Advertisement

Archive for Monday, August 19, 2013

Police planning DUI checkpoint in Lawrence Friday night

August 19, 2013

Advertisement

Lawrence police plan a DUI checkpoint somewhere in Lawrence Friday night as part of a statewide drunken-driving enforcement campaign.

Police declined to say where the checkpoint will be, but it will operate from 11 p.m. Friday to 3 a.m. Saturday morning, according to a news release from the Lawrence Police Department. Officers will stop and check drivers to determine if they are driving while impaired by drugs or alcohol.

The associated overtime costs from the enforcement will be paid through a grant from the Kansas Department of Transportation, which is also sponsoring efforts across the state by local law enforcement agencies and the Kansas Highway Patrol. That effort, billed as the "You Drink. You Drive. You Lose." campaign, will continue until Sept. 2.

In Kansas, an average of nearly five people are injured every day, and one person is killed every three days, in alcohol-related crashes, according to KDOT. Convictions for driving under the influence can bring penalties of up to one year in jail, suspension of driving privileges, and fines of up to $2,500, along with mandatory installation of ignition interlock devices on the offender's vehicle.

Comments

evildonut 1 year, 4 months ago

You don't need to answer their questions at all. just roll down your window five or six inches, present your id and be on your way. Record everything.

horseshoehalo1 1 year, 4 months ago

Or...Just don't Drink and Drive...and dont give the LEO a hard time. Then you will be on your way.

Ricky_Vaughn 1 year, 4 months ago

Maybe the LEOs should be catching criminals instead of harassing taxpayers.

gatekeeper 1 year, 4 months ago

That's what they'll be doing. Those that are drinking and driving are criminals. I doubt too many people who haven't been partying will be inconvenienced at these late night check points. There should be no tolerance for drinking and driving. If I happened to be out and had to go through the check point, no big deal. Give them ID, they see I'm sober, I'm on my way.

suesay 1 year, 4 months ago

Are you kidding? You want to complain about them keeping other drivers safe by taking drunk drivers off the road?

Dan Eyler 1 year, 4 months ago

providing you haven't committed a crime, make it very clear to the police that you will not allow any search of your vehicle. Resist these illegal stops and searches. Respectfully inform the police to kiss your A##.

NewKansan 1 year, 4 months ago

Yeah, because that's some intelligent advice right there. Let me know how that goes.

Stuart Evans 1 year, 4 months ago

Or roll over, like NewKansan, and let the authorities trample your constitutional rights; either way..

Deb Engstrom 1 year, 4 months ago

If they want to waste their time searching, I'll let them. I have nothing to hide. Those who do, should be thankful they're getting a warning.

broddie 1 year, 4 months ago

you can tell police that they can't search your car but they can take you in if they think you're impaired.

There's nothing in the constitution that guarantees your right to drive.

Kyle Miller 1 year, 4 months ago

I realize these stops can be a very good thing to catch these people who continue to drink and drive and risk not only their own life, but innocent others. But...... the thing about these check points is the officers that are running them are more than less the pots calling the kettles black. I on NUMEROUS occasions have witnessed officers, yes, your local LPD officers get behind the wheel of a vehicle and drive home so drunk they could hardly walk. Whether it be from Bowling Leagues they were in, a week night softball game at Clinton Lake, Golf Tournaments, etc. I have seen it all. Its "ok" for them to do it becasue they are LEO's! I just find it very hypocritical is all!

gatekeeper 1 year, 4 months ago

Then you need to call them in. If you don't, you're just part of the problem.

Bailee Winetroub 1 year, 4 months ago

If you're not driving drunk/impaired, then what’s the big deal? What are you hiding in your car? Why not answer questions? All this entitlement is really unjustified - they do these checks for a reason. I got my first and only DUI during a checkpoint and I am glad that’s how I learned rather than my horrible decisions ending up hurting myself or even worse, someone else. In a recent DUI checkpoint in Kansas City they found that 1 in 20 drivers were impaired – now THAT’S what’s scary, not the Lawrence Police.

Stuart Evans 1 year, 4 months ago

if you're not hiding anything in your house, do you mind if the authorities just come in whenever they want? People hide lots of things in their cars that aren't illegal, just very personal, and it is an infringement upon our 4th amendment rights, for them to paw through our effects, and interrogate innocent people about their comings and goings. Something to hide, nope, that's why I carry my 4th amendment out in front of me, and will definitely let the officer know that I have it.

gatekeeper 1 year, 4 months ago

I've never had them want to search my car. Been through a few check points and all they did was look at ID, looked at me, asked me a few questions, saw I was sober and coherent and sent me on my way. There are a lot of paranoid people out here. Your house and your car on a public street are two different things. If you go through the check point, you are chosing to be on a public street. Your house is your private property.

