Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-08-2011, 16:53   #61
NorthCarolinaLiberty
MentalDefective
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tax Funded Mental Institution
Posts: 5,144
Blog Entries: 1
.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaT View Post
That said, the officers did not choose where to put the check points.

Yes, they do.



However, that said, if you try and get into a pissing match with the cop/CBP agent/TSA agent/tax guy, they will generally oblige your request. Generally they have the upper hand.


We are not talking urinating matches. We are talking right and wrong.

They did not get the upper hand with any of these motorists:


Apparently the officer does not know the definition of obstruction: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIupHbRTpb8


The officer should keep his hands out of people's cars. It's a good way to lose your arm if a dog is on the seat:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btzlmMRU6pI


Why won't the BP agent tell the motorist where he's been all day?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1e7EBze6ho


The stumblings of this rookie agent tells me she should learn the law:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6uw7506xMw


This BP agent wants to search the motorist's car because the car is dirty. Try again, BP agent:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4zYizaMmDo





NorthCarolinaLiberty is offline  
Old 03-08-2011, 17:02   #62
NorthCarolinaLiberty
MentalDefective
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tax Funded Mental Institution
Posts: 5,144
Blog Entries: 1
My replies in black.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheeBadOne View Post
NCL,

IMHO "deterrence" is always hard to measure. It's the old "prove a negative" thing.
It's not hard to measure; it just has not been done that much. Here is one example showing checkpoints are not a deterrent:

The Maryland anti-drunk driving campaign called Checkpoint Strikeforce was evaluated for deterrence. The review found that there was no deterrent effect:

"To date, there is no evidence to indicate that this campaign, which involves a number of sobriety checkpoints and media activities to promote these efforts, has had any impact on public perceptions, driver behaviors, or alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes and injuries. This conclusion is drawn after examining statistics for alcohol-related crashes, police citations for impaired driving, and public perceptions of alcohol-impaired driving risk. (Source: Health Promotion Reports, July 1 2009)



Effectiveness, or potential effectiveness, may be easier to discuss.
What is potential effectiveness?


Myself, I've always been a fan of roving patrols, but also know that when we (MN) did sobriety checkpoints, there were people who were deterred from driving because even thought they felt they were "good drunk drivers" they didn't want to get caught in a net, despite having "no driving conduct".
I hope you're not talking Minnesota. Checkpoints are illegal in that state. Unless, of course, you are talking about those "voluntary" checkpoints that LE tried to slip under the radar and other watchful eyes.
Who were these people who did not want to get caught? How many? Did you measure this?

Last edited by NorthCarolinaLiberty; 03-08-2011 at 17:03..
NorthCarolinaLiberty is offline  
Old 03-08-2011, 17:25   #63
Kegs
Ol 8 fingers ;)
 
Kegs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Cold side of conus
Posts: 2,682
So was OPs question ever answered?

----------------------------------------------------------------

Which is a person who doesn't talk to the police?

An obstructionist obstructing just to obstruct.

OR

A citizen exercising his or her 4th amendment right.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
__________________
"What's the down side to 10mm again? Oh, that's right, there isn't one."" Carrier21
Kegs is offline  
Old 03-08-2011, 17:39   #64
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 44,545
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
I already believe DUI checkpoints have different results depending on time and place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
You believe that based on what evidence? I have never found one police report, figure, etc. that shows checkpoints apprehend more drunks than roving patrols. There is no evidence that checkpoints are a deterrent.

There is plenty of evidence showing roving patrols always work better than checkpoints. There is evidence that checkpoints are not a deterrent.

The DHS, itself, said internal border patrol checkpoints are ineffective.
Where did I quantify the effectiveness of DUI checkpoints?

Where did I say they are/are not a deterrent?

You are engineering responses to phantom arguments I am not making.

How about responding to the questions I asked.
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline  
Old 03-08-2011, 17:43   #65
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 44,545
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheeBadOne View Post
NCL,

IMHO "deterrence" is always hard to measure. It's the old "prove a negative" thing.

