LJWorld.com weblogs The Lawrence Crime Blotter

KHP checks for drunk drivers, faulty cars


The [Kansas Highway Patrol][1] set up a driver's license/sobriety checkpoint Tuesday night at the Kansas Highway 10 junction with Interstate 70. So far, the checkpoint in the westbound lane of the junction has led to two arrests - one after a driver sped away from the scene, leading troopers on a high-speed pursuit that ended with a foot-chase through a nearby field, Lt. Kirk Simone of the patrol said.Simone said that the driver "had some drugs on him." No one was injured in the chase.He did not give details on the other arrest.When asked about the somewhat early start time to the sobriety checkpoint, Simone said that the Highway Patrol does these types of enforcement efforts at different times all over the state.He also said the patrol would be issuing warnings and tickets to drivers with burned-out headlights, taillights and other faulty equipment.In all, about 100 cars have been stopped, and the checkpoint will remain up until midnight tonight. [1]: http://www.kansashighwaypatrol.org/


Godot 11 years, 8 months ago

100 stops, two arrests.

Now, that is fishing/harrassment.

usaschools 11 years, 8 months ago

Godot!!!!!!!! We agree on something!! Cool!

Michael Birch 11 years, 8 months ago

Jesus Christ! Isn't the KHP supposed to be dedicated towards

making the highways safer? If so, how is making several

hundred vehicles form a single lane and come to a complete

stop supposed to make the highways safer! Two arrests made-whew!!!!!!!!!

Hey mister glorified traffic officer, you sure are taking a bite out

of crime. One was for drugs (probably a very small quantity of

marijuana) and the other was so trivial (probably a warrant

arrest for not paying a ticket or disorderly conduct meaning the

person said some the glorified traffic officer didn't like) that they

didn't want to pulblicize the excuse for arresting the person. All-in-all it sounds down

right PATHETHIC to me! How are the politicians that are their

ENABLERS? I'd like to know so that I can vote against them in

the next election!


Michael Birch 11 years, 8 months ago

Just delete the first comment and leave the second one. I accidently pushed the "submit" button twice. Thanks, DHD

jayhawks71 11 years, 8 months ago

DHD, you think that whomever you vote in, is going to work to overturn what the US Supreme Court has found to be constitutional?

jayhawks71 11 years, 8 months ago

Godot, just wondering, one of the following had to exist (for whatever cosmic reason, just play along), which one would you (begrudgingly) select:

  1. Check points to check for "sobriety" and "faulty vehicles"


  1. An ordinance that prohibits cell phone usage by one operating a motor vehicle.

average 11 years, 8 months ago

Just because it's constitutional doesn't mean it has to be done. And, yes, we could elect people who agree with that.

anonimiss 11 years, 8 months ago

I'm not Godot, but...

Cell phone ban-I don't talk on my cell phone while driving anyways. But being stopped for a checkpoint when I'm doing nothing wrong irritates me.

compmd 11 years, 8 months ago


I didn't know there was such thing as a "trivial" arrest. Have you ever had to explain an arrest to a potential employer, or better yet, to a law enforcement officer or government official?

I'm intrigued that you complain about people getting arrested for "trivial" reasons and also that the arrest rate at the checkpoint was 2%. Shouldn't you be glad arrests are low? For a state that is easy on drunk drivers and doesn't have any sort of safety or emissions inspections for vehicles, I think its pretty darn impressive that there were ONLY two arrests.

Michael Birch 11 years, 8 months ago

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

Sigmund 11 years, 8 months ago

There is a way to avoid being arrested because apparently running doesn't work. Have a valid license, registration, and insurance in the car. Do not to carry drugs, child pornography, drive while intoxicated, or have outstanding warrants for these or other offenses. You'll be golden.

jayhawks71 11 years, 8 months ago

average, it won't happen. Your state government (notice that this was KHP) isn't going to stop doing these. They provide revenue and whether they have one arrest or 100, they make for visible law enforcement, which has two effects. For some, it gets them to "behave" even for a short period of time, and it satisfies the constituents who sacrifice security for freedom. As long as someone from the big 2 gets in, there will be checkpoints and revenue enhancement.

justsomewench 11 years, 8 months ago

you should not have to explain arrests to a potential employer, only convictions.

i found at http://www.safehr.com/Backgroundmaterials/criminal_records.htm:

Even if there is a criminal record, there are legal limitations on what information can be used by an employer.

First, an employer may not ask about or consider information about arrests or detentions that did not result in convictions. Only convictions and pending cases can be considered.

Second, an employer may not consider crimes that have been sealed or expunged, or where the applicant participated in a special pretrial alternative program.

Third, there are limits concerning misdemeanors. Most employers will ask about both felonies and misdemeanors on applications, but a misdemeanor cannot be considered if probation was completed and the case dismissed, or for minor marijuana offenses more than two years old.

If a criminal conviction or pending case is located, does that necessarily mean that an applicant is eliminated? The answer again is no.

Courts have found that a policy of automatically denying employment can result in discrimination against certain groups. Instead, employers must examine whether there is a sound business reason to not hire an individual with a criminal record, taking into account the nature of the offense, whether it is job-related, when it occurred and what the person has done since.

compmd 11 years, 8 months ago

Right on, Sigmund.

Wench, Thanks for the citation, that is good info. However, there are plenty of employers that do more than a cursory background check. Teachers, any government job, government contractors to name a few.

boomersooner4ever 11 years, 8 months ago

I love the comments!! very entertaining...the midwest is good for something...getting harrassed by cops and getting verbally assaulted by know it alls. (which I have witnessed on other articles)

thomgreen 11 years, 8 months ago

I happened to be stopped in this checkpoint. Actually, there were about 10-15 officers standing at the toll booth at the last Lawrence exit heading West on I-70. What struck me as weird, they only asked for my driver's license. They didn't check my proof of insurance or my registration (though they could just look at my license plate). I just wonder how many additional citations they could have given for uninsured motorists if they had been checking. But they were nice, and it only took a few seconds, no big hassle in my book.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.