News-Record.com

Why are checkpoints advertised? Makes no sense to me. However, as a person who was almost killed by a drunk driver and whose father was killed by a drunk driver, I have no issue with stopping for road blocks. Two drunk drivers off the roads are two who will not be killing or maiming someone.

The push for flashy DUI and media savy Sobriety check points has changed over the years and it's effectiveness has diminished percentages . . . but on the otherside it's a great excuse to troll the waters for those unsuspecting hardened criminals with an expired tag, inspection sticker or to randomly "search" for other infractions . . .

I thought the same thing when I read that article: What a waste of time and money. The vast majority of fines were for administrative snafus: registration, insurance, inspection, etc. Rockingham County is under the gun of a million-dollar budget shortfall. Part of the fix was to cut down on staff at the sheriff's department. I wonder if these checkpoints are more to raise funds than for safety. Frankly, I'd prefer that the county in which I pay a hefty chunk of taxes find better use of both my money and our law enforcement's time than these checkpoints, which only serve to make me feel like I'm living under martial law.

News flash, people. You ARE living under martial law in many ways, as Illiterati said he "feels" like.

Yvonne, I'm sorry about your father. I'm sure that was very painful. Giving government the power to treat you like cattle and invade your privacy, however, is NOT the answer to keeping drunk drivers off of the road. Should police be able to randomly stop and detain you, for instance, anytime you're simply walking down the street and check your bags for any possible stolen items, run a background check on you, etc, to make sure you're in 100% compliance with every law? Heck, why not just put cameras in everyone's homes and make periodic police checks of homes to make sure nothing bad is going on there? Just think how safe you'd be, Yvonne.

Furthermore, warrantless, no-probable-cause searches are unconstitutional at the state level and federally:

NC Constitution:
Sec. 20. General warrants.
General warrants, whereby any officer or other person may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of the act committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are dangerous to liberty and shall not be granted.

Amendment IV, U.S. Constitution:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It is illegal for them to conduct these roadblocks, and the NC Constitution actually calls them DANGEROUS.

You guys are all overly suspicious, pessimistic, or just plain wrong about the law. It's not a waste of money to utilize officers that are already on duty or on a traffic squad to begin with. More people are killed every year from taffic accidents than anything else, and a high percentage of those people shouldn't be driving in the first place, or don't have car insurance. Tell me how charging those people is a waste of time??? Investigate a fatal car crash, interview a drunk driver that just killed a family, and tell me how arresting him ahead of time is a waste??? Check case law too before you start to believe that these checkpoints are illegal searches. It's as easy as googling "dwi checkpoint case law". You all sound like a bunch of whiners that can't handle a ten minute delay on the road. Cry me a river until it's one of your friends or family that gets squashed, or until you have to show up, investigate and document or take pictures of the gore and then tell the person's family about it. Some of you just might change your minds...maybe

"Two drunk drivers off the roads are two who will not be killing or maiming someone."

I rate this statement: True.

Granted, I've never driven drunk through a checkpoint, but all they do is put a flashlight in your face, make sure you've got a driver's license, and check your tags. Maybe I'll act drunk next time and see what happens, but it's hardly a no-probable-cause search.

"...but all they do is put a flashlight in your face,..."

That flashlight may be more than just a flashlight:

http://www.sniffalcohol.com/le.htm

In the long run, I think severe punishment for the very first DWI would be most effective. Granted, some people will kill somebody before they get caught, but that happens sometimes no matter what. Let's try throwing the book at people the very first time they get caught driving drunk--no second chance, because if they kill somebody that victim gets no second chance. Put the offender in jail, because otherwise they will drive--they won't care about suspended licenses--they must be denied access to a vehicle.

Sure, they "need to get to work" but maybe the people they could kill also have jobs. None of these hardship exception so that drunks can keep their licenses. Their victims don't get a hardship exception.

Personally, I would put police in the parking lots of concerts, bars, etc. and let them arrest everyone who staggers into the driver's seat of a car and puts the key in the ignition.