Local News

Thursday, June 25, 2009

Sobriety stops net no OVI arrests

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 webmaster@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.

Name:

E-mail:

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.

Confirm E-mail:

Subject:

Comments:

Verification:

Confirmation Code:

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

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

Reydolfo Cruz wrote:

some of you don't deserve freedom

Some of the posters have missed the point. Re-read my original post.
Todd Lucas,the direct answer to your question is "NO". My only interaction with the law has been 1 speeding ticket in 33 years of driving. I got the ticket in of all places Michigan. The officer had a valid reason to stop me, as I was exceeding the speed limt. Had I not been speeding or otherwise committing an infraction, he would have been "fishing" not unlike these "checkpoints". If I've done nothing wrong, I don't need to be "checked", nor do I want to be. Well, there was an interaction with law enforcement a couple weeks ago I almost forgot about . I responded to a burglar alarm at one of the family owned businesses and got there just behind the deputy. We greeted each other and as we began to talk I immediately informed him I was a CHL holder. He thanked me for that info, then we went to check the building. After we were done securing the building he asked what I carried. Turns out his duty weapon is the same as my carry gun. We had a nice chat about their accuracy and dependability and went our separate ways. Nothing negative there. I just don't need to talk to him just because I happen to be passing by doing nothing wrong. Anything less is wrong and shouldn't be allowed. If these case citations as posted here are true, they are wrong too and need to be changed. The law CAN be wrong you know. I believe I've said before that before any terrorists can overthrow the USA, we will have ruined it from within.

Friday, July 03, 2009 10:50:24 AM

Think about it....... wrote:

Sobriety checks

Hey, newsflash-if you don't drink and drive, you don't have to worry about it!

Thursday, July 02, 2009 11:16:50 PM

tim wrote:

read it carefully

Perhaps you should read more carefully before backing the wrong horse as that's exactly what he was referencing. I see that saving a life is not worth the 2 to 3 minutes it takes that brave officer to stop your vehicle at a checkpoint. It's not a liberty issue, it's a lifesaving issue. You are so wrapped up in yourself that you don't see that the only intent is saving a life or two-and maybe yours....I just hope that a family member of yours is not killed by a drunk driver- then your cry will be well where were the police to stop this guy?! Yes it is about safety and that is the job of all law enforcement, and they take it very seriously. It's constitutional. The highest courts in this country have ruled that it is not an infringement upon any of your liberties or freedoms. I think they know better than you.

Thursday, July 02, 2009 7:33:16 PM

The Layman wrote:

Just a question

Scenerio: Your child was just kidnapped.

Witness: They drove away in a blue car that way on Tiffin

Police:
Set up checkpoints on Tiffin and surrounding streets and stop every blue car going that way on Tiffin.

Would any of you against these checkpoints also be against this?

I've heard time and time again how our civil liberties are being eroded by checkpoints and cameras and phone taps etc...the ACLU loves that stuff. I'm not against any of it because I don't have anything to hide, and I don't break the laws. Some of those methods preserve the very liberties and freedoms you speak of, and protect your life. So if you don't like it here, there are plenty of countries to move to.

Thursday, July 02, 2009 11:44:46 AM

Tim W. wrote:

tim

I didn't realize I called the checkpoints illegal. I was commenting about stopping without reasonable suspicion. While I know these checkpoints have been shown to be legal (case citations) they infringe on the rights of all citizens. Just because something is shown to be legal doesn't mean that it is a good law. We just have to look at history to realize that.

I don't drink. I think the checkpoints are a bad idea. I am against any law that restricts liberty. You can keep your safety.

Thursday, July 02, 2009 11:03:49 AM

tim wrote:

Tim W.

Apparently, you missed the case cites before you wrote your "nail on the head" comment. It has been proven repeatedly to be legal and constitutional, not illegal as you both assert. So anything garnished from these stops is PERFECTLY legal and protected under the law. As far as being a sheep friend, I'm not. I've educated myself. Perhaps you should wipe the wool out of your eyes and read up on the subject. Again-it's legal. If you don't like it-don't drive drunk and you have nothing to fear. These courts make decisions to protect everyone's freedoms.

Thursday, July 02, 2009 8:33:56 AM

Tim W. wrote:

liberty and freedom

I'm the Tim with the "liberty and freedom quote." Apparently my namesake and I have wildly different views on this issue.

I agree driving drunk is stupid and illegal but Steve hit the nail on the head about stopping citizens illegally. Perhaps the "other Tim" would also rather have a justice system where evidence illegally obtained would be admissible in court? or where a person is presumed guilty until proven innocent? where do we stop? I'll keep my liberty and freedom thank you. The "other Tim" can remain a sheep.

