Skip to comments.Fresno police initiate DUI sting
Posted on 03/08/2006 6:12:23 AM PST by Enterprise
"Fresno police are taking enforcement of drunken driving laws to a new level which officers expect will bring both success and outrage. Saturday night, the traffic unit unveiled a new operation in which plainclothes police officers stake out bars and target drunk patrons. If the heavy drinkers get behind the wheel, officers in unmarked cars follow them and call in marked police cars to pull them over."
(Excerpt) Read more at fresnobee.com ...
I know a few fellas like that....they really get cranky when they get too much blood in their alcohol system.
No, what gets old is your lack of real-life experience. Go file a complaint against a cop?
The first thing the Internal Affairs officer is likely to tell you is the liklihood the officer can file a lawsuit against you if you fail to prove your case which the department has no intention of helping you prove, in about 90 percent of cases.
You are not describing real-life situations, just things you imagine in your mind.
No one here is advocating drunk driving. They are protesting the needless drop to .08 that holds the potential for making criminals out of people who are not criminals.
We are against your nanny-stater lower drinking limits, smoking bans, and attacks on the First, Second, Fourth, Sixth and 10th Amendments that we are watching happen to our country.
Let freedom ring, again, in America.
Also, you're not the first person I've said this to on this site: Real conservatives don't petition the government to control other people's behaviors.
How'd you stumble on this site?
"I do not support .02 and I do not support moving it from .08."
Glad to hear it. The question is, is it a good use of police resources, not to mention good policy in a supposedly free country with an assumption of innocence, to set up stings and road blocks to just look for people whose BAC is over .08 but have not shown any deficiency in their driving ability? I say no. If a cop observes a driver driving erratically, pulls them over, and administers a breathalyzer (with an approved, accurate, calibrated machine, which often is not the case) and they blow over .08, I say go ahead and arrest them and charge them. Then we come to the discussion of how strong the punishment should be for a first time conviction of a driver that blows just over the limit. I believe current laws, at least the ones in Canada that I am familiar with, are overly harsh.
Get glasses or reading lessons. Or, quit your drinking. I said in the prior post that the guy that caused the accident wasn't drinking. The front-seat passenger in the struck car was drinking. The driver of the struck car wasn't drinking.
This death would be included in "alcohol-related" crash statistics.
Yes, it is very possible, in fact, common, for the drinker to be not responsible for an "alcohol-related" crash.
What about the driver who is .09 and is sitting stopped at a red light when he gets t-boned by a cop chasing a stolen car?
Not responsible for the accident, couldn't get out of the way of the careening cop car, but still dead and still a stat.
There's two cases that smash your theory. And, they are not uncommon.
Most police are good folks and seek to do right. Obviously there is no perfection here and some cops are bad. There is no way to hamstring police to the point that they cannot do bad things just as it is imposible to hamstring people to the point they do no wrong.
Point is that choices have consequences. If a cop makes a poor choice, bust em. I hold people and cops ( which are people too) to the very same standard.
Field tests are worthless all by themselves. It takes a field test to draw a blow, at least here. I think that is a good example of checks on power and I approve of both tools being used together.
Refusing is a choice. All choices have consequences. If you are within the legal limit then you have nothing to worry about. If you are not in that legal limit then take what you have coming. After all it was your choice that got you there. Blaming the cop for your own BAC level is hardly a winning argument.
You have a constitutional right to chose not to blow. You do not have a constitutional right to drive. If you refuse to follow the rules set forth for driving then do not complain if that ability is not afforded to you.
There is no damage to your rights becasue driving is not a right. It doesn't take 500 words to spell that out. If you do not agree with the rules of driving then by all means absolve yourself from the situation, then you will never feel alienated when asked to blow.
IS requiring a license damaging to the constitution? Is requiring your age be 16? Is requiring insurance? Is requiring you to be a citizen? Is passing a written test or a behind the wheel test? your anti constitution argument doesn't hold up to this scrutiny.
In order that you may drive legally there are certain requirments that you must meet. Agreeing to blow when asked is one of them. They cannot force you to blow but they can punish that choice by taking away your license based on the area of not following the rules set to allow you to qualify to do so legally.
If the blowing thing is anti consititutional then so is age...heck so then would be requiring you to show your age or your ID to begin with. That just doesn't pass the common sense test imho.
I've always wondered something: If it's against the law to drink and drive, why do bars have parking lots?