Stuart Evans 1 year, 4 months ago

Does that go the same for walking down a public walkway? You choose to be outside your home, away from the privacy of your domicile..aren't you just asking to be stopped and questioned? They can ask all the questions they want, and you don't have to tell them where you're going, where you've been, how long, or with whom; it is literally none of their business. But once you volunteer that information they CAN and WILL use that against you if it fits their needs.

gatekeeper 1 year, 4 months ago

They can also arrest you if you are drunk while walking down the street. Difference with these check points is that you don't have the right to drive, have ZERO right to drive drunk and you are in a weapon that can kill others easily. The courts have found these check points to be legal. If you don't like them, take it up with the govt. You should go stand outside some of the bars downtown at closing time and watch the drunk idiots get in their cars. I wish the cops would just bust them right there.

Too many people on here are way to paranoid. You know there are strains out there you can get that won't make you so paranoid?

Have we had issues with LPD detaining sober people at these check points for no reason? Not that I've heard of.

Stuart Evans 1 year, 4 months ago

Label me paranoid if you want; I'm just not as willing to deposit my rights in the nearest wastebasket. The web is littered with plenty of stories from people who had nothing to hide, who didn't think they were doing anything wrong, who ended up on the wrong end of the law, and spend years trying to clear their names. Giving the police a free ticket to root around in your personal life is about as naive as you can be.

gatekeeper 1 year, 4 months ago

How is handing over my ID, saying "no officer, I haven't had anything to drink" and them shining a flashlight in my car for a moment giving the police a free ticket to root around in my personal life? You ARE seriously paranoid and I'm not naive! I have police in my family, so I don't fear them. I don't have any reason to fear them because I'm not breaking any laws. I think those that are paranoid do have something they want to keep from the popo, NORML.

optimist 1 year, 4 months ago

"...what's the big deal?" We are gradually being conditioned to overlook what begin as small intrusions of our civil liberties, but what will those intrusions look like in the future? I have no problem stopping and proving that I have the privilege of driving but no, they may not search my car or detain me beyond that. I have nothing to hide but I also do not feel the need to prove that to anyone. Police officers are simply fellow citizens granted the authority and responsibility by the community to intervene and punish our fellow citizens when they infringe on the liberties of others. This is why law enforcement has the burden of probable cause before they can infringe on said liberties of the subject of an investigation. I would no more allow a law enforcement officer to search my person or property to satisfy their curiosity than I would my neighbor. This is in keeping with the original intent of the Constitution. There is more to fear from a police state than a few random criminals. I am not saying that we live in a police state today we continue to move closer every day. Stop and frisk anyone?

evildonut 1 year, 4 months ago

This is pathetic. Entitlement? Get a grip. It's called liberty.

msezdsit 1 year, 4 months ago

"All this entitlement is really unjustified" right bailee, that constitution thing is no justification at all. Pretty ridiculous to consider it an "entitlement".

I got pulled over the other day and the cop told me they were doing a "saturation" thing. Thats where they take a bunch of taxpayers dollars and hire a bunch more cops so those tax payers can be harassed by the cops. I was sitting in a left turn lane waiting forever for the light to change while my turn signal was lighting up the cops face every time it blinked as he waited behind me. He told me he pulled me over because I didn't use my turn signal. It was a waste of my time, the cops time, and a waste of tax dollars. Brilliant just brilliant.

Ricky_Vaughn 1 year, 4 months ago

It's exactly that ...harassing taxpayers.

Ricky_Vaughn 1 year, 4 months ago

Meanwhile, TEXTING and driving runs rampant and goes widely unpunished. At least drunk drivers are looking at the road.

Adrienne Sanders 1 year, 4 months ago

Maybe... I'd say they're about equally bad.

optimist 1 year, 4 months ago

I've seen a few posts here of great concern. Several are willing to give up their liberties for what they perceive is a higher level of security. I'm glad they weren't around when brave men and women fought for the freedoms we have today, and that they so take for granted. I wonder if they would hold so little regard for those hard fought for liberties if they had shed their own blood and fortune to earn them. Protecting those liberties is the true tribute to those that gave all in defense of your liberties.

grammaddy 1 year, 4 months ago

Where in the Constitution am I given the "right" to drink. Or drive.

jhawkinsf 1 year, 4 months ago

That's a pretty broad interpretation there (Privileges and Immunities Clause). I wonder, in the century or so that cars have been around, has the Supreme Court made any ruling that specifically interprets this clause in the way you are interpreting it?

