Nick nails it.
When a state doesn't have sobriety check points, we need them to catch drunk drivers. When drunk drivers aren't caught at sobriety checkpoints, then that is a show of their effectiveness. Under what conditions then would they not be found useful? It's totally bogus.
His research also shows that checkpoints are VERY expensive in DUI's/hour and Payroll/issued ticket, compared to your basic regular patrol activity.
But checkpoints ARE good for rummaging around in people's cars!
..The concern is that police are not only using the checkpoints as a way to enforce other laws but also as a way to make money — especially since cities such as Sacramento make $70 every time they impound a car at a DUI checkpoint, even if that car’s driver was not suspected of drinking and driving.
This is what Sheriffs like to show off: increased fine revenues. That's one reason David Clarke, self-alleged Republican, thinks this is a fine and dandy idea. Doesn't hurt the Deficit-Laden James Doyle regime, either, by the way.
One other thing: they may be drunks, but they aren't stupid. When you KNOW that the County Mounties are hanging around 35th St. at I-94, you get onto I-94 at Hawley Road.
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Post a Comment