RSS | Comments | Tell a Friend | Larger Text | Smaller Text | Bookmark and Share

Local News

Thursday, June 25, 2009

Sobriety stops net no OVI arrests
Brinkman's Ad
By J. STEVEN DILLON

STAFF WRITER

Troopers encountered more than 800 motorists during back-to-back sobriety checkpoints last weekend in Hancock County, but detected only one driver with alcohol on his breath.

And even that driver got off without a citation after testing under the legal intoxication limit.

"He had been drinking but he wasn't impaired so we allowed him to get a ride home," Lt. Jerrod Savidge said.

Savidge, supervisor of the Findlay post of the Ohio Highway Patrol, on Wednesday said no alcohol-related citations were issued during the two sobriety checkpoints on Saturday.

About 425 motorists passed through the first one, on U.S. 224 west of Findlay near Treadway Chrysler Dodge Jeep, from 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Saturday.

Troopers, who checked only westbound vehicles, did cite four motorists for driving under suspension, according to the patrol.

The second checkpoint was operated between 8 p.m. and 10:30 p.m. on Ohio 12 west of Fostoria in Washington Township. Officers checked 395 motorists traveling both east and west on Ohio 12, but wrote a single ticket to a driver with a suspended license.

Savidge said the absence of alcohol citations was not discouraging and not surprising.

He said some of the motorists stopped indicated they had heard about the checkpoints from others or through the media. One driver said she had been alerted by friend via cell phone.

"People knew we were going to be out, which isn't a bad thing," he said. "Our guys had a lot of good, positive contacts with motorists.

"It is really about awareness," Savidge said. Operating a checkpoint "shows we're being proactive and doing our best to discourage drinking and driving."

The federally-funded checkpoints were considered "low manpower" checkpoints, which require fewer officers to operate.

It was the second time in as many years the patrol ran multiple checkpoints in the county on the same day.

Last September three were held, on Ohio 12, U.S. 224, and on Bright Road north of Ohio 12.

Savidge said it is likely another checkpoint will be operated in the post's area later this year. The Findlay post covers Hancock and Hardin counties.

Dillon: 419-427-8423,

Send an e-mail to Steve Dillon
Comment on This Story
NOTE: Comment moderation has been enabled. If you see a comment that violates our Electronic User Agreement, please e-mail rebeccaconklin@thecourier.com. Thank you. If you are having problems viewing this Web page, please contact our Internet Department to help us diagnose and correct the problem. We may contact you for more information. Thanks in advance.
Your e-mail address will not be displayed on this website or shared with anyone. It is used by our online editor for contacting purposes.
Comments are moderated by The Courier according to its Electronic User Agreement within one business day. Comments that slander others or include language that violates the agreement will be rejected. All comments that impart opinion and information are welcome.

38 Comments (4 pages)

Latest comments listed first.
tim wrote:
Steve
“ No-I don't have a problem following a conversation and I don't think I took anything out of context, I just repeated what you said in your own words. You apologized (very big of you) by agreeing they are not illegal in one post and then you stated in your next post that they constituted a traffic stop without probable cause and violated your 4th amendment rights-i.e. illegal. You seem to think that I'm trying to say that you don't have the right to your opinion, but as I've stated twice now-we both do. I'm just stating facts and you're stating feelings. If you FEEL that they violate your rights-fine, you have that right. I'm just saying it's a FACT that they are not illegal, and that's fine too. The bottom line to me is, if it saves just one life-and I'm sure they have-it's worth the 10 minutes of my time. If you're not doing anything wrong,and it can save someone's life-doesn't that make it worth it. Let me change that-if you're not doing anything wrong and it's your wife or your child's life that was saved-doesn't that make it worth it? It's been fun Steve, thanks for the lively debate. Best of luck to you on the roads....hope you never come across a drunk driver that took a detour around a checkpoint. ”
Wednesday, July 08, 2009 2:21:21 PM
Steve wrote:
You're the one getting confused Tim
“ Obviously you have problems following a conversation and are reduced to quoting fragments of sentences using them out of the context of the entirety of the original post. It's clear you missed the point somewhere along the way that I, and many others, including three of the US Supreme Court Justices who decided the case, legislators of other states, local jurisdictions, and even law enforcement personnel, believe checkpoints violate citizens' 4th Amendment rights, and further are not an economical solution to address impaired driving. Seriously, 800 stops and not a single DUI/OVI citation? This practice, with the intention of removing impaired drivers from the road is a failure. Did you know DUI/OVI convictions from checkpoint stops is a very small fraction of 1%? With that success rate, how are checkpoints not "fishing expeditions" for whatever the officer wants to find? Being stopped and required to prove innocence of everything before continuing on your way is un-American.

