OVI Checkpoint Prediction

[eye95]

Hundreds of people will be needlessly stopped and deprived of their Liberty (even if only temporarily) in this anticonstitutional search and seizure.

One driver, maybe two, will be arrested for OVI.

Several people will be cited for no driver’s license, no insurance, no registration, seatbelt violations, broken taillights, etc., you know, the real reason for the checkpoints.

Several drivers, nearby, but not passing through the checkpoint, will be arrested for OVI, if there are the usual accompanying “saturation patrols”. Why not just use the additional manpower from the checkpoint to do more saturation patrols, stopping people only after there is reason to believe that they are OVI??? Such would be more effective and far less likely to infringe on Liberty. However, like I said, stopping OVI is not the real reason for the checkpoints. “Papers, please” is.

 

[wabbit]

Eye95, long and previously discussed in depth down to the minutiae of what are legitimate timeframes...

If done appropriately there is No violation of amendment. [corrected from botched typist]

Bottom line the supreme court ruled these types of stops are minimally intrusive, as long as the balancing test is more appropriate for determining the reasonableness of a search than the probable cause standard from a perspective the needs of the state to prevent drunk-driving accidents outweighed the minimal intrusion on sober drivers who just happen to get caught up in the DUI dragnet. Thus, the Justices argued, DUI checkpoints did not constitute an unreasonable search and seizure.

Papers please, no that are what the texans citizens accepted as part of their OC privilege legislative package.

 

[eye95]

Hence my use of the word, “anticonstitutional”, not “unconstitutional”.

The typical justification for such anticonstitutional abridgments of Rights is some legitimate societal or governmental interest, in this case, stopping drunk driving. However, such a justification fails when it can be clearly shown that using the same manpower is far more effective when used for saturation patrols!

I have read every local story on OVI checkpoints for several years, and the saturation patrols have always beaten the snot outta checkpoints. Always.

Someone needs to take this back to court and argue that reality, since arguing the Constitution doesn’t work with most of our current “justices”.

So I don’t give a rip about threads bemoaning courts finding checkpoints to be “constitutional”. I have identified a practical way to argue the practice out of existence, based on readily available data.

 

[CJ4wd]

"OVI"?? Please elaborate.

 

[Ghost1958]

Hence my use of the word, “anticonstitutional”, not “unconstitutional”.

The typical justification for such anticonstitutional abridgments of Rights is some legitimate societal or governmental interest, in this case, stopping drunk driving. However, such a justification fails when it can be clearly shown that using the same manpower is far more effective when used for saturation patrols!

I have read every local story on OVI checkpoints for several years, and the saturation patrols have always beaten the snot outta checkpoints. Always.

Someone needs to take this back to court and argue that reality, since arguing the Constitution doesn’t work with most of our current “justices”.

So I don’t give a rip about threads bemoaning courts finding checkpoints to be “constitutional”. I have identified a practical way to argue the practice out of existence, based on readily available data.

[
Do you really believe that with the 100s or 1000s of lawyers who have divised arguments against checkpoints NOT ONE of them ever thought of what you, a school teacher. just "devised".

Ahhhhh heck. Maybe you are that legally brilliant. You should share this flash of lightening with a lawyer currently fighting a case against checkpoints

 

[color of law]

"OVI"?? Please elaborate.

OVI is Drunk driving in Ohio.

 

[eye95]

[
Do you really believe that with the 100s or 1000s of lawyers who have divised arguments against checkpoints NOT ONE of them ever thought of what you, a school teacher. just "devised".

Ahhhhh heck. Maybe you are that legally brilliant. You should share this flash of lightening with a lawyer currently fighting a case against checkpoints

Was the point of that post to further the discussion, or to antagonize? The second paragraph seems to indicate the latter. I will not bother to reply to your content, only to your tone.

 

[solus]

Hence my use of the word, “anticonstitutional”, not “unconstitutional”.

Snippp...

Humm could you do the membership a favor and provide us a definition of anticonstitutional from a viable dictionary, say merriam webster?

We’ll wait...

 

[solus]

Was the point of that post to further the discussion, or to antagonize? The second paragraph seems to indicate the latter. I will not bother to reply to your content, only to your tone.