Effectiveness, or potential effectiveness, may be easier to discuss.

Myself, I've always been a fan of roving patrols, but also know that when we (MN) did sobriety checkpoints, there were people who were deterred from driving because even thought they felt they were "good drunk drivers" they didn't want to get caught in a net, despite having "no driving conduct".

TBO, are other non-alcohol related offenders caught during a sobriety checkpoint operation?
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline  
Old 03-08-2011, 18:06   #66
NorthCarolinaLiberty
MentalDefective
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tax Funded Mental Institution
Posts: 5,144
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
Where did I quantify the effectiveness of DUI checkpoints?

Where did I say they are/are not a deterrent?

You are engineering responses to phantom arguments I am not making.

How about responding to the questions I asked.
What is this, a Laurel and Hardy skit?

You say you believe sobriety checkpoints have "different results depending on time and place." Please show your evidence.

I say otherwise. Here are examples from my evidence:

1.The FBI compared saturation patrols vs. checkpoints in Ohio, Missouri, and Tennessee. The study showed that, “Overall, measured in arrests per hour, a dedicated saturation patrol is the most effective method of apprehending offenders.” (Source: FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, January 2003)

2. "I'm no big fan of them," Chief Deputy Pat Butler [Ohio County, West Virginia] said about checkpoints. "They're OK for informational purposes, but I think DUI saturation patrols are much more effective." (Source: Kansas City Star, July 8, 2008)

3. "States with infrequent checkpoints claimed a lack of funding and police resources for not conducting more checkpoints, preferred saturation patrols over checkpoints because they were more "productive," and used large number of police officers at checkpoints." (Source: Accident Analysis and Prevention, November 2003)

4. “If you look at statistics, statistics will probably tell you a saturation patrol is more successful…” said Lt. David Kloos, barrack commander for the Maryland State Police Hagerstown barrack. A typical checkpoint uses about 10 troopers for five hours and costs about $2,000, he said. During the last State Police checkpoint in Hagerstown, held Oct. 31, troopers stopped 880 cars and made three DUI arrests, Kloos said. Saturation patrols watching alternate routes around the checkpoint made one additional DUI arrest, he said. A saturation patrol without a checkpoint requires only three or four troopers and costs a fraction of what a checkpoint costs. The troopers work four hours of overtime, usually from 11 p.m. until 3 a.m., and each aims to make three to four stops per hour, Kloos said. (Source: Hagerstown Herald Mail December 28 2008)

5. I personally corresponded with former Boone North Carolina Police Chief Bill Post regarding a November 20 2008 checkpoint in Boone. Chief Post told me that 10% of drivers are impaired after 10pm. This would mean (he said) that 10% of drivers are arrested per checkpoint. In fact, the arrest rate at the November 20 checkpoint was 1-2%. (Source: Correspondence with Chief Post November 28 2008).

6. A checkpoint in Tuscon Arizona yielded a less than one percent arrest rate. A total of 571 vehicles passed the checkpoint, with 4 DUI arrests, a rate of 7/10 of one percent. (Source: Pima County Sheriff’s Document October 5 2005)

7. Saturation patrols vs. checkpoints in Worcester County Maryland:

August 27, 2010 checkpoint
739 cars
0 DWI arrests
Arrest rate: 0%


August 27, 2010 roving patrol
32 cars
2 DWI arrests
Arrest rate: 8%


Source:
www.delmarvanow.com
August 29, 2010



8. People reject checkpoints when they know the facts:
From trafficsafetyinfo.net:

Gov. Chris Gergoire’s plan to institute checkpoints to catch drunk drivers has stalled in Olympia. Judging by the results of an online poll by the Whatcom County Traffic Safety Task Force, local residents wouldn’t have taken too kindly to it either.
From Traffic Safety Coordinator Doug Dahl:

Two weeks ago our online poll asked Whatcom County drivers if they wanted sobriety checkpoints in our state. Visitors to our site overwhelmingly voted “NO” to DUI checkpoints. The final results were as follows:

yes: 20% (30 votes)
no: 80% (117 votes)

Some people who responded also included an e-mail explaining their point of view. You can read those responses at www.trafficsafetyinfo.com.