You on the other hand, will stand behind this bad practice until you're blue in the face, and have to file an itenerary with the government before you travel, because it's the LAW. Not that it's effective or a good idea, but it's the LAW!
 ”
Wednesday, July 08, 2009 10:37:10 AM
tim wrote:
Steve
“ Now you're talking out of both sides of your mouth, in your last post you stated 'Sobriety checkpoints are not illegal as I misstated' Now-you're back to saying 'A check point is indeed a "traffic stop" without probable cause' So- just what do you believe? You seem confused. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that I'm right about the law-but you don't want to admit it and you don't like it. That's fine, you don't have to like it, it just is. So-it's not semantics, it's what you said, I'm just clarifying. I don't think I'm smarter and I never said any decision was unanimous, but the bottom line is that the Supreme law of this land is that checkpoints are legal and that's not drivel. That's a fact and that's all I said. Don't waste your time feeling sorry for me-I'm just fine, thanks. As far as the cop comment-I wasn't ridiculing you,and I don't know how it can be unflattering. I simply think it's funny that when people get into these conversations they talk about how law enforcement officers are taking away their rights and stripping them of their Constitutional protections and then say oh yeah-by the way some of my best friends are cops. Not unflattering-just funny! I'm not saying you don't have the right to feel the way you feel, as I stated we both have the right to our opinions, but at least be consistent. ”
Tuesday, July 07, 2009 3:42:12 PM
Steve wrote:
Semantics?
“ A check point is indeed a "traffic stop" without probable cause, it's my belief my 4th Amendment rights would be violated should I ever find myself subject to such a stop. I'm not changing the subject at all. Your drivel is a matter of semantics.

Whether or not you contend that you "know exactly what you're talking about" is irrelevant. Because you chose the victorious side in this case, it seems you think you are smarter than the dissenters to the opinion. Your opinion of the subject at hand is not as unanimous as you would like to lead the impressionable to believe, hence my references to other jurisdictions who have ruled the same searches illegal.

I feel sorry for people such as yourself who still argue you are free as your Constitutional protections are stripped before your very eyes.

BTW - You ridiculed me for stating I have friends who are also cops. If I may rebut your unflattering comment, I didn't use the statement to lend credence to my claims. I would further expound to say I too have the highest respect for these men and women who are sworn to uphold the law.
 ”
Monday, July 06, 2009 10:40:56 PM
Patrick wrote:
Someone is in denial
“ Marilyn,
Your comments are of great concern. I work on a daily basis with alcoholics and addicts who all try that same lame excuse you gave. "One or two cant hurt. I'm more aware when I've had a few." Perhaps sir, your drinking has escalated to a point where you even belive these statements to justify your actions. There is help out there. Please seek it before it's too late for you or your future victims. ”
Monday, July 06, 2009 12:54:05 PM
tim wrote:
Sorry Steve
“ Marilyn-a few drinks have killed plenty of people-No- I've never had a few drinks and driven anywhere. That would be stupid, wouldn't it? I can't do anything but shake my head at your comments.
Steve- Unanimous or not, in Ohio- it's the law. I was addressing, as were you, checkpoints-not traffic stops on the whole-and I content sir-that I know exactly what I'm talking about. You're trying to save face by changing the subject, but that's ok alot of people do that when they're wrong...'Quite a few close friends that wear the badge?' Doesn't everybody when they get into discussions about topics like this? And about the PC Nut-job activist, wrong again. I wish you could be right just once, but I'm sorry, you're not. I don't think it makes me a pc nut job activist because I know the law, abide by it, and defend the people out there every day protecting me and my freedom. That's what is great about freedom and this country-one person can be right and the other completely wrong-and it's ok. We both have the right to our opinions-because this is America. ”
Monday, July 06, 2009 11:59:03 AM
Steve wrote:
I stand corrected.
“ Sobriety checkpoints are not illegal as I misstated. I as well know they have been ruled acceptable by the US Supreme Court. However Tim, you left out the fact the Court did not rule unanimously on the issue, and in fact several states, not including Ohio, ruled them illegal according to their states' constitutions. That many lawmakers believe as I do, traffic stops without probable cause are, and should remain illegal is evident. I contend that segment "knows better than you".

