Advertisement

Archive for Monday, August 30, 2010

22 people arrested last weekend in Douglas County on drunken-driving charges

August 30, 2010

Advertisement

Douglas County law enforcement officers arrested five people on suspicion of drunken driving late Friday night and early Saturday morning in a check lane in central Lawrence.

Sgt. Steve Lewis, a Douglas County Sheriff’s spokesman, said officers stopped and checked 278 vehicles as part of the check lane in the 1800 block of Kentucky Street. 

The Kansas Highway Patrol and Lawrence Police Department also participated.

One person arrested on suspicion of DUI was also booked on an unlawful marijuana possession charge. In addition to the DUI arrests, check lane officers issued seven open container citations, Lewis said.

He said officers also stopped 18 vehicles for traffic violations associated with the check lane.

Area law enforcement agencies also conducted saturation patrols this weekend seeking drunken drivers and other traffic-related offenders.

Kansas University Public Safety and Eudora police officers also made drunken-driving arrests over the weekend. Including the check lane, 22 people were arrested in Douglas County this weekend on DUI-related charges from Friday evening through noon Sunday, according to jail records. 

Comments

aeroscout17 3 years, 7 months ago

If you think your rights are being violated at checkpoints, just walk through one. No problem. Only those who are driving are stopped. Since everyone is stopped, there is no opportunity to discriminate. It is not "random." BTW, it is not unconstitutional to have drug/alcohol tests for jobs, metal detectors at airports,etc. If you drive, you are are accepting the risk of being stopped at checkpoints. Again, jobs, flying and driving are not rights!

0

Driver_611400 3 years, 7 months ago

Remember, Public Transportation is a common target of international terrorism. Every time you disrespect the T, the terrorists WIN. Why do you hate America?

0

beatrice 3 years, 7 months ago

Interesting that many who tend to express conservative views here are siding in this instance with the tactics intended to protect society at large. Isn't this an example of what many call the "nanny state"? The police get to decide that this is bad for society and people agree, but mention something like protecting society by banning cigarettes in public places and you get a very different response.

Just an observation.

0

vanguard3 3 years, 7 months ago

I would bet good money that this activity has far more to do with creating additional revenue for the city (read: law enforcement and prosecutors get to keep their jobs) than it does with the notion of "concern for the citizens". By and large, passive law enforcement is simply casting out a wide net and seeing what you can catch, and the traffic violations are a prime example. A burned out tail or head light might warrant a warning, if the city was not hellbent on collecting all they can from otherwise law-abiding citizens (not the drunks, mind you).

0

Armored_One 3 years, 7 months ago

I cannot believe that I just read some jerkweed saying that drunk drivers have all the same rights as sober ones.You need to be dragged behind a horse down a gravel road for that level of utter stupidity.

Nothing illegal against OWNING a car and being drunk.

Nothing illegal about driving somewhere, THEN getting drunk.

Public intoxication is against the law. You can't drive your car on gasp public roads without being in public.

What about the rights of everyone else on the road to not get plowed into by one of these damned genetic hiccups that seem to think a 12 pack doesn't impair their ability to make decisions?

You should be forced to be in the car with them, hog-tied to the passenger seat and watch what happens.

Give me about 25 feet clear room and the drunk driver tied to a pole. I've got a real nice rhino hide bullwhip. 10 lashes in public should be enough to not only change their opinion, but seeing the result will catch quite a few others' attention before they try it on for size.

I helped a friend of mine bury his daughter because of a drunk driver. One of my better friends in high school died because of one as well. Yes I'm biased. Yes, the concept pisses me off to no end. Yes, I have forcefully taken keys from drunk people and thrown them on top of buildings before.

Better a pissed off drunk than another funeral. Period. End of conversation, and no, I do not care what your opinion is. You bury a seven year old little girl that calls you 'Uncle'. Until you do that, sit down, shut up and let people with experience make that judgment call.

0

wdl 3 years, 7 months ago

I think check points should be adopted all of the time. Moving them around in the city or county but apply them daily. The drinking & driving public will never get the message unless strong messures are applied to this disgraceful self-centered selfish behavior. Driving while impaired (booze and or drugs) or preoccupied (cell phone, texting, etc) is putting lives at risk. Do you understand that your life can be taken in a moment. It doesn't matter who you are, or who you think you are. An impaired person behind the wheel of a 3,000lb car that is on the fringe of loosing control is a leathal weapon.

I would like to see 1st time offenders lose their license for 1yr plus a $5,000.00 fine. If they can not pay the fine then they would get out of prison in 1yr. 2nd time offenders never get their license back, lose their plates and their car. Caught behind the wheel again (impaired or not) 10 years in the joint, no exceptions. This sounds over the top I know, but the situation is serious. The real point is the victum in these situations are often killed or injured for life. The stakes for driving impaired should be just as high. It will not take all of the drunks off of the road but it will make the stakes high enough they will be physically removed from the road. And that will impact their families, friends and loved ones just like the people who are killed in drunken incidents are impacted. Kind of an eye for an eye I suppose.

