OVI check point tonight
Printed From: MiddletownUSA.com
Category: Outside World
Forum Name: News, Info and Happenings outside Middletown
Forum Description: It might be happening outside Middletown, but it affects us here at home.
URL: http://www.middletownusa.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1993
Printed Date: Dec 22 2024 at 9:41pm
Topic: OVI check point tonight
Posted By: Hermes
Subject: OVI check point tonight
Date Posted: Sep 27 2009 at 4:14pm
|
If check points were all about getting drunk drivers off the road why then when you stop at one the cop ask all kinds of questions such as "where are you coming from ? Where are you going ?" Plus they ask for a license,proof of insurance and ask more questions. I think the next time I stop at one I'm taking my attorney with me.
http://www.middletownjournal.com/news/middletown-news/ovi-checkpoint-tonight-319685.html?cxtype=rss_local-news - http://www.middletownjournal.com/news/middletown-news/ovi-checkpoint-tonight-319685.html?cxtype=rss_local-news ------------- No more democrats no more republicans,vote Constitution Party !! |
Replies:
Posted By: randy
Date Posted: Sep 27 2009 at 5:56pm
|
I do agree that check points are used for alot of other things and way too many questions are asked, but my question is this.....why tell everyone where the check point is going to be? Wouldn't a drunk driver just drive home another way ? ------------- Call me for a www.CameraSecurityNow.com" rel="nofollow - www.CameraSecurityNow.com quote 513-422-1907 x357 |
Posted By: Pacman
Date Posted: Sep 27 2009 at 6:24pm
| If you were pulled over for OVI while driving you would get asked the same questions, so what is the difference? |
Posted By: Hermes
Date Posted: Sep 27 2009 at 6:36pm
Pacman you sound like my wife.
 The point is if they are looking for drunk drivers then why the interrogation for non-drunk drivers ? I'm all for getting drinkers off the roads,what I object to is having roadside interrogation points. And like Randy said why announce it IF your trying to catch someone ?? It's all a part of the police state and tactics that we are living in today so I guess it doesn't matter. ------------- No more democrats no more republicans,vote Constitution Party !! |
Pacman wrote:Posted By: wasteful
Date Posted: Sep 27 2009 at 8:37pm
http://ohioduiblog.blogspot.com/2009/08/are-sobriety-checkpoints-legal.html - Are Sobriety Checkpoints Legal?Many clients have asked about the legality of sobriety checkpoints - stops where police are permitted to randomly check motorists for OVI. Sobriety checkpoints have long been scrutinized under the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition unreasonable searches. This debate is basically characterized as the right to privacy v. public safety. In other words, is the “limited” intrusion caused by such a checkpoint arise to an invasion of privacy.
The Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Goines adopted a four-part test espoused by the US Supreme Court. The court stated a vehicle may be stopped when all of the following factors are present:
1. A checkpoint or roadblock location is selected for its safety and visibility to oncoming motorists, and
2. The police provide adequate advance warning signs, illuminated at night, timely informing approaching motorists of the nature of the impending intrusion, and
3. There are uniformed officers and official vehicles in sufficient quantity and visibility to show the police power of the community, and
4. There is a predetermination by policy-making administrative officers of the roadblock location, time and procedures to be employed, pursuant to carefully formulated standards and neutral criteria.
Using this criteria, the majority of states, including Ohio, permit sobriety checkpoints.
The National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration (NHTSA) has produced a booklet entitled “Saturation Patrols & Sobriety Checkpoints Guide” In its guide some of NHTSA’s guidelines include:
1. The use of a minimum 10-12 uniformed police officers. Law enforcement agencies should assign a sworn, uniformed officer to supervise the planning of a sobriety checkpoint. This officer needs to be highly knowledgeable of the state’s sobriety checkpoint rules and regulations.
2. In selecting the location, identify locations with a high incidence of impaired driving related crashes or fatalities. Be sure the public and officer’s safety can be of utmost priority. There must be room for proper ingress and ingress. The location must be highly visible.