I have never had a DUI or anything more serious than minor speeding tickets in 25 plus years of driving either. I don't have anything to hide, and have quite a few close friends who wear the badge, so you don't even need to go there.

Did I get "PC, nut job, activists" from TV? That's a good one. Who really cares when you're easy to spot, and ID from across the street (or on this blog).


 ”
Sunday, July 05, 2009 11:31:54 PM
Doug wrote:
This
“ While I would never drink and drive, I do find it menacing to be stopped, held up and searched a check point. Feels Un-American to me! However, it is legal, just like an abortion! So be it! ”
Sunday, July 05, 2009 12:14:01 PM
Todd Lucas wrote:
OVI Checkpoints
“ Well, then I really don't understand what your beef is, Mr. Cruz. Your arguement seems to imply that an OVI checkpoint is somehow an invasion of privacy or something. So, let's examine that.
There is no expectation of privacy at OVI checkpoints because these are conducted on PUBLIC thoroughfares. There's no violation of civil rights for at least two reasons I can think of just off the top of my head.
First, holding a drivers' license is a privilage and not a right. The state can revoke everyone's licenses anytime they want. And since issuing drivers' licenses is a state responsibility and not a federal one, there would be very little that could be done without someone suing the state. This is 9th grade Civics (Thank You, Mr. King). Granted there would be tremendous outcry, but, don't take my word for it. Look it up and see.
Second, they're not telling anyone where they can or cannot go. You're "O"perating a "V"ehicle which gives the police reason to suspect that you might be "I"ntoxicated ("probable cause" is for those that have already been convicted of OVI). If you're not intoxicated then the only thing that has happened is that it has taken you a little longer to get to your destination. Yeah, its inconvenient, but, you haven't been harmed in ANY way. If you ARE intoxicated then sucks to be you for being stupid enough to get behind the wheel in the first place. Go directly to jail. Do not pass "Go". Do not collect $200.
Your definition of a "fishing expedition" is an OVI checkpoint. The fact of the matter is that the only difference between an OVI checkpoint and a "cop on the beat" is that the officers at the checkpoint are simply waiting for the criminals to come to them as opposed to patrolling the city trying to find the criminals. By your definition, Mr. Cruz, a "cop on the beat" is doing just as much "fishing" as the cops at the checkpoint. On a side note, I have to agree with some of the other posters in that announcing where and when an OVI checkpoint is going to be seems counter-productive, but, as someone else correctly stated, the police are required by law to do so.
I understand you don't like this particular law, Mr. Cruz. I personally don't care for the concealed carry law, but, I'm not going to make a big deal out of it because its a fact of life. And before anybody goes ballistic, I'm NOT anti-gun. My Dad, may God rest and keep him, was an avid gun enthusiast and part-time smith and taught my brothers and me the proper way to handle a firearm. Frankly, I find target shooting very enjoyable. I just don't happen to think that carrying a gun under you jacket is necessary. But, the law is the law and so to each his own.
You don't like OVI checkpoints, Mr. Cruz, then do something to ban them. Good luck getting that past MADD, RADD, or any other organization dedicated to getting drunk drivers off the streets.
To Marilyn Manson: You want to have "innocent fun" with alcohol (or any other intoxicant for that matter) then KEEP YOUR REAR-END AT HOME! But, if your "innocent fun" includes driving somewhere after your fun is over then I suggest you issue a press release stating exactly where and when you're going to be having this "fun" so the rest of us can avoid you and the police can find you before you kill someone! You want to talk about pathetic! Calling drunk driving innocent fun is pathetic!
This is my soapbox and I'm standing on it! ”
Sunday, July 05, 2009 2:41:08 AM
Marilyn Manson wrote:
drunk driving
“ Tim - what i'm talking about is the hard working, tax payers just out having a few drinks, that are not a threat to killing someone while driving. i'm sure everyone posting on here has had an occasional drink and got behind the wheel, and was NOT a threat to society. The fact is, most people who get killed while driving, were NOT killed by a drunk driver. In oklahoma a few days ago, a guy driving a trunk killed 7 people, and the guy didnt have a single drink. driving is dangerous not matter what the circumstance. its when people start mixing their booze with drugs, when driving becomes dangerous. The guy who goes out just for a few beers should be left alone. Because he can drive a car just as good, or better because he is more alert after a few beers. And is not a hazard to the streets. ”
Saturday, July 04, 2009 6:08:17 PM
   MULTIMEDIA
Flood Solutions Audio

MITIGATION: Possible flood projects for Findlay were presented in a public meeting Monday at Winebrenner Seminary.

