New push to reinstate state sobriety checkpoints

khernau said on February 13, 2012 at 9:57 AM

We actually have a couple of these checkpoints in my state. I remember seeing one on my way back from the . I think it's a good idea to help make roads safer, but it is a bit of an inconvenience for others who are just trying to pass through.

Redeemed said on January 13, 2012 at 9:55 AM

The only way I am okay with road blocks is if they are placed at the entrance and exits of drinking establishments, my freedom should not be delayed by the mismanagement of public safety resources.

Rickcarol said on January 12, 2012 at 6:14 PM

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~ Benjamin Franklin Can Klippert, Goodman, McCune, and Haler be sued for attempted Treason in a peoples court? Since this is a blatant attack on our Fourth Amendment right. If so sign me up for the class action lawsuit!!

josefina said on January 12, 2012 at 4:28 PM

O.K., let's take it one step further. Everybody must stay home after 8 PM until 3 AM. Put up roadblocks and guard shacks at every major intersection. Lock everybody up for 24 hours if they are found in a car. Problem solved.

Rattler said on January 12, 2012 at 2:35 PM

Facism one step at a time....unreasonable search ... sorry but the constitution was designed to make it tough to search without probable cause. I'll take the risk of a drunk driver against the risk of a police state gone amok!!

bfailing21667331 said on January 12, 2012 at 2:12 PM

That is a joke Drunk driving deaths in Washington are down from previous years there were a total of 492 driving fatalities (last statistics available 2009) down from 521 the previous year and only 232 of those deaths were alcohol related. Just another excuse to up the budget for bad police work

snakepliskin said on January 12, 2012 at 2:11 PM

There's no difference in getting strip searched by TSA or having your car searched by the police just because you're driving down a road. It's the same pesky old 4th amendment issue. If you agree to these drunk checkpoints, then you agree to your children and parents being violated by TSA goons. They are your rights to give away or to keep. One thing that is worse than a drunk on the road is someone who gives away our rights and allows this facsim to become stronger. The sad thing, there a lot more traitors out there than there are drunks.

kboard306 said on January 12, 2012 at 1:36 PM

I truely hope this comes to be. If it gets one drunk off the road, then the roads are safer. Some of you may disagree, but that drunk who is off the road just might have been the one to hit you if the check point had not been in place. As for people who are reading, talking on the phone, texting, watching videos...I would like to think that would be reduced too if the person knows they might run into a check point. As for apps that would tell people where the checkpoints are, I guess anything is possible and we are not going to stop everyone. Some people will find a way to defeat the check points but most won't, especially if they are drunk and not thinking clearly. I will say that if the checkpoints are randomly placed, it will be hard for anyone to know where they are. The police will need to keep the locations secret if it is going to work.

Redeemed said on January 12, 2012 at 1:13 PM

I am more concerned about the folks texting, applying make-up, eating, watching videos etc behind the wheel. I am more appt to run into one of these folks then at 1am in the morning. Also if we have apps for the 520 bridge I know there will be checkpoint apps out there and this exercise in futility will be all for not.

logic14 said on January 12, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Maybe the courts could actually punish the DUI's that are already arrested. They (Dui's) do not pay $5000 in fines, they don't lose their licenses, and don't spend time in jail. Why pass more laws when we fail to effectively enforce existing laws?

Michael_Muns9e7 said on January 12, 2012 at 1:11 PM

Of course the tribes, the biggest violators of DUI laws, would be exempt.

freedomfrank said on January 12, 2012 at 12:53 PM

No,, if it was against our constitution then its against our constitution now. No,

swatguy said on January 12, 2012 at 12:34 PM

For all of the lawyers opining about the unconstitutionality of sobriety checkpoints, the US Supreme Court in 1990 upheld properly conducted checkpoint programs. Our state, go figure, says the complete opposite.

Daytrader said on January 12, 2012 at 12:30 PM

38 states have common sense and reason when its comes to a public safety issue, than you have the remaining 12 another states that let liberal left wing judges have their run over state laws.

zaxxon7469 said on January 12, 2012 at 12:18 PM

in this day and age of instantous conmunication, I doubt these check points would help because as soon as one spang up you could get a tweet or intsant notification and ignore that route. just anybody its always drunks on the social websites. by law a police oficer has to has suffient cause to pull you over, detain you or even question you. what ever happened to 888-HERO call line. You have a system that fails because it was just a senate get me re-elected paper plan. put more to it. but squad cars at areas where you would set upa acheck point, and wait for the drunk to swerve by. if some one reports, then you have a car ready to respond. as oposed to just have your licence plate recored as a possable offender. don't forget to use your hand free phone.

Sir_Real said on January 12, 2012 at 12:18 PM

Well if he does not like the constitution, he can git out! Conservatives defacing the constitution like this are the main reason why they should not be voted into power.. how pathetic to use drunk driving to pass their freedom hating propaganda.

solutions said on January 12, 2012 at 12:07 PM

And the state will name these officers the "SS" (Sobriety Security) And design their uniforms to have swastika's. Give them the authority to herd certain ethnic groups into railroad cars and transport them to "Work Camps". ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME???? This is the land of the free!!! Freedom of choice!!!! This says to me, the lawmakers believe "We the People" are not smart enough to make our own decisions and follow the laws already in place and not willing to pay the price if we break them. Next bill on the way,,,,,,,,,,,,, "Suppressing the peoples freedom of speech, they are to stupid to speak".

OpinionDeleted said on January 12, 2012 at 11:59 AM

The day we get ALL Law Enforcement AND our elected politicians to submit to random alcohol and random illegal drug tests, is the day i will support check points.