akt2 1 year, 4 months ago

I talked with a person yesterday who had been hit by a drunk driver. I knew she was disabled but I didn't know why. She told me her story of being in ICU for weeks and then in a nursing home for 2 months and finally a rehabilitation unit. She will suffer for the rest of her life because of her body being crushed by a drunk. She showed me pictures. The one picture that she said really stood out to her was one at the scene of the wreck. Her car was mangled. The drunk's vehicle was on top of hers. The drunk was sitting on the side of the road not injured. It was his 3rd drunk driving offense. So I guess the law can't really stop a drunk that drives. They can at least get them off the road at the time of the stop if they are impaired.

optimist 1 year, 4 months ago

And yet this criminal was still allowed to drive? So because the legal system failed to adequately punish this individual this women is now in a wheel chair and we are to give up our civil liberties? Fortunately I have what is left of the Constitution on my side.

Adrienne Sanders 1 year, 4 months ago

He wasn't most likely "allowed" to drive. If you're on your third DUI you most likely have an alcohol problem and need to never drink again. Taking away someone's license does not actually stop them from driving, sober or not.

Maggie Morrissey 1 year, 4 months ago

Its about removing drunk drivers from the road. What? Do they feel they are untouchable to care about putting others at risk? How difficult is it to have a designated driver, don't drink if out or stay home and chug away??? The worst thing that will happen if you are drinking and couch potatoing is trip over the cat, your business... HOWEVER... if you are drinking and then operating a motor vehicle you can take innocent lives. If you drink and drive on a regular business its merely a question of when!

The disrespect Police Officers receive is ridiculous! I suppose if you are in need of law enforcement you would sing another song! They get paid close to nothing to serve and protect. Try and forward the respect you demand for yourself and family to those serving your communities!

If they take even one drunk driver off the road it has served its purpose. Period!

Maggie Morrissey 1 year, 4 months ago

That was stupid! This is about check point on public roads checking for drunk drivers. This practice was created and facilitated due to the statistics of idiot drunks that cannot understand that if they have been drinking they cannot drive!

I suppose if you want to knock on my door you can. Come on in, have a drink, hell have ten!!!! But don't get in a car and drive away after! That is the law! (Oh, and if I'm not home, could you let the dog out, see if my kid unloaded the dishwasher and perhaps throw a load of laundry in......thanks!!!!

MarcoPogo 1 year, 4 months ago

Do you drive on a regular business? If so, which one?

Maggie Morrissey 1 year, 4 months ago

I had to re-read that 100 times to figure out what the heck you were talking about hahahahaha......thanks proof reader!!! BASIS..not business! I need a drink! ehh hummm LOL

optimist 1 year, 4 months ago

There are plenty of quality law enforcement officers serving our community and communities around the country. That said much like their are poor employees on every profession there are poor performing police officers. Law enforcement officers should be held to a high standard in the prosecution of their duties. The stacked against them in order to protect the innocent. As far as my needing law enforcement it has typically been my experience that they show up after the crime to punish the perpetrator. They are rarely fortunate enough to be there to prevent a crime. Take control of your own security. While we would all like to think that calling 911 will protect us, police are minutes away when seconds count.

Ron Holzwarth 1 year, 4 months ago

One time years ago I was driving on the Interstate in Topeka at night with the front windows down. It became rather chilly in the car, the heater wasn't keeping up, and so I slowed down a bit so that there were no cars near me. Then I leaned over and rolled up the passenger window while holding the steering wheel with only one hand, but keeping a close eye on the road ahead.

Within seconds, red and blue lights began to flash behind me, so I pulled over. A very polite police officer came to my front window, so I handed him my driver's license and proof of insurance. He asked me where I had been, and where I was going.

"I just left a bar and I'm headed to a restaurant."

That was not a correct answer to the question. So he said "Just a minute," then he went back to the squad car and returned with a breathalyzer. Meanwhile, a second police officer arrived on the passenger side of my car, and began to inspect the immaculately clean interior of my car with a flashlight. For dust, I suppose.

"Will you blow into this for me, please?" the first officer asked.

I responded with, "Sure, but if it doesn't register zero, you'll have to get it recalibrated." I blew and blew into the tube, and the officer kept looking back and forth between a stopwatch and the breathalyzer. This went on far longer than I expected, and I was running out of breath.

Finally he said, "OK, you can stop now. I pulled you over because I thought I saw you swerve back and forth a little bit. Have a good evening."

Then, he returned my driver's license and proof of insurance, and we were on our way. It's a fact that some people in bars aren't drinking alcohol. And the stop was no big deal at all.

optimist 1 year, 4 months ago

Justified stop. Probable cause. No question about it. That is the way to get drunk drivers off the road. Sounds like a quality law enforcement officer.

gatekeeper 1 year, 4 months ago

I had no idea so many people were so paranoid. I guess if you don't have anything to hide, you aren't so paranoid. If you aren't drunk and behind the wheel, they'll wave you through the check point pretty quickly.