Update: The most recently proposed WA State checkpoint bill went down to almost immediate defeat on February 17 2011. It did not even get a reading on the floor. I received about 15 email replies (including the committee chair) that expressed opposition to this bill.


9. The Maryland anti-drunk driving campaign called Checkpoint Strikeforce was evaluated for deterrence. The review found that there was no deterrent effect:

"To date, there is no evidence to indicate that this campaign, which involves a number of sobriety checkpoints and media activities to promote these efforts, has had any impact on public perceptions, driver behaviors, or alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes and injuries. This conclusion is drawn after examining statistics for alcohol-related crashes, police citations for impaired driving, and public perceptions of alcohol-impaired driving risk. (Source: Health Promotion Reports, July 1 2009)




10. By some estimates, police fail to detect signs of impairment in one-half of drivers with blood alcohol concentrations higher than the legal limit, so sobriety checkpoints are hardly foolproof. Mcknight and Voas, 2001—“Prevention of Alcohol-Related Road Crashes” In International Handbook of Alcohol Dependence and Problems Chicester (United Kingdom): Wiley

Also in: “Drinking drivers missed at sobriety checkpoints” Journal of Studies on Alcohol; v. 58; pages 513-517; JK wells; MA Greene; RD Foss; SA Ferguson; AF Williams; 1997

Last edited by NorthCarolinaLiberty; 03-08-2011 at 18:13..
NorthCarolinaLiberty is offline  
Old 03-08-2011, 18:09   #67
NorthCarolinaLiberty
MentalDefective
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tax Funded Mental Institution
Posts: 5,144
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kegs View Post
So was OPs question ever answered?
No, it seems that some here like to ask a lot of questions and make assertions without much evidence.
NorthCarolinaLiberty is offline  
Old 03-08-2011, 18:23   #68
TBO
CLM Number 122
Why so serious?
 
TBO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: NRA Life Member
Posts: 45,685
Blog Entries: 1


Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
TBO, are other non-alcohol related offenders caught during a sobriety checkpoint operation?
Yes, such things as:
  • Drugs
  • Guns
  • Warrants
  • Deserters
  • Driving License violations (DAR/DAS/DAC/etc)
  • Insurance violations
  • Registration violations
  • Equipment violations
  • Other arrests (Domestic Violence, Restraining Order violations, Probations violations, etc).

There's more, but that's a good list.
__________________
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."

"If you have integrity, nothing else matters. If you don't have integrity, nothing else matters".

"A person who won't reason has no advantage over one who can't reason."

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."

“Ignorance is a lot like alcohol: the more you have of it, the less you are able to see its effect on you.”


Originally Posted by Rooster Rugburn:
Didn't the whole sheepdog thing actually start right here on Glock Talk? A bunch of wannabees bought a bunch of T-shirts and took an oath to defend those who won't defend themselves?
TBO is offline  
Old 03-08-2011, 18:25   #69
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 44,545
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
What is this, a Laurel and Hardy skit?

You say you believe sobriety checkpoints have "different results depending on time and place." Please show your evidence....
Laurel & Hardy? No, this a a one man monologue...you're the expert on checkpoints.

Just for the record, what is the basis, the reason for your fight against checkpoints? Never mind...I found what I was looking for.
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921

Last edited by RussP; 03-08-2011 at 18:52..
RussP is offline  
Old 03-08-2011, 18:27   #70
NorthCarolinaLiberty
MentalDefective
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tax Funded Mental Institution
Posts: 5,144
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
You talked to one former Chief of Police?
That is one example (he was chief at the time, by the way). I have not seen any examples of anything from you.