3. Warning devices and signals must be located at such a distance as to give motorists adequate time to stop. Warning devices should comply with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).
The Ohio Highway Patrol has written a summary of its own procedures. These include:
1. The first and perhaps the most important requirement for the establishment of a sobriety checkpoint is that the site of the check must have a long term history of alcohol-related crashes and/or incidents of impaired driving.
2. About a week before the checkpoint is conducted, public notice is given that the checkpoint will be established. It is only necessary to provide a general date, time, and location for the event.
3. About an hour or two in advance of the establishment of the checkpoint, the officer who will be in charge of the operation conducts a briefing with the police officers who will operate the various elements of the checkpoint. At this briefing, the officer-in-charge will give an overview of the operation of the checkpoint, provide each checkpoint officer a clearly defined set of operational objectives, and emphasize all the procedures needed to make the checkpoint as safe and efficient as possible.
3. Large, highly reflectorized signs are set on the side of the road well in advance of the actual checkpoint. Fully marked police vehicles are situated at these signs on the approach to the checkpoint. A second "Sobriety Checkpoint Ahead Sign" is placed at the beginning of the lane of traffic cones, fusees, and other devices that mark the boundaries of the checkpoint itself. The area is illuminated by portable lights, flares and the emergency lights of several police cars which are situated on the berm to provide additional protection for the zone.
The OSHP guidelines also discuss the necessity of using qualified personnel to conduct field sobriety tests and the use of portable breathalyzer devices. The complete summary can be found at http://statepatrol.ohio.gov/sobcheck.stm.
In summary, both the US Supreme Court and Ohio Supreme Court have authorized the use of sobriety checkpoints as long as stringent rules are followed to safeguard the constitutional rights and safety of citizens. Both NHTSA and the Ohio Highway Patrol have published guidelines to be used by law enforcement agencies wishing to use such checkpoints. Variations from the recommended procedures outlined by NHTSA and the OHP can lead to suppression of any evidence procured during the checkpoint. |
Posted By: randy
Date Posted: Sep 27 2009 at 9:19pm
|
I believe in past post I have stated that I do not like drunk drivers. It is a crime that should be punished hashly. I just dont understand telling everyone where check points are going to be. Do cops think that a drunk driver doesn't read the paper. I went out Friday ( I had A driver, my Pregnat girl friend) and I knew where a check point was. So we just went a different route home. How many people drinking and driving did the same? I had a driver so I was not breaking any laws, I chose I different way home just because I didn''t feel like having to stop and answer a bunch of questons about where I was or where I was going when in my opinion it is no ones business where I was or where I was going. My point is and I hope some ones has an answer...why tell us where the check points are? does this not defeat the point???? ------------- Call me for a www.CameraSecurityNow.com" rel="nofollow - www.CameraSecurityNow.com quote 513-422-1907 x357 |
Posted By: Hermes
Date Posted: Sep 28 2009 at 12:40am
|
Good post wasteful.