0

slowplay 3 years, 7 months ago

Congratulations on a job well done. Now, let's increase the penalties. 30 days in jail for the first offense and loss of license for 5 years. Add 1 year of jail time for each subsequent violation and permanent loss of license. Get these idiots off the road.

0

dani36921 3 years, 7 months ago

Let's see, Tennessee and Kentucky streets are obviously labeled as places where a lot of drinking take place on weekends (ask any college student or Lawrence resident), so if someone is driving on tennessee and kentucky does that automatically connect them to drinking or a suspicion of drinking? This is seriously a question. I can see it both ways.

0

gogoplata 3 years, 7 months ago

I don't like it. Cops shouldn't be able to stop you for no reason. We have too many cowards in this country that will blindly follow orders from the police. Grow a backbone people.

0

DMH1983 3 years, 7 months ago

Probable cause applies to constitutional searches and seizures. There is not allow that prevents an officer from controlling traffic or doing a well-being check (i.e. requiring a driver to stop and speaking to the driver through the car window). It is only if the driver provides suspicion that any further action takes place and a probable cause search or a BA could occur. If a driver breaks a traffic law than an officer is allowed to perform an incidental search.

Now the idiotic house example...an officer can knock on your door and it does not violate your constitutional rights. If you provide him with probable cause (stolen items setting around, your house smells like meth, etc.), then he can search your house.

0

Kris_H 3 years, 7 months ago

I got dinged by KHP once for doing 76 in a 65, which I was, but I'm convinced he wouldn't have stopped me if I'd had my seat belt on. (This was prior to the new laws).

The road is public and there is no real expectation of privacy while driving on it, like there is inside of your own home. The two aren't the same.

Stop drinking and driving or being idiots and driving, and watch out for the rest of the idiots.

0

independant1 3 years, 7 months ago

DUI is a problem, esp. in college towns, esp. at start of fall semester. Like moths to flame.

The Checkpoints also go up on certain holidays like New Yers, 4th of July.

There are ways to avoid them like don't drink and drive, stay off publicized checkpoint routes, stay home, etc. Still, intoxicated and sober people drive into the inconvenient checkpoints.

Not known if the sampling technique (checkpoint location) can be caled scientific sample. But we do know drinking and then driving is problem.

Stay safe, use designated driver, taxi, stay home don't drink a just a few alternatives to the perils of driving and getting checked for sobriety on the city streets.

0

Eride 3 years, 7 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

tubs_of_love 3 years, 7 months ago

What really ticks me off is the speeding check points. I got a ticket for driving 25 in a 20, and since I was not wearing my seat belt, I got an additional charge! By the time you figure in court costs, you're looking at a ticket over $100. I shouldn't have to wear my seat belt in town if I do not want to, seat belts don't save lives, not driving like an idiot saves lives.

0

Stuart Evans 3 years, 7 months ago

the state loves alcohol. They love to tax it, they love to regulate it, they love it when people drink it in excess, and they love to nab some of those people now and again for even more revenue. alcohol is the political gift that just keeps on giving.

0

Sigmund 3 years, 7 months ago

This previously filed unpublished opinion by the Kansas Supreme Court states clearly what is allowed for checklane stops

  1. Factors for testing the validity of checklane stops are stated and applied, include: (1) The degree of discretion, if any, left to the officer in the field; (2) the location designated for the roadblock; (3) the time and duration of the roadblock; (4) standards set by superior officers; (5) advance notice to the public at large; (6) advance warning to the individual approaching motorist; (7) maintenance of safety conditions; (8) degree of fear or anxiety generated by the mode of operation; (9) average length of time each motorist is detained; (10) physical factors surrounding the location, type and method of operation; (11) the availability of less intrusive methods for combating the problem; (12) the degree of effectiveness of the procedure; and (13) any other relevant circumstances which might bear upon the test.

  2. No specific statutory grant of authority is required to legitimize a checklane operation.

  3. Absence of advance warning to the public at large does not by itself invalidate a checklane operation.
  4. The presence of a drug-sniffing dog at a sobriety checklane does not constitute an illegal search.
  5. Police officers are not required to close their eyes to all offenses observed at a checklane operation which are not purely traffic related.
  6. The State is under no obligation to give drivers an opportunity to avoid a checklane operation.

STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant, v. JOSEPH JACKSON, Appellee. http://www.kscourts.org/Cases-and-Opinions/opinions/ctapp/1997/19970620/77376.htm Previously filed as an unpublished opinion, the Supreme Court granted a motion to publish by an order dated July 10, 1997, pursuant to Rule 7.04 (1996 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 40).

0

Sigmund 3 years, 7 months ago

I know I am picking at nits here (and possibly tilting at windmills), but there is very little distinction between a "privilege" and a "right." despite courts to this day using that phrase. Courts merely characterize certain privileges as "rights" when they wish to impose a higher degree a of due process on the government to remove them from a citizen, or vice versa they will demote a right to a "privilege" when they wish to lower the due process needed to remove them. Typically such statements by courts are conclusions and without any rationale except to quote another court whose statement was equally unsupported.

