Bill from NYC Posted July 3, 2005 Posted July 3, 2005 On Long Island, police are setting up DWI checkpoints. I have no problem with this.....none at all. What concerns me is that members of MADD are standing there with the police officers and they too are observing drivers. My problem with this is the following: 1) Were I a police officer on this type of checkpoint, I would not want an untrained civilian standing around me serving to hamper my view of motorists; thus compromising my safety. 2) I would be concerned about civil liability. Am I now, as a uniformed police officer, responsible for the safety of said MADD members? My guess is yes. 3) Is it OK for these people to go from car to car staring at motorists? What if it was YOU driving home? Perhaps you are giving a lift to a co-worker of the opposite sex. Would you want your privacy violated? 4) I have never seen a police checkpoint that did not have a police supervisor present. I for one think that police should be supervised ranking officers, NOT by MADD members. I guess you can see that I am not so fond of this. I hope that the officers report this to their dreaded labor union and a challenge is issued to this invasive, unsafe policy. PLEASE do not turn this into a thing where it appears that I support DWI. I do NOT, and again, I am fine with the checkpoints. I do however have a problem with these people (MADD) doing what amounts to a visual search of my car. Jmo.
VABills Posted July 3, 2005 Posted July 3, 2005 On Long Island, police are setting up DWI checkpoints. I have no problem with this.....none at all. What concerns me is that members of MADD are standing there with the police officers and they too are observing drivers. My problem with this is the following: 1) Were I a police officer on this type of checkpoint, I would not want an untrained civilian standing around me serving to hamper my view of motorists; thus compromising my safety. 2) I would be concerned about civil liability. Am I now, as a uniformed police officer, responsible for the safety of said MADD members? My guess is yes. 3) Is it OK for these people to go from car to car staring at motorists? What if it was YOU driving home? Perhaps you are giving a lift to a co-worker of the opposite sex. Would you want your privacy violated? 4) I have never seen a police checkpoint that did not have a police supervisor present. I for one think that police should be supervised ranking officers, NOT by MADD members. I guess you can see that I am not so fond of this. I hope that the officers report this to their dreaded labor union and a challenge is issued to this invasive, unsafe policy. PLEASE do not turn this into a thing where it appears that I support DWI. I do NOT, and again, I am fine with the checkpoints. I do however have a problem with these people (MADD) doing what amounts to a visual search of my car. Jmo. 373932[/snapback] Just so long as they are not smoking in their car with that female co-worker they are giving a ride home to.
Bill from NYC Posted July 3, 2005 Author Posted July 3, 2005 Just so long as they are not smoking in their car with that female co-worker they are giving a ride home to. 373935[/snapback] You ARE friggin impossible! Seriously, no opinion?
VABills Posted July 3, 2005 Posted July 3, 2005 You ARE friggin impossible! Seriously, no opinion? 373936[/snapback] No, but privacy seems to be a big issue today. Seems like lots of people are looking at things they shouldn't.
John Adams Posted July 3, 2005 Posted July 3, 2005 There's no right to privacy for what's in full view in your car, so there's that. As to whether people can stand around checkpoints, I'm sure the police aren't happy, but I believe the point is to raise awareness. The goal of those checkpoints isn't to catch bad guys, but to discourage DWIs. Do you know if the MADD people talked to the police before "joining" them? They might have done this as a joint effort.
Dr. Fong Posted July 3, 2005 Posted July 3, 2005 I agree with you about MADD. They have no business at those checkpoints. They are an advocacy group, not a law enforcement group. They should leave law enforcement to the professionals.
Albany,n.y. Posted July 3, 2005 Posted July 3, 2005 I don't believe that the MADD people have any business being there. What are they going to do if a fugitive is stopped & panics. The police are the ones who are trained for this, MADD members aren't. I'm not a big fan of MADD, as they do a lot less than they get credit for. One time they called me up for a donation and I asked them why they don't do more trying to make it impossible to start a car when someone is drunk through more interlock device laws. They gave me an answer that it is very tough to get interlock laws passed and I told them that they were an ineffective group & I wouldn't donate to them. If MADD was truly effective, the death rate due to drunk driving would be close to zero. They've been around long enough to have a better track record on drunk driving than currently exists.
manateefan Posted July 3, 2005 Posted July 3, 2005 They have been allowing MADD to be at the checkpoints here in Florida for some time. I agree that an untrained civilian should not be there.
Bill from NYC Posted July 3, 2005 Author Posted July 3, 2005 There's no right to privacy for what's in full view in your car, so there's that. As to whether people can stand around checkpoints, I'm sure the police aren't happy, but I believe the point is to raise awareness. The goal of those checkpoints isn't to catch bad guys, but to discourage DWIs. Do you know if the MADD people talked to the police before "joining" them? They might have done this as a joint effort. 373947[/snapback] Good question. An educated guess is that a police chief would be bowing to "community" pressure to allow them to clutter up checkpoints, which can be quite chaotic under any circumstances.