I agree with Randy about why publish the location and I strongly believe that check points on our nations highways should be left to the communist countries and the Nazis. A check point reminds me so much of Hitlers regime and Stalin. The old "Show your papers please" phrase should never ever come from the mouth of a cop,judge or politician in the United States of America period. If they want to put up road blocks fine,but LOOK FOR DRUNK DRIVERS,if they don't smell alcohol on my breath then tell me to have a nice day and send me on my way. Do not interrogate me on the side of the road in the pretense that they are looking for drunks. If it was ONLY DRUNKS they are looking for then there is no need to ask me questions and if they are not doing a survey or taking a census then the need for questioning innocent people is a violation of our rights regardless of what some high priced on the take I'm mightier than you judge says. I'm ranting here but I'm sick of it !! I served this country because I believed in it,that will never happen again. People scream this is the greatest country in the world. At one time it was ! Not anymore. ------------- No more democrats no more republicans,vote Constitution Party !! |
Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Sep 28 2009 at 6:56am
 ------------- “Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012 |
Posted By: Pacman
Date Posted: Sep 28 2009 at 8:12am
|
"Legality and Guidelines
In 1990, the United States Supreme Court upheld the validity of DUI roadblocks in Michigan v. Sitz. The Court found the intrusion/inconvenience of individuals being stopped is outweighed by the government’s interest in curbing drunk driving. In the same year Sitz was decided, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published recommended procedures for DUI roadblocks. For a DUI checkpoint to be legal, law enforcement must follow guidelines regarding such issues as the location of the checkpoint, the operation of the checkpoint and the publicity of the checkpoint. In addition, if a driver stopped at the checkpoint is further detained for a DUI investigation, that detention must be justified by reasonable suspicion and any subsequent arrest must be based on probable cause." |
Posted By: randy
Date Posted: Sep 28 2009 at 8:42am
|
I do not think the issue is whether or not the check points are legal, we all know that the courts have said they are. ------------- Call me for a www.CameraSecurityNow.com" rel="nofollow - www.CameraSecurityNow.com quote 513-422-1907 x357 |
Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Sep 28 2009 at 8:56am
| OK, the DUI checkpoints are legal- fine. But still don't understand how the questions- "where are you coming from" and where are you going" tied in to the original reason for the program- ie- catching people who are drinking and driving. Law enforcement is basically "rolling the dice" in the hope of catching a violator. Are these questions asked to see if the driver is too impaired to answer them in a logical way and to check for slurred speech when answering the questions or could it be taken to be another government intrusion into ones private life if one was sober during this interrogation? If you ask these questions to a perfectly sober driver, who is breaking no laws and is just "running errands" or going to/from work, isn't this an invasion of privacy? Isn't law enforcement required to have a reason to pull a driver over and isn't this a form of a "forced pullover"? Just a touchy subject for me as I don't want government in my life. Some things are none of their dam business. JMO |
Posted By: Iliveheretoo
Date Posted: Sep 28 2009 at 9:18am
|
Anyone that thinks these questions that the cops ask are legitimate and are for no other reason than to catch drunk drivers. I encourage you to go through one (sober) and when they begin to ask you all these intrusive questions tell them you are sober here is my license and where I am going or coming from is not your business. See what happens! I speak from experience when I say it wont be fun. |
Posted By: Hermes
Date Posted: Sep 28 2009 at 9:19am
|
Vet - It's scarey that me and you think alike. One problem I have is the FACT that "your GUILTY until proven innocent". And this is true in every police stop. How we became a police state escapes me and how the people of America allowed it to happen I have no idea. In my opinion during a OVI check point cops are not only looking for impaired drivers but also anyone that maybe breaking the law knowingly or unknowingly. Again,if they are getting people for things OTHER than DUI they are doing it via the pretense of catching DUI drivers and therefore in MY book that is a violation of our rights.
I use to have the highest respect for police officers,judges and politicians but in todays world where a cop uses a taser instead of diplomacy and judges who smack their gavel and decide you are guilty without ever hearing your side of the story I have absolutely no use for. Am I an anarchist ? By no means. I believe in our constitution and bill of rights. I believe a person is innocent until proven guilty. I believe every 18 year old should serve his/her country. I believe I'll get off here cause I'm ranting again and I haven't taken my morning meds.  ------------- No more democrats no more republicans,vote Constitution Party !! |
Posted By: Pacman
Date Posted: Sep 28 2009 at 9:46am
|