A drivers licenses, like any other right, can be removed. To state that a person does not have a "right" to a drivers license is only to say that he must comply with reasonable, lawful, and nondiscriminatory terms laid down by the proper authorities to obtain and maintain such license. This "privilege", like all other rights granted to citizens, can only be removed only upon failure to comply with those terms and after being afforded a substantial amount of due process by the government. In the case of a drivers license something as small as failure to renew or as large as being convicted beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of your peers for of DUI.

This misconception of "a privilege not a right" isn't just a recent observation of mine, but the subject of a 1968 Harvard Law Review article; "In this article Professor Van Alstyne reviews the uses and misuses to which the "privilege" concept has been put and then examines those doctrines whose flanking attacks have gradually eroded its efficacy. But none of these doctrines comes to grips with Holmes' basic idea of a "privilege" to which substantive due process is inapplicable. Applying Holmes' own jurisprudence, the author argues that the concept of "privilege" is today no longer viable, and that the size and power of the governmental role in the public sector requires substantive due process control of the state in all its capacities." The Demise of the Right-Privilege Distinction in Constitutional Law, By: William W. Van Alstyne, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 81:1439. http://www.constitution.org/cmt/right-privilege.htm

0

Amy Heeter 3 years, 7 months ago

If you don't drive drunk then tou do not have to worry about check points or if they are constitutional or not. Keep it simple.

0

akt2 3 years, 7 months ago

If you aren't drunk, don't have any warrants out for you, aren't carrying illegal drugs, have auto insurance and valid registration, what possible friggin difference should it make if you get pulled over in a checkpoint? Checkpoints are nothing. You are under constant survellience from the moment you step foot outside the door. It has more to do with public safety than violating personal rights. To the paranoid ones, it's all about them though. They don't care about the rights of innocent people to not be slaughtered by a drunk driver.

0

easyliving 3 years, 7 months ago

They have to publish when (date and times) but not where.

0

Vinny1 3 years, 7 months ago

Here's a question for somebody.

The LPD has to publish when and where they are conducting these checkpoints. Where was/is that posted? And why wasn't it on the LJW? I know the door guys at all the bars were advising people on their way out not to drive that direction.

0

mbulicz 3 years, 7 months ago

'Unlawful possession of marijuana'? I was under the impression that Lawrence decriminalized in 2006.

He/she shouldn't have been driving with it anyway; that's just like an open container.

0

BorderRat 3 years, 7 months ago

T.O.B, Snap is right. Out here in Denver, the "Medical Marijuana" business is taking off like wildfire. They'll write you a prescription while you wait, then you can pick from hte menu.

0

Beer Guy 3 years, 7 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

jihadist 3 years, 7 months ago

One in 10 on the road is drunk. I figured it'd be higher, actually.

0

grimpeur 3 years, 7 months ago

Did you forget the terms you agreed to when you got your license? Are you under the silly impression that driving is a "right" given to you by the constitution? And if so, do you think this imaginary right takes priority over public safety? No wonder we need drunk checks.

You want freedom of movement? Walk. Otherwise, don't act surprised. If anything, we as a society are too lenient on motorists. Time to start hammering these idiots.

0

Flap Doodle 3 years, 7 months ago

Head to Colorado, TOB. There's grass in them thar hills!

0

The_Original_Bob 3 years, 7 months ago

"One person arrested on suspicion of DUI was also booked on an unlawful marijuana possession charge"

Can someone help me find lawful marijuana?

0

Jock Navels 3 years, 7 months ago

those who don't care if is constitutional will lose their constitution. then they will whine.

0

LJ Whirled 3 years, 7 months ago

  • ... Officers also stopped 18 vehicles for traffic violations associated with the check lane*

Nothing like creating demand for your services!

0

Tab 3 years, 7 months ago

Ricky, Who cares if it is constitutional or not, how would you feel if a drunk driver killed one of your loved ones? Give me one good reason why a bunch of drunks should be out driving on the roads that your loved ones travel on... Hats of the the Lawrence Police Dept. & Kansas Highway Patrol for getting those stupid drunks off the road. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with people drinking, just DON'T DRIVE!!!

0

RoeDapple 3 years, 7 months ago

Kansas; Upheld under both state law and federal Constitution. State v. Deskins, 673 P. 2d 1174 (Kansas 1983). Davis v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 843 P.2d 260 (Kan. 1992), held that legislative authorization is not necessary for checkpoints. See also State v. Baker, 850 P.2d 885 (Kan. 1993) and State v. Campbell, 875 P.2d 1010 (Kan. App. 1994).

0

Ricky_Vaughn 3 years, 7 months ago

Are check lanes Constitutional? Innocent until proven guilty right?

How is stopping cars for no apparent reason legal?

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.