Are we not talking? Have I not talked with other LE here? I also read the COP forum and GNG.

I have also talked with mayors and council members of two towns in my area. I have talked with patrol officers. I have read views about checkpoints from other officers.
NorthCarolinaLiberty is offline  
Old 03-08-2011, 18:36   #71
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 44,545
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheeBadOne View Post
Yes, such things as:
  • Drugs
  • Guns
  • Warrants
  • Deserters
  • Driving License violations (DAR/DAS/DAC/etc)
  • Insurance violations
  • Registration violations
  • Equipment violations
  • Other arrests (Domestic Violence, Restraining Order violations, Probations violations, etc).

There's more, but that's a good list.
That's pretty similar to what other law enforcement officers I know have told me over the last few years.

Those who make the mid-block u-turns can be fun, too.
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline  
Old 03-08-2011, 18:59   #72
NorthCarolinaLiberty
MentalDefective
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tax Funded Mental Institution
Posts: 5,144
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
That's pretty similar to what other law enforcement officers I know have told me over the last few years.

Those who make the mid-block u-turns can be fun, too.

So, the "sobriety" checkpoints really are not what people claim.

You might also add other items to that list, including checkpoints for seatbelts, child car seats, and fireworks (yes, fireworks).

Here are some of the fines for seatbelt violations in various states:


Alabama, $10
California, $147
Connecticut, $37
Hawaii, $55
Massachusetts, $25
North Carolina, $100
Oregon, $107
Rhode Island, $85
Washington, $124

Source: My phone calls to various DMVs, March 2010


It is now my conclusion that the "sobriety" checkpoints are really not effective at doing much of anything regarding drunks. Those same "sobriety" checkpoints however, have written themselves a blank check to check about anything they'd like.

It is certainly gratifying to see the police parenting everyone, while also cashing in with hefty fines.
NorthCarolinaLiberty is offline  
Old 03-08-2011, 19:09   #73
NorthCarolinaLiberty
MentalDefective
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tax Funded Mental Institution
Posts: 5,144
Blog Entries: 1
.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
Laurel & Hardy? No, this a a one man monologue...you're the expert on checkpoints.

Well, it is interesting to have conversations with people who are involved with checkpoints. I find that many make assumptions that checkpoints work. There are others who know they don't work, but stubbornly cling to them.


State legislators and others can get very overwhelmed, so they often don't have the details regarding a particular issue.


Just for the record, what is the basis, the reason for your fight against checkpoints? Never mind...I found what I was looking for.

It's because I'm anti-authority, of course.
NorthCarolinaLiberty is offline  
Old 03-08-2011, 22:17   #74
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 44,545
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
So, the "sobriety" checkpoints really are not what people claim.

You might also add other items to that list, including checkpoints for seatbelts, child car seats, and fireworks (yes, fireworks).

Here are some of the fines for seatbelt violations in various states:


Alabama, $10
California, $147
Connecticut, $37
Hawaii, $55
Massachusetts, $25
North Carolina, $100
Oregon, $107
Rhode Island, $85
Washington, $124

Source: My phone calls to various DMVs, March 2010


It is now my conclusion that the "sobriety" checkpoints are really not effective at doing much of anything regarding drunks. Those same "sobriety" checkpoints however, have written themselves a blank check to check about anything they'd like.

It is certainly gratifying to see the police parenting everyone, while also cashing in with hefty fines.
In doing your research, did you record the number of people cited or apprehended for the commission of other crimes?
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline  
Old 03-08-2011, 22:18   #75
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 44,545
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
It's because I'm anti-authority, of course.
Yes you are.
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline  
Old 03-08-2011, 23:26   #76
Sam Spade
Lifetime Membership
Senior Member
 
Sam Spade's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 21,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
Yes you are.
In line with the thread, I'd like to note that this really isn't a binary, on-off thing. Some people sure display more of the trait than others, though.
__________________
"To spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary." Pournelle
Sam Spade is offline  
Old 03-09-2011, 00:29   #77
NorthCarolinaLiberty
MentalDefective
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tax Funded Mental Institution
Posts: 5,144
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
In doing your research, did you record the number of people cited or apprehended for the commission of other crimes?



