• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

OVI Checkpoint Prediction

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,949
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Reality i believe is what "We The People" make it and i am wide awake to the current reality for what it is.

I joined this forum because the title of this forum is "A Right Unexercised is a Right Lost", gullible of me to believe otherwise.
No, not gullible. Don't bail now. Right, wrong or indifferent stand your ground. But, when you are wrong own-up to it and move on.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Yet another OVI checkpoint result shows that they are useless for the stated purpose:


OVI (DUI) checkpoints are an exception to a general rule from the courts barring most checkpoints. The exception was created because of the governmental need to protect us from drunk drivers. However, if the checkpoints are not protecting us from drunk drivers, shouldn’t that loophole be closed?
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
Yet another OVI checkpoint result shows that they are useless for the stated purpose:


OVI (DUI) checkpoints are an exception to a general rule from the courts barring most checkpoints. The exception was created because of the governmental need to protect us from drunk drivers. However, if the checkpoints are not protecting us from drunk drivers, shouldn’t that loophole be closed?

When pigs fly...
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,949
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Here’s the statistical breakdown:

  • 112 vehicles went through the checkpoint
  • 14 diverted
  • 0 tested for OVI
  • 0 OVI arrests
  • 3 suspensions
  • 2 ticketed for not having a driver’s license
  • 1 seatbelt violation
  • 1 “other” (unspecified)
  • 0 warrants served
The saturation patrol in the area of the checkpoint produced eight stops and no OVI arrests.

4507.35 Duty to display license or furnish satisfactory proof of license upon demand; penalty.
(A) The operator of a motor vehicle shall display the operator's driver's license, or furnish satisfactory proof that the operator has a driver's license, upon demand of any peace officer or of any person damaged or injured in any collision in which the licensee may be involved. When a demand is properly made and the operator has the operator's driver's license on or about the operator's person, the operator shall not refuse to display the license. A person's failure to furnish satisfactory evidence that the person is licensed under this chapter when the person does not have the person's license on or about the person's person shall be prima-facie evidence of the person's not having obtained a driver's license.

You do NOT have to have your driver's license on your person or close at hand.
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Interesting.

The law does not say “lawful demand of any peace officer”. It only says “demand of any peace officer”. Is that constitutional? Is every demand of a peace officer for a license from the operator lawful? If not, under what circumstances would it not be?

Generally speaking, I will behave as though any such demand, while I am operating a vehicle, is lawful—and sort it out later if I have reason to believe that the demand was unlawful.
 

HP995

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2012
Messages
730
Location
MO, USA
I had never heard of OVI, very troubling that they get away with doing this! I would be highly annoyed.

I saw one Ohio lawyer page advising "talk to the police officer, but don’t do any tests for the police officer. You don’t have to."
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
Slick LE sneaky sidebar...
quote:
Drug Checkpoints (it’s a trap!)
The Supreme Court has ruled that random checkpoints for the purpose of finding illegal drugs are unconstitutional. However, some police departments have devised a deceptive method to work around and exploit this restriction. Here’s how their trick works.

Police departments sometimes put up signs warning drivers of upcoming drug checkpoints. (This alone is not illegal.) But they will not pull over people who go through a checkpoint – because there technically is no checkpoint. Instead, officers will watch for vehicles approaching the nonexistent checkpoint and pull over for vehicles who make illegal u-turns or discard contraband in order to avoid the fictitious “Drug Checkpoint Ahead.”

So if you see such signs, keep driving and don’t panic. If there’s a rest area following the sign, DO NOT pull into it. If you do, you might find yourself surrounded by drug-sniffing dogs.

Police departments, especially in the Mid-west, have been pushing their luck with this tactic, so if you encounter anything resembling an actual drug checkpoint, please contact that state’s ACLU Chapter. Similarly, if you’re arrested as a result of a real or fake “drug checkpoint,” you must contact an attorney to explore your legal options. Unquote.

 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Legal in Missouri...not done very often it seems.


Too bad these good folks don’t track checkpoint results. All the actual number I have seen completely blow up the canard that these checkpoints serve any legitimate purpose of reducing drunk driving. A cop in a patrol car is far more effective at stopping drunks than a cop at a checkpoint is.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA

431 cars, probably around 650 people, rousted without even reasonable suspicion, and one drunk was caught.

The article does not mention the results from the saturation patrols, but I suspect they netted more drunk drivers from them.

OVI checkpoints are an excuse for a “papers, please” exercise.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
If done appropriately there is No violation of amendment.

Just because some piece of legislation is deemed lawful doesn't make it Constitutional. Lacking a warrant, it's unconstitutional.

Bottom line the supreme court ruled these types of stops are minimally intrusive, as long as the balancing test...

Please show me where, precisely, the U.S. Constitution allows for a "balancing test" to undermine our Bill of Rights.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,949
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Just because some piece of legislation is deemed lawful doesn't make it Constitutional. Lacking a warrant, it's unconstitutional.



Please show me where, precisely, the U.S. Constitution allows for a "balancing test" to undermine our Bill of Rights.
I presume your statements are rhetorical.
 
Top