DWI checkpoints

[Nolacopusmc]

This covers any checkpoint. So yes, prior notice must be given. In State v. Jackson, 764 So.2d 64, they make it clear that acording to the Louisiana consititution, no distenction can be made when talking about checkpoints but in order for it not to violate the 4th amen. the above steps must be followed.
This is not my opinin but the law.
With that said, please don't ever consent to a field test. You should never trust a LOE to decide if you are over the limit and if you refuse a field test there is no penalty for doing so.
Now forcing you to take a breath test or blood test is another legal problem not so clearly defined by the courts.

 

[goteron]

Question for the LEO's. How many LEO's have you caught drunk? How many were booked?

 

[James Cannon]

The great thing about Jim is that he's either flat out crazy or he's incredibly smart and jacking with all of us. I haven't figured it out. But we'll keep him either way.

Thanks! I like to think it's a mix of both >.< I got some crazy in me, for sure, and I got some smarts in me - but I try to gain what smarts I can, as time goes on. Like, I know nolacopusmc will always know more than me about topics like this, so it's interesting to read up on it.

Besides, if I didn't post the stuff I did in this thread, then what would purpose would he have for logging on to BayouShooter anymore?

 

[Nolacopusmc]

Thanks! I like to think it's a mix of both >.< I got some crazy in me, for sure, and I got some smarts in me - but I try to gain what smarts I can, as time goes on. Like, I know nolacopusmc will always know more than me about topics like this, so it's interesting to read up on it.

Besides, if I didn't post the stuff I did in this thread, then what would purpose would he have for logging on to BayouShooter anymore?

I am pretty sure we could get by without some of the inane **** you post. Go post some pick of titties or something and leave the serious threads to people who have questions or actually know facts relevant to the topic instead of adding your own brand of fog.

Not that you care, but it gets frustrating when someone asks a question and posts like yours add ZERO benefit and only create more flak to be waded through in hopes of trying to meet someone's needs. If the topic is not an area you have personal specific and verifiable knowledge in , let someone who does answer it.

 

[Cat]

JFC




Checkpoints are here to stay as long as people drink and drive or break the law. It is an effective enforcement tool.

I giggled at the first.




I think we'd agree that there would be less need for them if they actually enforced 2nd offense DWIs. I'm all for the penalties set forth on the first offense, particularly with college morons living away from home that first semester. But the justice system fails miserably after that. And I recognize that sad fact is well beyond any LEOs power, btw.

Here are my two cents on the matter. Instead of bitching at a cop about twenty minutes at a checkpoint, call the local DA and bitch at him for reducing that third offense and letting him back on the road. Let him know you're keeping score and your vote will count.

 

[James Cannon]

Depends on the value you place on human life and how realistic or educated you really are versus how much you think you are about what really happens on the street at night while you are sitting on your sofa eating Blue Bell. Your able to do that because other men who really do know what is going on out there are manning a checkpoint, clearing a burglar alarm, stopping a broken taillight, or answer the pleas of a woman being beat by her boyfriend.

That right there is exactly where my main concern rises. My second-hand info might be biased, because the officers I know were/are mostly guys who patrol either as a motorcycle cop doing traffic specifically, or patrolling in cruisers, in their specific regions. So they likely feel a sense of pride in saying that their specific method of operation is very effective. They were always quick to say that a cop car on the street is a valuable deterrent to crime as well as able to keep a good eye on the area and respond quickly to anything requiring response. One even went as far as saying he -loved- the new paint job Lafayette cars utilized, because it was a stark contrasting Black-and-White like the old days, rather than being a solid Navy cruiser with yellow text. Our new cars are all black, with white doors and roof. Stands out VERY well. He claims the sight of a cop car patrolling around is a good crime deterrent so the more visible the better. Navy blends in too much he claimed.

So, what's your opinion, Brannon? I know your background pretty much coincides and extends past the guys I know, so you'd have just as much meat to back up your statements, if not more. Do you think that the three officers would do better, in terms of saving lives and preventing harm, to simply patrol the street they are checkpoint'ing, or to conduct the checkpoint itself? I know your posts say clearly that they work, that they do procure arrests, and so they do pull people off the street, but do you think they do it better/worse than if those officers were patrolling the same area?

A bit of an aside... if it weren't a 'checkpoint' and merely a few officers stationed near the bars, couldn't they then get around that bullcrap "entrapment" (or w/e it is) judgment against setting checkpoints near bars, and then be able to watch people stumble to their cars, get in the driver seat, and then immediately pull them over for a field sobriety test? That's not a check point, that's just... increased attention to trouble areas. Something that seems logical to me.

 

[James Cannon]

Here are my two cents on the matter. Instead of bitching at a cop about twenty minutes at a checkpoint, call the local DA and bitch at him for reducing that third offense and letting him back on the road. Let him know you're keeping score and your vote will count.

Yea, I don't think I'd ever bitch at a cop or be pissed off at him when he's got me on the side of the road. Not only because he can be an extra jerk right back to me and -find- whatever little laws I have broken or vehicle problems I can be ticketed for, but because I got nothing against the cop that's doing his job. It'd like yelling and screaming at the Customer Service people on the phone when they are just the messenger of bad news. Or yelling at the bank teller because your check bounced or required an extra day to process... it ain't their fault, and you're a jerk for punishing them with your bad attitude.