So are we now talking about sobriety checkpoints or are we talking about crime detecting checkpoints? If it is the latter, then I guess you know that such checkpoints were declared illegal by the Supreme Court in Indianapolis v. Edmond. It was Justice O’Connor who stated, "We cannot sanction stops justified only by the generalized and ever-present possibility that interrogation and inspection may reveal that any given motorist has committed some crime."

The majority of justices in Edmond ruled against checkpoints because that checkpoint’s primary purpose was indistinguishable from general crime control. That standard not only applies in sobriety checkpoints, but the sobriety checkpoint has also become a shrewd technique to circumvent the court’s decree. The sobriety portion of the checkpoint does not work, but law enforcement has given itself a de facto blank check for general crime control, something that the court explicitly prohibited. If you are going to have a checkpoint for bond jumpers, for example, then you must call it a bond jumping checkpoint.

If you wish to ignore all the legalities and focus on practicalities, I still can’t grant you that checkpoints are effective. There is often routine failure to distinguish between motorists who simply forgot their license or inadvertently let their insurance lapse versus motorists who have a suspended license or just don’t want to carry insurance. You are also going to find much more equipment and seatbelt violations in traffic than you will find with a checkpoint’s trickle of cars. If you think you’re going to hit the jackpot when Charles Manson pulls into your web, then—well—better order another pizza. The fact is that policing is an industrious and proactive endeavor. You simply can’t wait in one spot hoping for criminals to approach you.

Here is a different example of checkpoints being ineffective at everything you listed. It’s an article I wrote regarding internal border patrol checkpoints vs. international border patrol checkpoints. If you don’t want to read the whole thing, it basically says that interdiction of any kind is more effective at the actual border than at internal checkpoints. The backing document is a GAO report with DHS figures.






This article is a partial summary of a 2009 GAO report regarding Border Patrol checkpoints in Arizona. It also addresses a presentation and meeting of government officials with residents in southern Arizona last fall.


“The federal role is to detect and apprehend 30% of major illegal activity [at the border].”
--Richard Stana, GAO


A recent government report entitled Border Patrol (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09824.pdf) seems to suggest that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is not as intent on securing our borders because of other priorities. The Government Accountability Office states that the goal of DHS is to apprehend just 30% of illegal aliens at the border. The report states, “…the DHS Annual Performance Report for fiscal years 2008-2010 sets a goal for detecting and apprehending about 30 percent of major illegal activity at ports of entry in 2009, indicating that 70 percent of criminals and contraband may pass through the ports and continue on interstates and major roads to the interior of the United States.” GAO spokesman Richard Stana states that this is necessary so as not to interfere with commerce and traffic. He states in a GAO presentation, “The federal role is to detect and apprehend 30% of major illegal activity [at the border].”

This 30% DHS goal is announced in the context of an increasing number of border patrol agents: “As of June 2009, the Border Patrol had 19,354 agents nationwide, an increase of 57 percent since September 2006. Of these agents, about 88 percent (17,011) were located in the nine Border Patrol sectors along the southwest border. About 4 percent of the Border Patrol’s agents in these sectors were assigned to [internal-nonborder] traffic checkpoints, according to the Border Patrol.”

The GAO report discusses the plans of DHS to create a permanent, internal-nonborder checkpoint in the Tucson Arizona sector, but the Border Patrol’s own statistics show that internal-nonborder checkpoints are ineffective compared to actual border checkpoints. There were 704,000 interdictions at actual border crossings in 2008; however, there were only 17,000 interdictions at internal-nonborder checkpoints. This 17,000 figure represents 2.4% of interdictions, but it took 4% of agents to accomplish this goal.