Randy this was in reference to why they are posted in the Paper each week or so: "For a DUI checkpoint to be legal, law enforcement must follow guidelines regarding such issues as the location of the checkpoint, the operation of the checkpoint and the publicity of the checkpoint. In addition, if a driver stopped at the checkpoint is further detained for a DUI investigation, that detention must be justified by reasonable suspicion and any subsequent arrest must be based on probable cause." |
Posted By: alldaywatching
Date Posted: Sep 28 2009 at 9:59am
|
Would
you allow the local police, county police, Federal Bureau of
Investigation or U.S. Military search your home or person without a
warrant? why not set up permanent check
points like in other parts of the world where we have to show proper
papers to continue on? This would give us the truest form of 'safety' that of total institutional control. By the way, using the DUI designation for the checkpoints is just a cover. Check how many DUI's are given as compared to other violations. In reality they should be called Seat belt/Cracked Windshield/Burnt out headlight checkpoints. |
Posted By: arwendt
Date Posted: Sep 28 2009 at 10:13am
|
Any law designed to protect the public from such a serious danger as OVI needs to have a punishment serious enough to deter its breaking. If the punishment by itself is not deterrent enough then the checkpoints are worthless. ------------- “Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power.” Benjamin Franklin - More at my http://wordsoffreedom.wordpress.com/ - Words of Freedom website. |
Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Sep 28 2009 at 11:13am
| Iliveheretoo- I have no doubt that the cops are in charge even though you have given them no cause to stop you. I have no doubt that when they ask you these questions, if you chose to get smart with them, they have the authority to criminalize your actions. You say you speak from experience on this. If you were stopped and were sober and asked them why they were asking these questions after proving you violated no laws, what would be the charge? Verbal abuse of a law enforcement officer? No smart mouth, just asking the reason for the questions? Do they cuff you and place you in the old cruiser? Guess I'm having a hard time understanding the hard line stand from them. Apparently, citizens have no right to ask why they are being stopped when there is no reasonable cause for the stop other than random selection and being in the wrong place at the wrong time to get caught up in one of these involuntary actions. It can be compared to a "Gestapo" action as did happen in WWII in a way. I'll avoid all of these, and, if I ever did get caught up in one, would cooperate, simply because it would go alot smoother. |
Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Sep 28 2009 at 11:17am
| alldaywatching- then if the checkpoints are advertised as DUI and are also used for windshields, lights and seat belts, isn't it a form of entrapment and deception, and if so, be challenged in a court of law? Anyone?? |
Posted By: Iliveheretoo
Date Posted: Sep 28 2009 at 11:34am
|
Vet, I will you what happened. I was on route 4 coming from Germantown ( I have family there and was visiting for the night) I drove home at about 1am on a Friday night. I was stopped in Posttown by a check point. I had not had one drink, when the officer came to the car i had all the proper paper waiting on him. the first thing he asked me was where Iwas coming from. I explained I had been with some family and was now heading home. He asked if I had been drinking and I said not at all. His next question is what made angered me, he said I really shouldnt be out this late, and why didnt i just stay with my family instead of driving home? I was shocked!! I replied that I didnt want to and have the right to drive home if I want too. I was asked if I would object to him searchimg my car? I said I would because he has no reason. he explained that he does not need one and I need to step out of the car. after he searched my car, I use that term loosely, it was more like trashed. I was allowed to leave after about 45 min. So no i do not like check points and think they are a gross misuse of power. |
Posted By: Hermes
Date Posted: Sep 28 2009 at 11:51am
Vet- Thats exactly my point,these stops are being done under the PRETENSE of catching DUI drivers. Now in their infancy in the 70's it may well have been good intentions on everyone's part to have these check points,but not today. Like most laws it is being abused and due to political rhetoric judges uphold these tactics and fail to recognize what is acually going on or they simply do not care. ------------- No more democrats no more republicans,vote Constitution Party !! |
Posted By: sportsnut
Date Posted: Sep 28 2009 at 12:16pm
Yeah - This guy! Cincinnati Bengals linebacker Odell Thurman was arrested for drunk driving early Monday morning. Around 3 am a police officer working near a sobriety check point saw Thurman cross a double yellow line and stopped the vehicle for suspicion of DUI. Thurman was taken to the checkpoint where he was asked to perform a breathalyzer test. His BAC was 0.18, more than twice the legal limit. Thurman was released to a sober companion and teammate who drove him home. |
Posted By: TudorBrown
Date Posted: Sep 28 2009 at 12:21pm
Yep I find a police officer asking me questions like "where are you headed" "where have you been" extremely offensive... |
Posted By: Hermes
Date Posted: Sep 28 2009 at 12:21pm
|
llivehereto-thanks for sharing your experience in this matter.