Already the legal critical think’n kick-in...

 

[Ghost1958]

Was the point of that post to further the discussion, or to antagonize? The second paragraph seems to indicate the latter. I will not bother to reply to your content, only to your tone.

No actually it was a serious question.

But I figured it wouldn't be answered with a serious answer, hence the last unsolicited advise what to do with the discovery.

 

[eye95]

Ask a serious question, and you’ll get a serious answer. Jerk posts don’t get on-topic replies.

 

[Ghost1958]

Ask a serious question, and you’ll get a serious answer. Jerk posts don’t get on-topic replies.

Like I said. I didn't figure I'd get an answer to the question.

Which was. Do you think that no lawyer opposing a checkpoint case ever thought of using that tact before?
Guess it's possible but I'd think it would be highly unlikely a teacher would devise a legal court argument that no lawyer ever thought of before.

 

[eye95]

My prediction was spot on:

According to a release, over 350 cars passed through the Austin Pike checkpoint where 2 citations were issued for expired registration and one for driving without a license.

At the second checkpoint, over 225 cars passed through, resulting in several citations as well. Three drivers were cited for driving under suspended license, two for expired registration, and one for operating a vehicle without a license.

The accompanying saturation patrols resulted in one arrest for OVI and another for felony drug possession; two citations for miscellaneous traffic violations, and another for traffic control device.

575 cars stopped, hundreds of people having to wait in line for a “papers please” exercise. How many OVIs stopped at the checkpoints? ZERO

Had the manpower wasted at the checkpoints been used elsewhere for additional saturation patrols, they might have netted more than just the one OVI from the patrols. But, stopping OVIs is not the goal. It is exercising police power over the people.

OVI checkpoint results released for Montgomery County

The Montgomery County Sheriff's Office and the Montgomery County Combined Agency OVI Task Force have scheduled two OVI sobriety checkpoints for Friday night, according to a press release.

www.whio.com

 

[solus]

My prediction was spot on:


575 cars stopped, hundreds of people having to wait in line for a “papers please” exercise. How many OVIs stopped at the checkpoints? ZERO

Had the manpower wasted at the checkpoints been used elsewhere for additional saturation patrols, they might have netted more than just the one OVI from the patrols. But, stopping OVIs is not the goal. It is exercising police power over the people.

According to a release, over 350 cars passed through the Austin Pike checkpoint where 2 citations were issued for expired registration and one for driving without

OVI checkpoint results released for Montgomery County

The Montgomery County Sheriff's Office and the Montgomery County Combined Agency OVI Task Force have scheduled two OVI sobriety checkpoints for Friday night, according to a press release.

www.whio.com

Oh eye95, you stated zero yet indicated ONE citizen was cited?

Oh eye95 you kinda left out a significant historical fact mentioned in your newspeek article...

Since the beginning of the year the Montgomery County Sheriff's Office has arrested six impaired drivers in the Washington Twp. area, the release said. Four of the arrests were the result of traffic crashes.

In 2018, deputies made 42 arrests in the same area for impaired driving, 18 of which involved traffic crashes, the release said.

Guess this their response to saturation patroling

 

[color of law]

I suggest you guys read Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979).

Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979)

supreme.justia.com

 

[FreedomVA]

I recommend finding out the pub LEO's hangout at and setup a "Citizen Checkpoint" to see how they feel with rights violations

 

[color of law]

I recommend finding out the pub LEO's hangout at and setup a "Citizen Checkpoint" to see how they feel with rights violations

Funny you say that, starting March. 28, 2019 in Ohio the police officers will be considered on duty 24/7. Meaning officers will be required to carry 27/7. Which means officers have to be teetotalers.

 

[OC for ME]

... Which means officers have to be teetotalers.

Riiight...

 

[solus]

this should be quite interesting to say the least, i mean benevolent LE union banquets or ad hoc LE membership meetings at the local favorite watering holes ...

 

[OC for ME]

I recommend finding out the pub LEO's hangout at and setup a "Citizen Checkpoint" to see how they feel with rights violations

Get you and your citizen checkers arrested for stalking cops.