The figures for the Tucson Arizona sector are more dismal than national figures. Actual border interdictions numbered 320,000, but internal-nonborder checkpoint interdictions numbered 1,800. This means the number of interdictions per agent at the actual border was 116, but the number of interdictions per agent at internal-nonborder checkpoints was only 8.

The problem is further compounded because Border Patrol statistics are glaringly inaccurate: “Our analysis showed that the actual checkpoint performance results were incorrectly reported for two of the three measures in fiscal year 2007 and for one measure in fiscal year 2008. As a result, the Border Patrol incorrectly reported that it met its checkpoint performance targets for these two measures.”

The DHS proposal for a permanent, internal-nonborder checkpoint would seem to defy common sense. Illegal aliens and smugglers simply circumvent permanent checkpoints by taking another route. No criminal is going to “check-in” at a post that is staffed 24 hours a day, 7 days per week. Citizens have expressed concern regarding this illegal alien circumvention because “…checkpoint operations cause illegal aliens and smugglers to attempt to circumvent the checkpoint—resulting in adverse impacts to nearby residents and communities, such as private property damage, theft, and littering. These concerns were cited most often by ranchers and residents in areas around checkpoints.”

Border Patrol agents at the actual border also have much more authority than Border Patrol agents at internal-nonborder checkpoints: “Border Patrol agents at [actual border] checkpoints have legal authority that agents do not have when patrolling areas away from the border.”

The permanent, internal-nonborder checkpoint proposed for the Tucson AZ sector has an estimated price tag of 25-40 million dollars. This is hardly money well spent, considering Border Patrol’s own statistics suggesting internal checkpoints do not work.

So why do we need checkpoints again? It is because of the statement made by government spokesman Richard Stana, which is “The federal role is to detect and apprehend 30% of major illegal activity [at the border].” It seems that number could be greatly increased if Border Patrol agents were not wasted at internal checkpoints that don’t work.

Checkpoints will not get it done. The Border Patrol needs to get back to no-nonsense discipline and work.


http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09824.pdf
Report number 09-824, August 2009
See video of the government-community forum at www.checkpointusa.org.

NorthCarolinaLiberty is offline  
Old 03-09-2011, 06:09   #78
seanmac45
CLM Number 38
Charter Lifetime Member
 
seanmac45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 6,094


YAWN;

NCL you are right. I agree with everything you say. Hell, I wish you were in charge of law enforcement all across the USA. Every citizen in the country would be assured of the sanctity of their constitutional rights. Every perp would be behind bars. They would name town squares after you. Statues would be erected in your honor.


























And I would raise as many pigeons as I could in the vicinity of those statues.
__________________
"Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter." Ernest Hemingway
seanmac45 is online now  
Old 03-09-2011, 07:04   #79
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 44,545
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
In doing your research, did you record the number of people cited or apprehended for the commission of other crimes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
So are we now talking about sobriety checkpoints or are we talking about crime detecting checkpoints? If it is the latter, then I guess you know that such checkpoints were declared illegal by the Supreme Court in Indianapolis v. Edmond. It was Justice O’Connor who stated, "We cannot sanction stops justified only by the generalized and ever-present possibility that interrogation and inspection may reveal that any given motorist has committed some crime."

The majority of justices in Edmond ruled against checkpoints because that checkpoint’s primary purpose was indistinguishable from general crime control. That standard not only applies in sobriety checkpoints, but the sobriety checkpoint has also become a shrewd technique to circumvent the court’s decree. The sobriety portion of the checkpoint does not work, but law enforcement has given itself a de facto blank check for general crime control, something that the court explicitly prohibited. If you are going to have a checkpoint for bond jumpers, for example, then you must call it a bond jumping checkpoint.

If you wish to ignore all the legalities and focus on practicalities, I still can’t grant you that checkpoints are effective. There is often routine failure to distinguish between motorists who simply forgot their license or inadvertently let their insurance lapse versus motorists who have a suspended license or just don’t want to carry insurance. You are also going to find much more equipment and seatbelt violations in traffic than you will find with a checkpoint’s trickle of cars. If you think you’re going to hit the jackpot when Charles Manson pulls into your web, then—well—better order another pizza. The fact is that policing is an industrious and proactive endeavor. You simply can’t wait in one spot hoping for criminals to approach you.