Can't say I ever called the DA over anything though. :/

 

[rooster]

Are you upset that I know the law or that I want other people to know the law? All I did was speak the truth.
And I do kinda agree with Nolacop, quick google searches could probably answer most questions like this.

 

[Emperor]

Votes do count! Hence Mary Landrieu's vote for cloture on Health Care debacle.

Started it all!

 

[charlie12]

Question for the LEO's. How many LEO's have you caught drunk? How many were booked?

My girlfriend was hit by one, LSP booked him for DWI but the DA wouldn't charge it with it.

 

[Cat]

Yea, I don't think I'd ever bitch at a cop or be pissed off at him when he's got me on the side of the road. Not only because he can be an extra jerk right back to me and -find- whatever little laws I have broken or vehicle problems I can be ticketed for, but because I got nothing against the cop that's doing his job. It'd like yelling and screaming at the Customer Service people on the phone when they are just the messenger of bad news. Or yelling at the bank teller because your check bounced or required an extra day to process... it ain't their fault, and you're a jerk for punishing them with your bad attitude.

Can't say I ever called the DA over anything though. :/

My point was we have drunk drivers on the road in part because the legal system puts them back out there. Enforce the laws or increase the severity of the punishment and it may drop. At least in part. It's not the cops fault that checkpoints are necessary. Its the people who allow reduced or dropped charges on an excessive scale. 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th......

 

[Nolacopusmc]

That right there is exactly where my main concern rises. My second-hand info might be biased, because the officers I know were/are mostly guys who patrol either as a motorcycle cop doing traffic specifically, or patrolling in cruisers, in their specific regions. So they likely feel a sense of pride in saying that their specific method of operation is very effective. They were always quick to say that a cop car on the street is a valuable deterrent to crime as well as able to keep a good eye on the area and respond quickly to anything requiring response. One even went as far as saying he -loved- the new paint job Lafayette cars utilized, because it was a stark contrasting Black-and-White like the old days, rather than being a solid Navy cruiser with yellow text. Our new cars are all black, with white doors and roof. Stands out VERY well. He claims the sight of a cop car patrolling around is a good crime deterrent so the more visible the better. Navy blends in too much he claimed.

So, what's your opinion, Brannon? I know your background pretty much coincides and extends past the guys I know, so you'd have just as much meat to back up your statements, if not more. Do you think that the three officers would do better, in terms of saving lives and preventing harm, to simply patrol the street they are checkpoint'ing, or to conduct the checkpoint itself? I know your posts say clearly that they work, that they do procure arrests, and so they do pull people off the street, but do you think they do it better/worse than if those officers were patrolling the same area?

A bit of an aside... if it weren't a 'checkpoint' and merely a few officers stationed near the bars, couldn't they then get around that bullcrap "entrapment" (or w/e it is) judgment against setting checkpoints near bars, and then be able to watch people stumble to their cars, get in the driver seat, and then immediately pull them over for a field sobriety test? That's not a check point, that's just... increased attention to trouble areas. Something that seems logical to me.

Your killing me Beavis, and I am starting to think you are doing it on purpose.

1. The guys that do checkpoints are not already on duty, so no one is "pulled off the streets". Staffing for shifts stay the same.
ETA- when checkpoints are inoperation and a road guy (who would otherwise be tied up for 2-4 hours) gets a drunk, generally someone working the checkpoint takes it so that he can get back to patrolling and hatin. So, Checkpoints actually increase manpower and police presence.
2. Which is better? Depends on the crime profile in a given area and the intended goal of enforcement. If your goal is to stop DUI's, the DUi checkpoints tend to work better inmost cases than simply driving around and fishing for drunks. Sitting in front of a bar, tailing a guy until he commits a PC offense would most certainly be better, but would in many areas fall under and "entrapment like" situation. Otherwise Einstein, that is what we would all do.
3. Cops in cars, boats, motorcycles, etc. Have ZERO deterrent affect on crime unless it is literally about to happen at that second in front of the cop. Even then, it rarely deters. All you have to do is look at the shoootings during Mardi Gras, convenience store robberies with a cop parked out front, and all manner of crime. Police presence has a mild general deterrent affect. Almost nothing has a specific deterrent affect on crime except in very specific and isolated circumstances.
4. If you want proof, you spend the money I did on my first Masters and then we can compare thesis. After that, come take the classes I am taking now for my second just incase you thought the first was some kind of conspiracy.
5. Regardless of the tactics used, there is not now, nor will there ever be in this society enough police officers properly employed to adequately address the criminal problem. As we speak, departments across the country are laying police officers off, not answering non-life threatening calls like house alarms, theft reports, and minor assaults. Until this country accepts the reality that you cannot have safety and security with ultimate freedom, then it will have to suffer with the crime problem. You do not have to like it, but with freedom comes the freedom to commit crime. If we utilized the death penalty more, you would see crime drop dramatically. Funny how in countries where they cut off your hand for theft, you do not see too many instances of theft...but there will always be someone out there to try the system. Problem with the USA is that the system always lets them when to the point where they are not trying it, it is a smart business decision to completely run ragged over the system.