With the new, tougher, BAC (Blood Alcohol Content) Laws in most states now, I guarantee you that most people who drive away from a bar are "legally" drunk.
In some jurisdictions, like the District of Columbia, it's the officer's discretion to to arrest for DUI regardless of the BAC as long as it is above 0.
Brer Rabbit at least, sounded sincere.
All states adopted .08 as the standard not because of rational decision-making but because the were blackmailed by the federal government and threatened with a loss of funding.
Government by blackmail. Social compact by blackmail.
This is the kind of society you want?
Smoking bans and reduced blood-alcohol levels based not on facts but lies.
That's what you help deliver to those of us who wish we lived in a land of freedom.
Who are you to judge my real life experience? FYi information when I was a young man I did go after a cop that was giving me a hard time. It isn't that hard when you are willing to stand up to them and you have something to show them. If you have an ongoing problem with an officer and you do not take the innitiative to document it then that is a failure on your part.
If you think noone here advocates drunk driving you better read this post again. Others like it as well. Many really do.
Here is a real life situation for you. A 17 year old drunk crashes into you and leaves you with nerve damage seven damaged discs a brain injury affecting memory and titanium in your spine. Tell your boy you cannot play football with him, tell him you cannot play. Walk in my shoes and then tell me again how i have no real life experience.
If you think .08 is needless then explain away the drop since its passing. Do you thik all the curtailing is due to education campaigns? Cmon now.
I am not for anything lower than .08 so you have your mark incorrectly sighted. Best you take a good look at who you shoot at before you shoot.
You have no freedom that entails drinking and driving. Your freedom to throw a right hook stops at my nose just like your driving while drinking legally stops at .08.
I would love for people to handle this themselves. Truth is they aren't because they live in some utopia where people aren't dying and hurt for life because of something so simple to avoid.
Stumble is an interesting choice of words you use.
Conservatives are about personal responsibility. All your posts seek to blame someone else for the BAC level. Funny how YOU claim to be conservative and consider me to be something else. If people held themselves to account for their own choices instead of blaming other people, there would be no need for government/law enforcement to become involved.
Did you know that in the king of nanny states, Massachusetts, it is illegal to video or audio tape a cop?
You have a really childish view of policing.
The fact so many die every year demand action. It is a good use of police resources. Freedom is not a part of this because that is like saying I am free to shoot a gun wherever I want to and if people get hurt or dead...TOUGH. That is how some people see it.
I am all for roadblocks, if you are following rules you slide right on thru. You see I am for prevention not for dealing with after the fact. Just as I am with terrorism. After the fact dealings never move anything forward.....the 90's showed us that with regards to terrorism right?
I can respect that you think the laws are overly harsh, but when viewed from my perspective, the kid that crashed into me walked away scott free from what he did to me and his record has been expunged.....to him and his life, it is like this never even happened. I would argue the laws are not harsh enough based on my personal experience.
Look I will take your criticism of the "alcohol related" data and say OK you have a point....so HALVE the stats based on your argument. What do you see?
If I had my way cops wouldnt be chasing they would be shooting the instant a person ran.
If my theory' is smashed then you ought to be able to halve the stats based on your argument and there should be no problems.....can you go there with half of the stats? Can you?
So then whenever the gov't will say to withold funding they are blackmailing? By that logic the Government is now blackmailing Hamas...over FUNDS......I am sorry to see that you agree with HAMAS standpoint on this funding vs action issue.
Think a bit deeper before you post.
"I hold people and cops ( which are people too) to the very same standard."
Watch, you're caught lying again. You say you attend MADD meetings. OK, show me how you have equally fought police corruption. In fact, name one instance in which you've taken down a corrupt cop.
Please refrain from calling me names...it is quite childish.
Well, we disagree. I don't believe in roadblocks to catch drunk drivers, or believe they're a good use of resources. I think they'd catch more just driving around and looking for likely suspects, although they might not get as many of those who are just over the limit.
As to the punishment, in Canada at least a DUI conviction is a criminal conviction (we don't have the distinction between felonies and misdemeanors in this country) and comes with an automatic 6 month (maybe a year, now) license suspension and minimum $1,000 fine (also maybe more, now). I believe it would be better, considering the impact a criminal conviction has on a person's life, if drivers just over the limit, say up to .10, received only an administrative penalty, like for speeding. No problem with the fine or license suspension, but I feel the criminal record is overly harsh. The seriously inebriated or repeat offenders I have no sympathy for.