Here is a different example of checkpoints being ineffective at everything you listed. It’s an article I wrote regarding internal border patrol checkpoints vs. international border patrol checkpoints. If you don’t want to read the whole thing, it basically says that interdiction of any kind is more effective at the actual border than at internal checkpoints. The backing document is a GAO report with DHS figures.



This article is a partial summary of a 2009 GAO report regarding Border Patrol checkpoints in Arizona. It also addresses a presentation and meeting of government officials with residents in southern Arizona last fall.

“The federal role is to detect and apprehend 30% of major illegal activity [at the border].”
--Richard Stana, GAO

A recent government report entitled Border Patrol (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09824.pdf) seems to suggest that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is not as intent on securing our borders because of other priorities. The Government Accountability Office states that the goal of DHS is to apprehend just 30% of illegal aliens at the border. The report states, “…the DHS Annual Performance Report for fiscal years 2008-2010 sets a goal for detecting and apprehending about 30 percent of major illegal activity at ports of entry in 2009, indicating that 70 percent of criminals and contraband may pass through the ports and continue on interstates and major roads to the interior of the United States.” GAO spokesman Richard Stana states that this is necessary so as not to interfere with commerce and traffic. He states in a GAO presentation, “The federal role is to detect and apprehend 30% of major illegal activity [at the border].”

This 30% DHS goal is announced in the context of an increasing number of border patrol agents: “As of June 2009, the Border Patrol had 19,354 agents nationwide, an increase of 57 percent since September 2006. Of these agents, about 88 percent (17,011) were located in the nine Border Patrol sectors along the southwest border. About 4 percent of the Border Patrol’s agents in these sectors were assigned to [internal-nonborder] traffic checkpoints, according to the Border Patrol.”

The GAO report discusses the plans of DHS to create a permanent, internal-nonborder checkpoint in the Tucson Arizona sector, but the Border Patrol’s own statistics show that internal-nonborder checkpoints are ineffective compared to actual border checkpoints. There were 704,000 interdictions at actual border crossings in 2008; however, there were only 17,000 interdictions at internal-nonborder checkpoints. This 17,000 figure represents 2.4% of interdictions, but it took 4% of agents to accomplish this goal.

The figures for the Tucson Arizona sector are more dismal than national figures. Actual border interdictions numbered 320,000, but internal-nonborder checkpoint interdictions numbered 1,800. This means the number of interdictions per agent at the actual border was 116, but the number of interdictions per agent at internal-nonborder checkpoints was only 8.

The problem is further compounded because Border Patrol statistics are glaringly inaccurate: “Our analysis showed that the actual checkpoint performance results were incorrectly reported for two of the three measures in fiscal year 2007 and for one measure in fiscal year 2008. As a result, the Border Patrol incorrectly reported that it met its checkpoint performance targets for these two measures.”

The DHS proposal for a permanent, internal-nonborder checkpoint would seem to defy common sense. Illegal aliens and smugglers simply circumvent permanent checkpoints by taking another route. No criminal is going to “check-in” at a post that is staffed 24 hours a day, 7 days per week. Citizens have expressed concern regarding this illegal alien circumvention because “…checkpoint operations cause illegal aliens and smugglers to attempt to circumvent the checkpoint—resulting in adverse impacts to nearby residents and communities, such as private property damage, theft, and littering. These concerns were cited most often by ranchers and residents in areas around checkpoints.”

Border Patrol agents at the actual border also have much more authority than Border Patrol agents at internal-nonborder checkpoints: “Border Patrol agents at [actual border] checkpoints have legal authority that agents do not have when patrolling areas away from the border.”