Wednesday, July 01, 2009 5:11:20 PM

tim wrote:

just in case you need help

Sobriety Checkpoints have been upheld under State and Federal Constitution in Ohio in State v. Bauer, 651 N.E. 2d 46 (Ohio App. 10 Dist. 1994)and State v. Goines, 474 N.E.2d 1219 (Ohio App. 1984)
Just so you know. I thank every police officer and every judge that has ever had anything to do with getting drunks off the road to protect my liberty and freedom.

Wednesday, July 01, 2009 4:00:39 PM

tim wrote:

legality

You totally missed the point of the liberty and freedom comment..but I'm not surprised. I suggest you check it out-checkpoints are PERFECTLY LEGAL -court after court has ruled on it-pick up a book and educate yourself. I'm going out on a limb here and guessing you're not a Supreme Court Justice...and I think they know more about the law than do you.
I don't use queer or gay in my speech either and I am far from a 'PC nut job activist' ( did you hear that on tv?) nor do I have an agenda-I'm simply tired of people that have no common sense or sensibilities and think that people that do are PC nut job activists. Like if I saw you on the street, I wouldn't say "Wow, you are really a paranoid, ignorant liberal with something to hide" because I have sensibility and common sense. The law is the law and I am proud to live in the United States-and I do celebrate my liberties and freedoms and if it saves just one life for a police officer to pull me over at a checkpoint-it's worth it to me. The only people that cry about their rights being violated are those that have something to hide or break the law. They're legal, they're here to stay, get over it.

Wednesday, July 01, 2009 3:02:11 PM

public safety wrote:

sobriety check points

I'll agree with Tim on these statements. And for "not everything is funny" - it's called entrapment and is against the law! Cops can't just sit outside bars watching cars or people walking out. I give kudos to all the law enforcement in our community for doing their jobs and keeping people safe....Thank You! That's something they don't hear enough

Wednesday, July 01, 2009 2:17:48 PM

Steve wrote:

Whoa Tim...

"so you guys can have your 'liberty and freedom" Maybe The United States isn't the place for you???

You are right, dinking and driving isn't innocent fun, it's against the law. But then so is a traffic stop without reasonable suspicion of wrong doing, such as these checkpoints. And yes, they do constitute a search.

As for retard, retarded, or whatever other iteration I may choose to use, it's no different than gay, or queer, or any other perfectly good word some PC, nut-job, activist with an agenda has placed off limits for common everyday use.

Wednesday, July 01, 2009 2:01:22 PM

Tim wrote:

give me a break

Steve, how would you like it if you had a handicapped child and people kept blurting out the word retarded? Sissies-no, just compassionate. And as far as questionable searches-that wasn't even mentioned in this article-maybe those who have something to hide are paranoid about searches... Experience a legal search and get caught with something?
"Marilyn Manson"- worthless cops out to spoil a innocent person's fun? How about the innocent person that gets killed by your fun of drinking and driving? These 'worthless cops' are saving lives. It's not an invasion of privacy to have checkpoints, in fact it's advertised in the paper if you can read. People like you that call driving drunk innocent are the true PATHETIC ones. I'm sure if you had a family member killed by a drunk driver your tune might change. I'm sure if you had a situation where a drunk driver hit you, you'd want that 'worthless cop' to do something about it-or should he follow your advise and not spoil that guy's fun who just crushed your car hurting your children? Oh but that would be different right? Keep waiving your flags guys...let's not have any laws so you guys can have your 'liberty and freedom'.

Wednesday, July 01, 2009 10:10:08 AM

not everything is funny wrote:

duh

Ok the cops can do surveillance on a home if they think there is drug activity. Bars are for drinking, correct? So why don't the cops keep an eye on the bars and when a car has been parked there for several hours, follow them, pull them over and do a sobriety check? Do they think they are drinking pepsi?

And hats off to Steve!! I am sick of PCness as well. We were sold it as it being nice. Who knew it was the start of the "thought police" I too am sick of it.

Wednesday, July 01, 2009 9:52:00 AM

Marilyn Manson wrote:

Chekpoints

These checkpoints are a waste of taxpayers money. Some of these worthless cops are just trying to spoil an innocent citizen's fun. Not to mention, invade their privacy. PATHETIC!!

Wednesday, July 01, 2009 2:51:32 AM

Steve wrote:

Sorry Tim

I'm sick of PCness. It's turning us into a nation of sissies (to be gentle about it). Add PC to giving up our liberties in the form of questionable searches and we're on our way to something less than a free country.

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 10:57:15 PM

Tim wrote:

dan

Thanks for the definition but I know what it means...since you have the dictionary in your hands, look up politically correct and class.

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 4:07:54 PM

DAN wrote:

Check Points

Tim, Retarded: Slow or limited in intellectual or emotional development.
Anyway you look at it, driving in that fashion is RETARDED!

