I don't care if people drive drunk as long as they don't kill someone doing it. If you can drive safe while drunk, texting, changing the radio station, disciplining the kids, speeding. smoking dope, or what ever it is you do while driving, more power to ya.

I'd rather be on the road with a driver who can drive drunk than a driver who can't even drive sober.

"I never understand why they announce this. As a tip-off to the drunks, the irresponsible parents, and others that they need to watch themselves during that very specific time?"

I'm just speculating, but maybe it's because for every person who would be caught because they had no warning there are a hundred people who are wearing their seatbelts, not speeding, and not driving drunk because they were warned.

In other words maybe Igreen17 is wrong and it IS about public safety.

The reason why the have to announce it is because if they had a check lane where you had to stop and it wasn't announced then it'd be considered an illegal search.

That's just the way the law works.

I made the mistake of driving some inebriated friends to Taco Bell one evening (hell hath no fury like a couple hungry drunks).

Never again. Now I understand why the McD's at 6th and Michigan as well as 23rd street have Mil Spec standing around all night.

^lol flux, thats so true. I've actually seen them do that though (at least I have in the McDs parking lot)

Entrapment, in this case, is a load of cr*p. Like if they didn't announce this, people wouldn't drive drunk? Makes no sense to me.

I question their veracity on this: targeting speeders, impaired drivers and seat belt and child restraint use, to reduce crashes, deaths, and injuries.

First of all, seal belts and child restraints don’t prevent accidents. I always wear one because it only makes sense, because they may prevent more serious injury in an accident, but they don’t prevent accidents. That’s ridiculous. Besides, what are small children doing out at night after 11PM anyway? It’s all about the money, and I call this “highway robbery”.

Impaired drivers: I wish they would stop only impaired drivers, but what they are really doing is exploiting draconian Kansas Driver law which says they don’t need probable cause to administer an alcohol test of their choosing. You aren’t allowed to consult an attorney first. These infernal Chinese-made $100 breathalyzers are so freaking inaccurate that anyone they want to charge with impaired driving can be charged with impaired driving. You aren’t allowed to get a more accurate (more expensive) blood test or urine test in order to defend your case. I don’t drink any alcohol at all, ever, but I live in fear of some sheriff making a public example of me. You are deemed guilty unless proven innocent, and there is no way to prove your innocence anyway. It’s all about the money, and I call this “highway robbery”.

Speeders. OK, this pathetic myth is older than I am. Let’s see now, the 55MPH national emergency speed limit (NEMSL) in effect for 17 years was claimed to have saved a million lives per year. Not bad, considering that traffic deaths were less than 60,000 per year before the law went into effect, (but increased during the NEMSL, then decreased again after NEMSL was repealed). In fact, our nation's fatality rate (deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled) is the lowest it has ever been. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) claims that 30 percent of all fatal accidents are "speed related," but even this is misleading. This means that in less than a third of the cases, one of the drivers involved in the accident was "assumed" to be exceeding the posted limit. It does NOT mean that speeding CAUSED the accident. It’s all about the money, and I call this “highway robbery”.

If you want to help end government robbery and corruption, support the National Motorists Association. www.motorists.org

kusp8 (Anonymous) says… "The reason why the have to announce it is because if they had a check lane where you had to stop and it wasn't announced then it'd be considered an illegal search."

Really? There is no "check lane" in a saturation patrol and even if there were I didn't find any "announcement requirement" in Michigan Department of State Police vs. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990). http://supreme.justia.com/us/496/444/case.html

I have been told that they announce in advance because their goal is to reduce drunk driving and it is hoped that those that read about the patrols will not drink drive and/or prevent others from doing for fear they will get busted.

Give me 6 beers over a 2 hour period and I'll probably be over the legal limit. Put me in a driver saftey test against your average 70 year old and I'll win.

Bottom line is that some people can drive after drinking safely. Some can't. Arrest the ones who prove they can't.

So drinking beer a couple times a month gets you diagnosed as an alcoholic? I'd say you need to get real.

My point is that I can drink beer, be legally drunk but not really drunk and safely operate a vehicle. My driving record shows this to be true. The legal limit is just a number the state has determined to be the legal level of alcohol in your blood. So some people can be legally drunk and still drive safely. Just because I don't drive as well as I could if I had not had any alcohol doesn't mean I can't still drive better than other people who don't drink at all but are still dangerous behind the wheel.

You are missing the point. I say punish actual crime. If I drink beer and drive home safe no one gets hurt. Isn't that better than if I don't drink at all and get behind the wheel and drive wreckless? There are dangerous drivers out there putting on makeup, talking on cell phones, reading, playing with the radio, talking to passengers, etc. It is true that being drunk sometimes causes accidents but there are a number of bad behaviors that cause accidents. My point is that if you can drive safe doing whatever then more power to ya. Punish those who can't drive safe. That means the people that actually get into accidents because of poor driving habits.