The permanent, internal-nonborder checkpoint proposed for the Tucson AZ sector has an estimated price tag of 25-40 million dollars. This is hardly money well spent, considering Border Patrol’s own statistics suggesting internal checkpoints do not work.

So why do we need checkpoints again? It is because of the statement made by government spokesman Richard Stana, which is “The federal role is to detect and apprehend 30% of major illegal activity [at the border].” It seems that number could be greatly increased if Border Patrol agents were not wasted at internal checkpoints that don’t work.

Checkpoints will not get it done. The Border Patrol needs to get back to no-nonsense discipline and work.


http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09824.pdf
Report number 09-824, August 2009
See video of the government-community forum at www.checkpointusa.org.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
In doing your research, did you record the number of people cited or apprehended for the commission of other crimes?
Really, this is a simple question answerable with either "Yes" or "No".

Let me ask it another, more specific way.

In doing your research on the effectiveness of sobriety checkpoints, checkpoints set up at times and places that law enforcement believed would give them a higher probability of encountering someone driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, regardless of the degree of success in achieving the goal of citing or arresting someone for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, did you record the number of people cited or apprehended at those sobriety checkpoints for the commission of other crimes of lesser or greater severity than driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs?

Now, notwithstanding your first three paragraphs, the question does not ask for any evidence, facts, opinions, or personal beliefs on the effectiveness of DUI checkpoints or any other checkpoints, nor does it require discussion of the illegality of non-DUI checkpoints.

It is simply, "Did you record the number of people cited or apprehended/arrested for crimes other than driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs?"

Thanks...
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline  
Old 03-09-2011, 07:27   #80
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 44,545
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
So are we now talking about sobriety checkpoints or are we talking about crime detecting checkpoints?
See my post above for the answer, but let me note your penchant for deflecting relevant, specific questions by introducing non-responsive information not relevant to the question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
If it is the latter, then I guess you know that such checkpoints were declared illegal by the Supreme Court in Indianapolis v. Edmond. It was Justice O’Connor who stated, "We cannot sanction stops justified only by the generalized and ever-present possibility that interrogation and inspection may reveal that any given motorist has committed some crime."
I am aware of the Court's ruling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
The majority of justices in Edmond ruled against checkpoints because that checkpoint’s primary purpose was indistinguishable from general crime control. That standard not only applies in sobriety checkpoints, but the sobriety checkpoint has also become a shrewd technique to circumvent the court’s decree. The sobriety portion of the checkpoint does not work, but law enforcement has given itself a de facto blank check for general crime control, something that the court explicitly prohibited. If you are going to have a checkpoint for bond jumpers, for example, then you must call it a bond jumping checkpoint.
Did you discover any data from checkpoints where persons were found to be operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs? Again, for now, that requires only a yes or no answer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
If you wish to ignore all the legalities and focus on practicalities, I still can’t grant you that checkpoints are effective.
The same question stands, "Did you discover any data from checkpoints where persons were found to be operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
There is often routine failure to distinguish between motorists who simply forgot their license or inadvertently let their insurance lapse versus motorists who have a suspended license or just don’t want to carry insurance.
As laws are written, do they make that distinction between inadvertent violation of the law and deliberate violation of the law" Again, for now, that requires just a yes or no answer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
You are also going to find much more equipment and seatbelt violations in traffic than you will find with a checkpoint’s trickle of cars. If you think you’re going to hit the jackpot when Charles Manson pulls into your web, then—well—better order another pizza. The fact is that policing is an industrious and proactive endeavor. You simply can’t wait in one spot hoping for criminals to approach you.
In my 8-years on GT, I do not recall reading the statement in bold coming from someone not in law enforcement, other than me. I have said it, although not as well worded. Good to see someone 100% behind proactive policing. :thumbsup"
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
...
The rest of your post was about non-DUI checkpoints.

I'm looking forward to your answers.

Remember, for now, "Yes" or "No".
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline  

 
  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 16:19.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,220
348 Members
872 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31