The cops aren't trying to get into your house, take your rights away, blah blah blah. They're just trying to get some drunks off the road before they kill someone. If you haven't noticed, we live in a town that parties a lot and has lots of drunks on the road.

You should be more concerned with Brownback and the repubs and what they're trying to do to you. They're the one's really trying to take rights away, but you are easily distracted by cops trying to catch drunks driving.

AGAIN, you do not have the RIGHT to drive. It is a privilige. Sorry if you feel so threatened by these check points. Maybe you shouldn't be out late at night then when you know there will be check points. If I am out for some reason, I won't be freaked out because I won't be drunk behind the wheel.

I did watch a check point in CO a few years ago that was happening in front of a hotel I was in. It was amazing how many drunks they caught. The police were very nice to everyone, even the people they were arresting. I'm happy to have them bust the drunks that can endanger my life.

Steve Jacob 1 year, 4 months ago

Thinking of a response to everyone's hatred of these checkpoints, but gatekeeper said it better then I could.

Steve Jacob 1 year, 4 months ago

Thinking of a response to everyone's hatred of these checkpoints, but gatekeeper said it better then I could.

ebyrdstarr 1 year, 4 months ago

We do have the right to travel freely about the country without being detained by police. The same justification for DUI checkpoints is now being used for DL checkpoints. Who knows how far they'll take it. Frankly, the rationale that the Supreme Court used to ok these checkpoints would make just about any checkpoint ok. I don't want to live in a nation with checkpoints. I want to live in a nation where I can go about my business and only be stopped when I have given someone reason to think I've done something wrong.

There are other ways to deal with drunk drivers that won't infringe on the rights of everyone.

redneckkid 1 year, 4 months ago

Clickker, I agree 100% the kid in the video is way out of line. He never bothered to ask the officers if he could record them and post the video on YouTube. I am interested to know if the individual violated the officers rights. A Police Officer has Constitutional Rights also but no one seems to be worried about their rights.

optimist 1 year, 4 months ago

This is a good example of one of those low quality police officers that buys into the belief that they are the ultimate authority. The only way to prevent such abuses is to punish this officer. I found it interesting that right before they found the camera the other officer shares a concern about the dog hitting on the car. Then the officer moves the camera. What is he hiding from. Isn't that a sign of guilt? Guess that only applies to the rest of us.

Missingit 1 year, 4 months ago

My one question is if these are unconstitutional why are they still being used? I am sure the Supreme Court said they were constitutional.

ebyrdstarr 1 year, 4 months ago

The Supreme Court also once said segregated schools were constitutional. Reasonable constitutional scholars can and do disagree and courts can change their minds. It is my hope that if people keep making the argument and keep challenging these checkpoints, the argument will someday prevail.

Missingit 1 year, 4 months ago

Then find the check point. Park your car. Get drunk. Drive into the check point. Get arrested. Go thru District Court, Kansas Appeals Court and ask the Supreme Court to take your case. Then you can come back and blog about your victory and I will say congrats. Till then they are legal unless 5 of you bloggers are members of SCOTUS and you want this argued in front of you, again. The argument now is worthless. You are wrong. If you think this rule will change you can repeat the first several steps every year to test your hypothesis.

ebyrdstarr 1 year, 4 months ago

You're wrong to think one has to be drunk and get arrested at a checkpoint to have standing to challenge a checkpoint. And, yes, people are continuing to challenge these in court. The argument isn't worthless. It usually takes 10-20 years of adverse rulings before a new argument prevails. You don't really think Gideon was the first person ever to argue he should get a court-appointed lawyer, do you? Or that Miranda was the very first guy ever to say, "Hey, you have to make sure I know my rights and waive them before you can use my statements in court!"?

Why just this summer, SCOTUS reversed itself and finally adopted an argument the criminal defense bar had been rejected on for decades.

If we let the fact that courts, even SCOTUS, had ruled against arguments once stop us, the state of this nation would be very different than it is today. And not in a good way.

Missingit 1 year, 4 months ago

I understand the SCOTUS make rulings on all sort of legal challenges. The arugments I have read so far seem to be predicatde on driving being a right. Which it is not and if it is please inform me how you see it as a right? Just so I am educated on your side? When you get your driver's license you sign saying your driver's license is not a right. If it was a right of every citizen, then we could have 5 or 6 year olds driving, since it is their right as well. We could drive any car, since it is your right to drive any wreck you want on the road with no regard for other people. You would have to make cars legally homes and not a means for conveyance.

Missingit 1 year, 4 months ago

You would have to make the Caroll v US no longer valid as well.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.