to see where it would go. Sometimes Arfcom is my sandbox, and I just wanna play. But I do believe what I posted in the abortion thread. And I am, and will always be, Pro Choice.

Super. But don't misrepresent the positions of others in order to prove your point. That's just dishonest and it reflects poorly on you. It also kills any chance you have of winning people over to your side.

Saying "conservatives just want to ban abortion and they'll do it however they can" will only whip up the people already on your side. Then people on the other side will take the time to explain what you just said was false, and the people in the middle will see you lied to them - which leads them to go against you in the future. When you do stuff like that you're your own worst enemy.

Quoted: Super. But don't misrepresent the positions of others in order to prove your point. That's just dishonest and it reflects poorly on you. It also kills any chance you have of winning people over to your side. Saying "conservatives just want to ban abortion and they'll do it however they can" will only whip up the people already on your side. Then people on the other side will take the time to explain what you just said was false, and the people in the middle will see you lied to them - which leads them to go against you in the future. When you do stuff like that you're your own worst enemy.

I dont recall saying that, but really dont thinks its a big issue at this point.

Unfortunately, I'm out of snappy comebacks at this point. Although, I might go have a smoke. Damnit, work sucks. The night drags on....... Lets go play in another thread.

Quoted: I'm trying to agree with you. I dont want to even try matching wits against a mighty bastion of reason and logic such as yourself. So, while I'm blindly following along with the majority should I also wear any special insignia or wear a certain color of black boots? Do I report "Free thinkers" to any special committe, or am I required to burn a certain number of books a day? Will you tell me to run off to DU in your next post, thats always one of my favorite lines from people.

I fancy myself a critical thinker. It's a gift.

Believe it or not, I actually gave your idea some thought for a while. It's easy for me to imagine scenarios having a negative outcome, i.e. People working late at night, guys like me running to Wal Mart because we can't sleep, police officers patroling, etc. Though greater in number during the daylight hours, there are alot of lawful persons and activities in your time frame.

What I'm having difficulty with, is understanding what good comes from allowing intoxicated driving during a brief window in the morning hours. I'll need your help with this, because I'm drawing a blank.

To me, the idea makes sense provided you can demonstrate that the benefit of allowing drunk driving for limited periods of time outweighs the inherrent risk. So, I guess I'm asking if you'd be willing to argue that the benefits are greater than the risk to innocent life.

How about it? Does that seem fair and reasonable?



EDIT: Missed a word.

Quoted: Quoted: I'm trying to agree with you. I dont want to even try matching wits against a mighty bastion of reason and logic such as yourself. So, while I'm blindly following along with the majority should I also wear any special insignia or wear a certain color of black boots? Do I report "Free thinkers" to any special committe, or am I required to burn a certain number of books a day? Will you tell me to run off to DU in your next post, thats always one of my favorite lines from people. I fancy myself a critical thinker. It's a gift. Believe it or not, I actually gave your idea some thought for a while. It's easy for me to imagine scenarios having a negative outcome, i.e. People working late at night, guys like me running to Wal Mart because we can't sleep, police officers patroling, etc. Though greater in number during the daylight hours, there are alot of lawful persons and activities in your time frame. What I'm having difficulty with, is understanding what good comes from allowing intoxicated during a brief window in the morning hours. I'll need your help with this, because I'm drawing a blank. To me, the idea makes sense provided you can demonstrate that the benefit of allowing drunk driving for limited periods of time outweighs the inherrent risk. So, I guess I'm asking if you'd be willing to argue that the benefits are greater than the risk to innocent life. How about it? Does that seem fair and reasonable?

Sure, but I'm gonna go smoke first. Becuase, ironically enough, I just got back from Steak n Shake and man it was good. The ironic part? I was driving in that window of drunken abandonment!

Fate was on my side.....this time......

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'm trying to agree with you. I dont want to even try matching wits against a mighty bastion of reason and logic such as yourself. So, while I'm blindly following along with the majority should I also wear any special insignia or wear a certain color of black boots? Do I report "Free thinkers" to any special committe, or am I required to burn a certain number of books a day? Will you tell me to run off to DU in your next post, thats always one of my favorite lines from people. I fancy myself a critical thinker. It's a gift. Believe it or not, I actually gave your idea some thought for a while. It's easy for me to imagine scenarios having a negative outcome, i.e. People working late at night, guys like me running to Wal Mart because we can't sleep, police officers patroling, etc. Though greater in number during the daylight hours, there are alot of lawful persons and activities in your time frame. What I'm having difficulty with, is understanding what good comes from allowing intoxicated during a brief window in the morning hours. I'll need your help with this, because I'm drawing a blank. To me, the idea makes sense provided you can demonstrate that the benefit of allowing drunk driving for limited periods of time outweighs the inherrent risk. So, I guess I'm asking if you'd be willing to argue that the benefits are greater than the risk to innocent life. How about it? Does that seem fair and reasonable? Sure, but I'm gonna go smoke first. Becuase, ironically enough, I just got back from Steak n Shake and man it was good. The ironic part? I was driving in that window of drunken abandonment! Fate was on my side.....this time......