Illegal to video a cop eh?
I call you to task, lets have a link to that one.
Our government is blackmailing Hamas, or behavior modification if you like that better, and I support the blackmail, as I hate Hamas.
You beat me to it! If a family member is hit/injured by a drunk driver observed by police waiting for a big $$ DUI charge instead of a public intox charge, there is police liability, and should result in large judgments against the police. Hopefully, the 1st large judgment against police should put a stop to this. Otherwise it is time to start Neighborhood Watch patrols of "cop bars".
Lots of people say that driving around looking for them is just as wrong as a roadblock. Like the act of sitting near a bar is so opposed.
Here you can go to jail for speeding if you are far enough over the posted limit. Too many tickets for speeding and you lose your license ( or to far over the limit)
One thing so often overlooked when speaking about harshness is what people are left with when they are hurt or the harshness folks endure when their loved ones are killed. That harshness is a life sentence inflicted by the impaired driver.
So blackmail you agree with is OK and blackmail you disagree with is not?
Quick Hillary is calling she needs you on her campaign!
ps, I believe in prevention, also. I just think there should be probable cause before you start questioning people and subjecting them to roadside tests, breathalyzers, and so on. You don't have to wait until they have an accident. And as to the deterrent effect of roadblocks, back in the day when I did, admittedly, occasionally drive drunk, I knew perfectly well what routes to take to avoid any possible sobriety checkpoints.
Well of course you knew the routes to take, that is a drawback of the system. Scotus ruled that roadblocks are ok provided they are done out in the open by accepted standards. one of those is to notify the public of there locations prior to holding them.
Think how effective they would be if that was not the case.
I would argue that the 'probable cause' is found in the numbers of people that die and are injured day after day year after year.
Just like we have to act to stop the terrorism we have to take action to stop the dying on our nations roads.
You have to tell the cop first! Ha! See:
I use guns. Never killed anyone, though.
I drink, also. Never hit anyone with my car.
What was the kid's BAC?
They don't have to notify the public ahead of time in Canada, although they do usually publicize around holidays and such that there will be checkpoints, but they don't say where. It's just that naturally they tended to set them up on the higher traffic routes.
What you call probable cause does not meet the legal definition. For most of your country's history they would have been considered unconstitutional, just like asset forfeiture. The fact that some judges have stretched the meaning of the constitution to allow them doesn't make them right, does it? But I'll leave that argument to your countrymen. In this country they are perfectly constitutional and legal, but I still think they are a poor use of police resources, in most cases. Sometimes, for example on the main route out of an event, like the stock car races, where there's good reason to believe many intoxicated people might be hitting the road, I think they're useful.
Gosh, you're dense. Hamas is receiving welfare, free money. The states and the people in the states pay gasoline and other taxes to Washington, who then attaches strings and sends it back.
Surely you can see the difference.
True conservatives don't believe the Federal gov't is the proper place to set policy on things like simple crimes. Find me an enumerated power that gives the Federal gov't the power to regulate intra-state criminal activity?
Why do it in secret? HA is quite childish. The issue in that case is the secrecy. When going to videotape a cop tell him that you are doing it. That does not mean you cannot tape a cop and it doesn't mean you will be prosecuted for doing so.
The issue is doing it in secret no wether or not you can do it. Tell them you are doing it an you can do it....and when you do they will act as they should.
You must do better than that spin to claim HA!
Well you go ahead and drive drunk knowing then by your standards that when you do finally harm someone you give up your life, wether to prison or to the DP....you game to take that risk?
Kinda defeats the whole purpose if you tell them in advance. Do the undercover cops announce their presence in the bar? (This thread).
In Massachusetts, there have been convictions for taping officers. Here is an excerpt from the first case to hit the Mass. Supreme Court:
(Massachusetts) Chief Justice Margaret Marshall and Justice Robert Cordy used the famous videotape of the Rodney King police beating in Los Angeles as an example of a recording that would have been prohibited under Massachusetts law.
In another case, a home security camera was tripped when police entered a home. A friend of the homeowner posted the video on the Internet. The cops don't like the way they look on tape so they threatened the woman with arrest. Haven't heard the outcome.
.123 three hours after the crash actually happened.
Some argue he could have been blowing more some say he could have blown less than he was at the time.