I too went through the interrogation process in Kentucky a few years ago at a DUI check point,that is why I am so adamant concerning the topic. When a policeman questions you that is in fact an INTERROGATION, as the law states,"ANYTHING you say or do will be held AGAINST you in a court of law". As I stated above in my previous post "you are GUILTY until proven innocent". Now,while being stopped at the check point you do have rights,you may question the officer as to what is going on,he will no doubt say they are looking for DUI's. He may ask if you have been drinking or had anything to drink,your reply would be no. If he ask any other questions you have the express right to ask if you are free to drive on. You do not have to give any other personal answers. He may then ask you to pull to the side of the road to INTIMADATE you and believe me they will do it. If he ask,and notice here that HE ASK you if he can search your car you give an adamant NO,YOU DO NOT CONSENT TO WARRANTLESS SEARCHES. If he had actual proof of any crime he would not ASK to search you or the car he would just do it,after putting you in handcuffs. The officer may or may not continue with the interrogation and intimadation tactic and tell you to have a nice day or he may push the issue and get really nasty like in my case. (I went to jail)
People wrongly and sometimes ignorantly believe cops are your friends,that is NEVER the case. Cops work for the government on whatever level. Their express job is to find you guilty of something,doesn't matter what. Yes they are human and some are really nice. But never,ever talk to a cop during a traffic stop. He is looking for some way to hang you out to dry and YOU are your own worst enemy if you talk or chatter with a cop. As your Miranda rights states "you have the right to remain silent" so keep your mouth shut.
(disclaimer : I am not an attorney this information was provided to me by an attorney) ------------- No more democrats no more republicans,vote Constitution Party !! |
Posted By: Hermes
Date Posted: Sep 28 2009 at 12:24pm
Yeah Thurman was RELEASED to a friend only because of who he was. Had it been Joe Blow Public his rear would have been in jail. ------------- No more democrats no more republicans,vote Constitution Party !! |
Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Sep 28 2009 at 12:24pm
|
What? "Shouldn't be out this late"? Since when did a cop become a citizen's overseer and babysitter? He is insinuating that there is a curfew in place. Would he be asking the 2nd shift factory worker why he was out (and driving home from work) at 2AM when he had to stay over for that 3rd shift worker who called in sick? If there ain't no curfew, what's it to him how late a person is out? Perfect example of a person who has a position of authority and is too immature to handle it. Between trashing the car and the 45 minute intrusion, might have meant a drive to the officers police station to see the chief and voice a complaint. Show that cell phone picture of the interior of the car trashed. Nothing worse than out-of-control authority. This example does not speak well for checkpoints.
Need a search warrant to search your house,but don't need one for the car. Inconsistent isn't it? This is not logical. If he did not need a reason to search your car, why did he ask to search it in the first place? If you had no sayso in stopping him from the search, why did he ask you if he could? Mute point, isn't it? |
Posted By: Pacman
Date Posted: Sep 28 2009 at 12:39pm
|
"People wrongly and sometimes ignorantly believe cops are your friends, that is NEVER the case."
Hermes have you been drinking this morning. This is an asinine comment.
|
Posted By: Hermes
Date Posted: Sep 28 2009 at 1:17pm
Pacman - why would you believe otherwise ? It is fine if you have friends that are cops or occasionally have casual conversation with them or whatever but thats not what I'm saying. When you are stopped by police you are in fact the criminal (until proven otherwise) A policeman/woman is not your friend while in the action of their duties. They have one objective during a traffic stop and that is to find you guilty of something or they would have never stopped you. (hence a speeding ticket for example) But during the time the officer is making out the ticket and if your sitting in the cruiser it's fine to make small talk. But anything you say or do they can hang you for it. It's their job. I was even told by an attorney a cop is not your friend because they will watch and listen,it's basically their job. And besides,a friend does not treat you like a criminal and interrogate and intimadate you not that all police use that tactic. So it is best to remain silent because that officer is not your friend ! ------------- No more democrats no more republicans,vote Constitution Party !! |