Audio


Stories


Conceptual Plans


Technical Maps


Flood Portal

RESOURCES: At the flood portal you can find news stories, photos, multimedia, community features and updated river levels.

   VIRTUAL VILLAGE
Orange & Black Attack

OILERS: Follow University of Findlay sports with Brian Lester.


Far Flung Guest Book

DROP A LINE: Whether you're always here or just passing through, visit and sign our online Guest Book on the Far Flung blog.


Virtual Village
   PHOTO GALLERY
Randy's Seen

IMAGE BLOG: Go behind the scenes with Courier photographer Randy Roberts.


You can purchase photographs from The Courier through our easy-to-use online system. Get prints, mousepads, T-shirts and more!

   LOCAL NEWS
  LATEST COMMENTS Last 10 comments submitted by our readers...
adam wrote in article "Village patrols may be restored in future":
concerned
“ i totally agree with you! when you call them nothing happens (unless you have a little bit of pot). I called police on a passed... ” Read More...
11/20/2009 3:21:12 PM
adam wrote in article "Corn dust bothers elevator neighbor":
grain
“ hey if you dont like the problems caused by this you should move. Otherwise shut up and count your blessings that YOU have a pla... ” Read More...
11/20/2009 3:15:05 PM
adam wrote in article "Two charged after robbery":
pizza
“ you would be amazing sometimes the ammount they carry. Sometimes its a whole nights woth of working that they gota payback. ” Read More...
11/20/2009 3:10:23 PM
TG wrote in article "Village patrols may be restored in future":
Capt. Treece
“ Why don't you put your money where your mouth is Capt. Treece. Bring out those numbers. The correct ones. I bet you make almo... ” Read More...
11/20/2009 2:52:23 PM
Chilli wrote in article "Extra enforcement slated for Saturday due to big game":
Extra Enforcement
“ I always wonder why they tell the public what roads are choosen for patrols. Can't the drunk driver just go another route? ” Read More...
11/20/2009 2:48:36 PM
james wrote in article "Village patrols may be restored in future":
buddies
“ Thats not the way we see it ,,if you retire and can and do ,,,move on,, We the people of this county do not approve of this pra... ” Read More...
11/20/2009 2:01:31 PM
Get Real wrote in article "Two charged after robbery":
Why is this thug on the street anyway?
“ I believe if you review some history, this creep robbed a pizza driver in August of 2007 two years ago and was involved in a st... ” Read More...
11/20/2009 1:35:27 PM
Scott wrote in article "Two charged after robbery":
Robbery
“ While I agree with most of Cathy Schulte's comments, I don't agree with, "Good of her to fight back." How stupid would it be to... ” Read More...
11/20/2009 1:28:20 PM
JP wrote in article "Corn dust bothers elevator neighbor":
Grains, trains and automobiles
“ I live in North Baltimore, a pitching wedge from the grain elevator and a chip shot from the CSX main line.

It IS dustier he... ” Read More...
11/20/2009 11:44:07 AM
Cathy Schulte wrote in article "Two charged after robbery":
Robbery
“ How dumb ! How much could money a pizza delivery person have? To risk prision for any amount is crazy,but to rob a person of cha... ” Read More...
11/20/2009 11:34:18 AM
  U.S. Headlines
  World News
  Ohio News
News Briefs Work scheduled on Findlay streets
Findlay's Main Street, northbound, will be reduced at times to one lane between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. for waterline connection.

Main Street will not be accessible from East Lincoln Street. Lincoln Street will be closed to through traffic from South Main Street to South Blanchard Street from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. for continued improvement work. Access to local businesses and residents only will be maintained.

Recount planned in trustee's race
OTTAWA -- After certifying election results on Wednesday, the Putnam County Board of Elections has announced a recount will be required for the Union Township trustee race, according to Deputy Director Shelly Burkhart.

The recount will be completed on Wednesday at the county elections board office, 336 E. Main Street, Ottawa.

Incumbent Daniel R. Ellerbrock has secured his position on the board, earning 685 votes. However the remaining trustee spot will require a recount as Gery P. Wurth earned 598 votes and Mark J. Kahle collected 601 votes, according to official results.

An automatic recount is necessary if the margin is within one-half of 1 percent of total votes cast, according to state law.

Road to be closed
Forest Lake Drive, between Marion Township 237 and Indian Lake Drive/Forest Lane, will be closed today for a pipe installation.

The road is expected to open by 5 p.m., weather permitting.

Motorists are advised to use Township 242.