EC-Bills Posted July 3, 2005 Posted July 3, 2005 On Long Island, police are setting up DWI checkpoints. I have no problem with this.....none at all. What concerns me is that members of MADD are standing there with the police officers and they too are observing drivers. My problem with this is the following: 1) Were I a police officer on this type of checkpoint, I would not want an untrained civilian standing around me serving to hamper my view of motorists; thus compromising my safety. 2) I would be concerned about civil liability. Am I now, as a uniformed police officer, responsible for the safety of said MADD members? My guess is yes. 3) Is it OK for these people to go from car to car staring at motorists? What if it was YOU driving home? Perhaps you are giving a lift to a co-worker of the opposite sex. Would you want your privacy violated? 4) I have never seen a police checkpoint that did not have a police supervisor present. I for one think that police should be supervised ranking officers, NOT by MADD members. I guess you can see that I am not so fond of this. I hope that the officers report this to their dreaded labor union and a challenge is issued to this invasive, unsafe policy. PLEASE do not turn this into a thing where it appears that I support DWI. I do NOT, and again, I am fine with the checkpoints. I do however have a problem with these people (MADD) doing what amounts to a visual search of my car. Jmo. 373932[/snapback] I agree with you, they shouldn't be there.
John Adams Posted July 3, 2005 Posted July 3, 2005 If MADD was truly effective, the death rate due to drunk driving would be close to zero. They've been around long enough to have a better track record on drunk driving than currently exists. 373949[/snapback] Do you only donate to charities that are 100% effective? That's a solid way to save money.
Tux of Borg Posted July 3, 2005 Posted July 3, 2005 I've never considered MADD to be a charitable organization. They hide behind their tax free status and force their prohibitionist views on society.
John Adams Posted July 3, 2005 Posted July 3, 2005 I've never considered MADD to be a charitable organization. They hide behind their tax free status and force their prohibitionist views on society. 374036[/snapback] You think? I've supported MADD, and never had that impression. I always saw them as singleminded: don't drink and drive, which is a pretty simple, clear, and good message. BTW, if a mother loses a child to a drunk driver, and goes prohibitionist, I won't throw stones. (It's like mothers who become pacifists after losing their children in war. I could argue with them about the necessity of some wars, but I wouldn't have the stomach to do it.)
Terry Tate Posted July 4, 2005 Posted July 4, 2005 I'm against DWI checkpoints period. I've never actually been stopped at one - I rarely drink, and rarely drink more than two beers when I do. Certainly don't drink and drive anywhere. And the chances of me being out driving on a Fri/Sat night are pretty slim (tells you something about my exciting social life). I just think it goes against the 4th amendment - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. I don't think being out driving Fri/Sat night is probable cause. But what do I know.
TheMadCap Posted July 4, 2005 Posted July 4, 2005 I'm against DWI checkpoints period. I've never actually been stopped at one - I rarely drink, and rarely drink more than two beers when I do. Certainly don't drink and drive anywhere. And the chances of me being out driving on a Fri/Sat night are pretty slim (tells you something about my exciting social life). I just think it goes against the 4th amendment - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. I don't think being out driving Fri/Sat night is probable cause. But what do I know. 374188[/snapback] I usually am of the opinion that anyone out past about 2 or 3 am is likely up to no good.
Tux of Borg Posted July 4, 2005 Posted July 4, 2005 I usually am of the opinion that anyone out past about 2 or 3 am is likely up to no good. 374379[/snapback] Why stop there... those African American kids look like they are up to no good.
VABills Posted July 4, 2005 Posted July 4, 2005 Why stop there... those African American kids look like they are up to no good. 374390[/snapback] Especially those in the innercity. Why are they there except to cause problems. </sarcasm> Damn you are trouble detox.
TheMadCap Posted July 4, 2005 Posted July 4, 2005 Why stop there... those African American kids look like they are up to no good. 374390[/snapback] That one looks jewish... And that one's a coon... WHO LET ALL THIS RIFF RAFF INTO THE ROOM??? There's one smoking a joint, and another with spots... If I had my way....I'D HAVE ALL OF YOU SHOT!!!!!!!
todd Posted July 5, 2005 Posted July 5, 2005 I do however have a problem with these people (MADD) doing what amounts to a visual search of my car. Jmo. 373932[/snapback] First off, SCREW UNIONS! Don't you think a police officer is more capable of spotting a drunk instead of some pissed-off civilian with an attitude?
Terry Tate Posted July 5, 2005 Posted July 5, 2005 I usually am of the opinion that anyone out past about 2 or 3 am is likely up to no good. I suppose that could be true. But I've worked jobs where I'd be driving to or from work in the wee hours of the morning. I don't think that is cause for the police to pull me over.
Recommended Posts