In America, crime is the ONLY thing that pays.

 

[Nolacopusmc]

Are you upset that I know the law or that I want other people to know the law? All I did was speak the truth.
And I do kinda agree with Nolacop, quick google searches could probably answer most questions like this.

I am upset that you think you know the law and unfortunatley there is no one there to slap you in the back the head before you post it online without citations. Secondly, your inference that i would have an issue with someone knowing the law in insulting and quite ignorant on your part if you took the time to see exactly how informative i have been to people on here about the law. But given your post and lack of credibility, I am not surprised.

No wait....your an OC proponent. never mind...I remember you know. It all makes sense. You were born with God gieven legal prowess.

This covers any checkpoint. So yes, prior notice must be given. In State v. Jackson, 764 So.2d 64, they make it clear that acording to the Louisiana consititution, no distenction can be made when talking about checkpoints but in order for it not to violate the 4th amen. the above steps must be followed.
This is not my opinin but the law.
With that said, please don't ever consent to a field test. You should never trust a LOE to decide if you are over the limit and if you refuse a field test there is no penalty for doing so.
Now forcing you to take a breath test or blood test is another legal problem not so clearly defined by the courts.

1. Case law is not "law" as you are making it out to be.
2. No penalty for refusing a field test? Once again, either explain yourself fully if you know where I am going, or stop misleading people, because you are wrong in most cases about that.
3. Refusing a breath test is extrememly clearly defined.

let me guess....your a cop?

 

[Emperor]

In America, crime is the ONLY thing that pays.

Criminals really are the only truly "Free" people in America, till they get caught.

 

[Nolacopusmc]

Criminals really are the only truly "Free" people in America, till they get caught.

Generally when you deal with extremes, the consequence is the other end of your preferred spectrum.

 

[James Cannon]

I am pretty sure we could get by without some of the inane **** you post. Go post some pick of titties or something and leave the serious threads to people who have questions or actually know facts relevant to the topic instead of adding your own brand of fog.

Not that you care, but it gets frustrating when someone asks a question and posts like yours add ZERO benefit and only create more flak to be waded through in hopes of trying to meet someone's needs. If the topic is not an area you have personal specific and verifiable knowledge in , let someone who does answer it.

Gee, I thought this was a DISCUSSION form and not an INFORMATION forum.

 

[DuckYou]

My girlfriend was hit by one, LSP booked him for DWI but the DA wouldn't charge it with it.

Hmm. "My girlfriend... booked him". I have nothing against homosexual relationships, but he might not appreciate that you call him your girlfriend.

 

[charliepapa]

Gee, I thought this was a DISCUSSION form and not an INFORMATION forum.

well, like I have to explain to my son, a post-question discussion needs to contain factual components from the answering party. if someone who doesn't really know the answer wants to participate in said discussion, they should be listening and learning, not guessing or providing incorrect information. if you want to inject your opinion, clearly state it as such and do not portray it as fact.

 

[DuckYou]

a federal DUi grant

Off Topic Warning!

The problem with our current federal system. Federal Grants! That is our money being processed through the federal government and only given back on certain conditions.

 

[Nolacopusmc]

Gee, I thought this was a DISCUSSION form and not an INFORMATION forum.

Touche'

But when we are discussing matters of fact, your posts often add nothing to the conversation or discussion but derailment, Also, while infact a discussion forum, it does provide information. You provide the 100lbs of lettuce in my shrimp salad. STFU and let someone looking for shrimp eat their shrimp without having to wade through your ignorant filler.

Again, if it is a simple discussion on the best deer gun or what the new T-shirts should look like, then yeah, everyone has an opinion, but as much as possible the forum also is an informational resouce for those looking for guidance and not absolute answers. The way you post detracts from that a lot of the time and makes people who have information less inclined to give it. I stick to it because my patience has not worn away yet, but it is drawing near. We have attorney's, subject matter experts., federal agents, and all manner of valuable information holding people that refuse to post because they do not feel like dealing with thingslike what you post. You are not the only one by far, but to post something just for the sake of posting is stupid.

When I do not have a verifiable or provable answer, or a well founded professional opinion based on experience, I STFU. That is why you do not see me posting in threads about video games, reloading, building guns, AK's, and about 90% more than you see me in. I know a whole lot about a VERY small piece of this pie. I do everything my patience will allow to help those who I think are honestly seeking and can benefit from what I have experienced and been taught. All I ask in return in that is they have nuggets of wisdom based on education or experience, that when questions come up in their lane, they offer the same assistance. Otherwise, stay in your lane and let questions be answered instead of trying to prove people wrong about things you obviously don't even know enough about to confuse yourself.

It gets frustrating, and I am sure I am not the only one, but when these kinds of threads get going and people like you add confusion, my emails blow up with people asking sideline questions because your posts are confusing them.

If you don;t know, be quiet. General rule of life. Look at the threads I seriously post in and you will see that they are a very specific range of topics. Otherwise, i am seekinginformation and defer to other more knowledgeable people on the given subject.