I went out looking for impaired drivers last night on grant-funded overtime. I actively patrolled for less than an hour and found two very drunk drivers.
. . . and then you made them drive to the DUI checkpoint, right?
I went out looking for impaired drivers last night on grant-funded overtime. I actively patrolled for less than an hour and found two very drunk drivers.
. . . and then you made them drive to the DUI checkpoint, right?
I went out looking for impaired drivers last night on grant-funded overtime. I actively patrolled for less than an hour and found two very drunk drivers.
DUI checkpoints are the triumph of "Won't you think of the children?" over "The right of the people to be secure in their persons...".
IMO itis a publicity stunt.
You have 10-20 cops standing around who get 1-2 drunks in a night. The cops actually patrolling generally do 10 to 1 what the checkpoint does, without any constitutional issues.
And to add to it....
Wouldn't the money on officer's pay/overtime be better spent with the officers spread throughout the city, trying to find drunk drivers?
It was for exactly this reason that my agency (Cincinnati PD) did not do this.
I learned early in my career that the hallmark of government is expending great effort to make it appear that you are doing something about a problem while accomplishing absolutely nothing. DUI checkpoints are political theater, not law enforcement.
And to add to it....
Wouldn't the money on officer's pay/overtime be better spent with the officers spread throughout the city, trying to find drunk drivers?
It was for exactly this reason that my agency (Cincinnati PD) did not do this.
I learned early in my career that the hallmark of government is expending great effort to make it appear that you are doing something about a problem while accomplishing absolutely nothing. DUI checkpoints are political theater, not law enforcement.
To bad "theater" works. The people should be up in arms, but they are stuck on the appearances rather than actual results.
"... but they are stuck on the appearances rather than actual results."
This is the philosophy of the head of every government agency in the country.
If they were trying to catch drunk drivers, instead of "showing the flag", they'd have those same officers spread all over the town/city and actually pulling over people that are showing signs of drunk driving.
You know, that whole "presumption of innocence", probable cause, reasonable articulable suspicion, and all that.
Instead, they do the checkpoints so the public thinks something is being done. Doesn't matter that it's not the efficient thing, just that "we have to do SOMETHING".
Potemkin Village
From Dilbert
The Problem - Dilbert to Pointy Haired Boss - "We're so understaffed that the project is six weeks behind schedule."
The Analysis - PHB - "I can't add people, I can't change the due date, I can't ignore it."
The Result - Dilbert to team - "He wants hourly status reports until the situation improves."
Potemkin Village
From Dilbert
The Problem - Dilbert to Pointy Haired Boss - "We're so understaffed that the project is six weeks behind schedule."
The Analysis - PHB - "I can't add people, I can't change the due date, I can't ignore it."
The Result - Dilbert to team - "He wants hourly status reports until the situation improves."
This happens EVERY DAY at my plant!
Yep. 100% PR campaign. In Marion County we average less than 10 drunks per checkpoint. I bet we’d get 30+ with the same number of cops patrolling for them.