Both arguments have merit...which is good cause for cops to administer some BAC in the field.
This kid was a second time offender. First time being underage consumption....obviously,for him, the punishment was not enough to deter further alcohol infractions.
What I call probable cause is not required for roadblocks. SCOTUS has also ruled on that here. Roadblocks are fine so long as they adopt proper protocals.
I would not call a license an asset, you do not own it, the state does. Therefor it is their asset to afford you or not.
I think we agree that roadblocks should be used in a targetted way that would see them being as beneficial as they can be when used.
That proves the point, doesn't it? He wasn't at 0.08, he was well above the established 0.10
This kid was a second time offender. First time being underage consumption....obviously,for him, the punishment was not enough to deter further alcohol infractions.
Juveniles are always a tricky subject. I don't think anyone should get away with harming another. That's not what anyone here is arguing.
I don't know what standard was in place then, but neither a 0.08 or a 0.10 deterred this person.
That's funny. OK, I am opposed to blackmail that makes domestic American life less free. I am in favor of blackmail that coerces foreign terror groups.
I am inconsistent on the use of blackmail. But I prefer it be used against terrorists, not my state government.
BTW, NJ debated this reduction before the federal blackmail. As a reporter, I asked a State Police spokesman to provide me with a copy of the study(ies) that showed how dropping from .10 to .08 would save lives.
This is the exact answer I got from the state spokesman, acting in an official capacity:
"There are none."
Tax dollars are tax dollars.
Sure I see the difference you point out, but that difference does not change the similarities.
Dollars for actions. On that level they are just the same.
So now you want states to legislate their own?
Ok deal with the NH example earlier on in this thread.
Confucious say....be careful what you wish for.
I doubt the say hey I am an undercover cop, lol. I agree it defeats the purpose. But hey Scotus said they gotta disclose them...so that is how they are done.
What's the limit in your state? At "two beers" you should have been at about a .04 BAC, not including your burn rate which is typically -.015 per hour. Two beers in say one and a half to two hours in the restaurant equates to you having a blood alcohol concentration of .01 to .015 which is not illegal in any state of the union that I'm aware of. What traffic violation did you commit that caused you to be pulled over? The reason I ask is that in Washington state you must commit a violation before being stopped. DUI checkpoints and the like are not allowed.
Hey, gotta run. Interesting discussion. You are wrong about a couple of things but not about the dangers of driving impaired.
It only proves that my situation is not an example of a .08 offender.
Nothing tricky about juveniles. Punish them so they understand that their actions and choices have consequences.
What didn't deter this kid was the fact the punishment was to lax. I opposed the SA at the time of this kids bench trial and my snapping got his sentence raised considerably. He still didn't get what I think he should have gotten but he did get a probation that mandated 364 days in jail if he had any alcohol infractions till he was 21. He didn't go to jail for a year so he was (at least) never caught doing it again.
Funny how when you KNOW you WILL spend time in jail for offending it actually has a deterring effect, isn't it?
Your ignorance on how field sobriety tests are conducted and what they consist of is amusing. Please continue.
One question is how a free people govern themselves, and whether the actions of our federal gov't are consistent with the compact the several states joined in creating the federal gov't.
The other is how to coerce foreign powers to behave as we desire. If you can not see how people have a right to be outraged at their own gov't bribing them with their own tax dollars, and in the process usurp the proper power of the state, I'm sorry.
Ok deal with the NH example earlier on in this thread.
I have no problem whatsoever with treating commercial drivers or juveniles with different standards. They are different classes of people. As you noted, driving a big rig is a far more potentially dangerous thing than the typical automobile.
And juveniles can be restricted on several logical bases. They should not be in possession of alcohol in the first place, they are more likely to do so clandestinely (hence drinking and driving because they drink while driving), and are less experienced in both the handling of an automobile and in handling alcohol.
In my state, minors who are caught drinking lose their driver's licenses period. Even if they are no where near a car. Even if they are at college 500 miles away from mom and dad's car.
So American lives being less free is different than palestinians lives being less free?
Well I posted a link that shows how the drop in 08 AT LEAST contributed to drops in the majority of states studied.
You can say whatever you want but you still have to follow .08 wether you like it or not.
I request this state police spokesman's name because I would really like to talk to them. Sounds like Dan Rather sourcing if you ask me!
Get your own dancing monkey