Monday, June 29, 2009 8:55:37 PM

Tim wrote:

dan

High or retarded? I think someone needs a little PC training. Also- I don't know why you are thanking FORMER (thank GOD!) chief spraw...he didn't sit out there and write those tickets...the hard working officers did-he was back at the station drinking coffee and hanging out, maybe with barker...only spraw did his hanging out inside and didn't spend all day out back like barker smoking where it clearly says no smoking...again with the examples of great leadership.

Monday, June 29, 2009 1:54:08 PM

Tim wrote:

freedom

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

~Benjamin Franklin

I don't agree with the police checkpoints. Find another way to stop drunk driving that doesn't infringe on people's rights.

Monday, June 29, 2009 12:19:57 PM

DAN wrote:

DUI Check Points

If they really want to make a difference, the Findlay police should sit along the new part of State Rt 236 after dinner time. I see motor scooters go at a break neck speed, and take the scooter up on the back wheel! You have to be high or retarded to act in this manner! I know the police can't be ever where, but this is a real issue out here in the summer time. We do appreciate the tickets the police have been giving out the last month or so. Thank you Chief Spraw!

Monday, June 29, 2009 11:31:29 AM

Todd Lucas wrote:

Sobriety stops net no OVI arrests

What is your big issue, Mr. Cruz? Did you get jammed up on something at an OVI checkpoint? Yeah. They catch more than just drunk drivers at these checkpoints. BIG DEAL!!! Again, its a small price to pay for a safer street to drive on. And, in case you forgot, having a driver's license is NOT a right, but, a privilage. And I defy you to prove to me how an OVI checkpoint is ANYTHING like the Nazis. In a true "police state" you are told where you can and cannot go based on your "papers". At an OVI stop, all they're doing is making sure you're not drunk or have a warrent out on you or something of that nature. So, I ask again, did you get popped for something at an OVI checkpoint? Maybe you forgot to renew your registration or something small like that? Good Grief, Man! I went through an OVI checkpoint up near Rossford several years ago and was actually handcuffed for about five minutes until my name came back as clean! Was I scared out of my mind? You better believe it! But, did I think or feel like I was being singled out? Of course not! Get a grip, Mr. Cruz! If they were really trying to create a "police state" they would come to your house, break down your door and say "We have to test you for alcohol before we let you drive anywhere, Mr. Cruz." LIGHTEN UP!!!

Saturday, June 27, 2009 12:45:06 PM

Tim wrote:

Stupid people

Police fishing expedition? Well, I suppose the true "stupid people" are those who drink and drive. If you get into a vehicle tanked and drive-you should probably thank the officer on the "expedition" for saving your fool life or some innocent person just driving down the road. What freedoms are eroding? The freedom to get drunk, drive a car and kill someone? God Bless America...

Friday, June 26, 2009 1:45:24 PM

dh wrote:

Sobriety stops

A true waste of taxpayers money and they even tell you the areas to avoid. Why not enforce the other traffic laws? Speeders have no worries in this area. Tiffin Avenue and Bright Road are test tracks for NASCAR.

Friday, June 26, 2009 7:36:53 AM

Reydolfo Cruz wrote:

the right to be left alone

Stupid people allow themselves to be confronted by a police fishing expedition. Stupid people don't even realize that their freedoms are eroding, and say nothing. I support legitimate law enforcement and never wish harm to our brave officers. Just because I happen to be passing by is not a valid reason to stop me.

Thursday, June 25, 2009 9:57:44 PM

J wrote:

Try something new.

Put all the local bar names in a hat and pick one out each night, randomly. Then watch that bar from midnight to closing and stop those drivers who appear drunk and test them. This would do a lot more to reduce drunk driving then the current method.

Thursday, June 25, 2009 5:50:00 PM

Phil wrote:

dui checkpoints

I wonder how stupid they think people are!! If they know where the checkpoint is, you know they won't be going that way. Sounds to me a waste of resources and manpower!! I think there is a better way of doing this!!

Thursday, June 25, 2009 12:33:49 PM

JEFF wrote:

DUI CHECKPOINT

LARRY, THEY HAVE TO TELL WHERE AND WHEN ACCORDING TO SUPREME COURT RULINGS.
OTHERWISE THEY WOULD BE ACCUSED OF BEING NAZIS. OH WAIT, STUPID PEOPLE ALREADY CALL THEM THAT.
SUPPORT YOUR LAW ENFORCEMENT PROFESSIONALS.

Thursday, June 25, 2009 11:13:21 AM

Larry Swisher wrote:

Ck point

NO DUI's in check point??? Amazing, why don't they advertise where & when it is gonna be. DUH

Thursday, June 25, 2009 7:59:45 AM