Cool. I think I'll go grab a smoke myself.

BTW - it just occured to me that this is a pretty blatant thread hijack. Does AR15fan mind, or should we start a new thread?

Quoted: 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. And homeless people and people walking to work and people driving to work and people doing their morning runs and people out trying to break into places There are a number of people out and about to illegitimate and legitimate reasons. Also you forget drunk drivers end up putting their vehicles into people's resdidences during these hours. There have recently been a rash of drunk-driving related accidents (several being fatal) in the Charlotte area... all have occured between 1am and 4am

Isn't that usually the time of night\morning when most of the drunk dumbasses drive their cars into peoples HOUSES?

.

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.

www.ar15.com/forums/manageReply.html?a=quote&b=1&f=5&t=423442&r=6305393&page=4

Quoted: Quoted: I've wondered this about 'DUI Checkpoints,' and this is probably about the only chance I'll get to say it. I wonder why LEOs don't set up checkpoints just down the road from a bar?   The case law on DUI checkpoints is well established at this point.  for the arrests to be lawful the checkpoints must be done in the approved maner.  that means they are positioned where there is a documented history of DUI related traffic collisions and an escape route. The other issue is bars/restaurants are "respectable" businessness and city leaders would not like the local cops targeting the customers of specific business.  The checkpoint should not target the customers of any single establishment as doing so would violate the equal protections issues of the constitution.

www.ar15.com/forums/manageReply.html?a=quote&b=1&f=5&t=444893&r=6772679&page=1

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.

Does your preferred method:

1.  Cause disfavor with city leaders?
2.  Target customers of a single establishment, thereby violating equal protection issues of the Constitution?

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


For the record, drunk drivers should have their licenses revoked...for life for the first offense.

The second offense should require a minimum of 20 yrs jail time.  Drunk drivers will get no sympathy from me.

In the late 80's, a drunk driver killed the wife and son of a good friend of mine.

Just one more step towards a police state.

Funny coincidence ----you can also breathe air.....I'm stunped

Quoted: For the record, drunk drivers should have their licenses revoked...for life for the first offense. .

- This wont do anything. You'd be surprised at the number of people that drive with no license/suspended license, no insurance, etc.  Putting DWI suspects in jail for a period of time is the only way to show them the error of their ways.

Quoted: Just one more step towards a police state.

How?

Quoted: Quoted: For the record, drunk drivers should have their licenses revoked...for life for the first offense. . - This wont do anything. You'd be surprised at the number of people that drive with no license/suspended license, no insurance, etc.  Putting DWI suspects in jail for a period of time is the only way to show them the error of their ways.

Probably so.

I'm for whatever it takes to get the DA's off the road.

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.

Quoted: Quoted: For the record, drunk drivers should have their licenses revoked...for life for the first offense. . - This wont do anything. You'd be surprised at the number of people that drive with no license/suspended license, no insurance, etc.  Putting DWI suspects in jail for a period of time is the only way to show them the error of their ways.

Yep, hell I gbot busted driving on a suspended license. (Wasnt my fault, course the DA didnt give a shit about THAT technicality)

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.

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?

Fuck drunks and thier weakness. I have no sympathy for people getting pulled over leaving a bar if they are too drunk to be driving. Its not entrapment, like if the police were actually buying rounds for folks inside the bar. I have zero patience for this behaviour in people. My personal feeling is that anyone pulled over that is operating their vehicle while under the influence ought to be beaten within an inch of their life. I dont care what a person does on their own property.....have at it....get as wrecked as you like. As soon as you venture out into the public domain, you become a liability. I dont want these selfish cretins in a position where then can hurt my family (again).

I understand that the bar owners could potentially lose business over this.
I dont like that it hurts business owners, but at the same, I would encourage the owners to understand that their primary market is a risky demographic. Profits are tied to addiction. Bars make money off of people that are alcoholics. I have no issue with it really...but dont come crying when your profits go out the window....think about the quality of people you rely on to earn your living.


As for the person that wants to legalize DWI between certain hours....here is my concession. During those same hours, all citizens (including police) have the right to use deadly force against anyone that causes an accident because they are drunk. If I am leaving work late and some drunk t-bones me at a four way stop intersection, I can legally shoot the guy. Police respond to an accident where a car full of drunk college girls ran a red light and plowed into a cab...summary execitions of the girls.

If it were in my hands, the ramifications for screwing up would be as severe. I dont tollerate irresponsibility.

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".

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?