William_West018 said on January 12, 2012 at 11:41 AM

Guilty until proven innocent in WA state. "Show me your papers!" Seriously - there are people who actually believe the police should have the right to randomly stop you without cause? Wow!

treeclimber said on January 12, 2012 at 11:07 AM

what needs to happen is find out where the elegal checkpoints are and have a sit in,or in this case a drive threw..it was ruled by the us supreme court over 150 years ago that a police offIcer in the U.S.A. HAS NO AUTHORITY AND HAS NO RIGHT TO DETAIN and intergrate SOME ONE IF A CRIME HAS NOT BEEN COMMITED..

charleylechein said on January 12, 2012 at 11:05 AM

sir real... Now, some state lawmakers want to bring back sobriety checkpoints, and they have the support of retired assistant chief of Washington State Patrol Brian Ursino.............. "We're six percentage points higher than the national average, which is not very good. That's way too many fatalities," said Ursino, who now serves on the National Board of Directors for Mother's Against Drunk Driving. ................ .......................... cant frire a man thats retired.

davebrownspoint said on January 12, 2012 at 11:04 AM

The right wingers are against socialism and government interference, except when it comes to police and military who get free reign. The Supreme Court is packed with syncophants who let the Congress and States run wild. This is wrong, this is unconstitutional.

SeniorMoment said on January 12, 2012 at 11:02 AM

The statistics don't matter. State Supreme Court decisions, unless overturned by federal courts, are the law. That is also why the state should give up on imposing an income tax. The WA Supreme Court has made it clear the WA Constitution, of which it is the final arbiter, does not give the legislators the right to create a state income tax. In fact while the last campaign to create a state income tax was going on, the Washington Supreme Court website made clear where the Court stands--in firm opposition to any form of income tax applied to anyone in the state. Perhaps it would be more fruitful for the state legislature to simply sue the State of Oregon in Federal District Court on up through the U. S. Supreme Court, to give Washington the income taxes paid by Washington residents for work inside Oregon. I told my wife not to work at all in Oregon because they would then tax a part of our pension earned in CO too.

tpete19 said on January 12, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Do they not realize we all have smartphones and the ability to instantly report a police checkpoint to all other drivers on the road? Those checkpoints will turn into a very boring shift for those cops...

Dj_Allyn4e4 said on January 12, 2012 at 10:50 AM

@ underserf: Driving might be a privilege, but the right to be free from search and seizure without cause and a warrant trumps any privilege. It seems to me that a more effective approach to combating drunk driving is to simply station cops outside of bars and have them observe who gets into the cars drunk. They will then satisfy their "probable cause" to pull a vehicle over. Simple solution, cost effective, and does not violate the rights of the rest of us.

otter814u said on January 12, 2012 at 10:45 AM

They already do this, I have been stopped twice and lied to each time by the officers involved. This just means the state will once more make it legal so the officers cannot be accused of breaking the law, which they were doing.

underserf said on January 12, 2012 at 10:17 AM

Welp, they test new mothers for cocaine, students for steroids, the precedents are established, just a matter of a clever lawmaker expanding the same precedents to include driving on PUBLIC roads. Recall, the CHECKPOINTS aren't unconstitutional, the law the permitted them was - so rewrite the law, make EtOH use on public roads the same priority and punishments as downtown crackheads...

underserf said on January 12, 2012 at 10:13 AM

first, collegeguy, you have EXACTLY as many "rights" as the officer with the gun (and a license to kill) wants you to have - smart off @ a checkpoint and you WILL be in jail that night, and the cop goes home to his family. Since it was deemed perfectly legal to set up checkpoints on the way to The Gorge, I should think it's a long-moot point - after all, you have NO right to drive whatsoever, don't like Soviet-style checkpoints, ride the bus. At least they don't bring drug dogs on Metro the way the do to Greyhounds around the Gorge...

horseboy said on January 12, 2012 at 10:12 AM

I thought we were blaming Costco for drunk drivers? Did I miss a chapter? I have to admit I was partying in Victoria, BC for New Years recently and got stopped at a checkpoint like this. None of us had been drinking, but it certainly made us much more careful of what we did that evening. I am for the idea, if you're on the the road you need to be ready to follow the rules. That goes for all the rules of driving too! Some of you need some driver's education classes and think the state could make big money teaching people to drive.

mhungry said on January 12, 2012 at 10:05 AM

Just Say No. Absolutely not. I've been through way too many "checkpoints" in BC. They are a waste of everyone's time. I don't mind, and am actually in favor of the "side benefits" of the checkpoints: making sure peoples' vehicles are in proper compliance (lights, etc), making sure people have insurance like they're supposed. That part of it actually doesn't bother me one bit. What bothers me is that in doing this, the majority is assumed to be guilty in order to catch a minority. That's not OK with me.

Myview said on January 12, 2012 at 9:46 AM

we should also have house to house searches for illegal drugs, or contraband, and to hell with voting a dictator should be appointed. You can accomplish a lot with statics making your view so justified, what that would be doing is going from America land of the free to America land of Home Security.

mmullvain said on January 12, 2012 at 9:41 AM

This is so unconstitutional. It will also have an serious negative affect on the local economy if it actually passed into law. People will not go out if there is risk of having even one drink and being punished for it. This is all about more money and busting people on onther things like a headlight out or expired tabs. Supreme Court already said no, now give it a rest and stop trying to violate peoples rights. Why don't you just wright a law that allows the police to break into my home anytime they want and do a quick search just to see if they can actually find anything. Who knows, maybe they can argue that my old paint cans in the garage are potential famable bombs and can arrest me for terrorsim and sieze my home and assets. What's wrong with you WA lawmakers? Does land of the free mean anything to you idiots? When Chris Gregoire dies, are you going to make the WA police force us to kneal down at her memorial and cry?

collegeguy said on January 12, 2012 at 9:27 AM

There is a reason that the Supreme Court of Wa found it unconstitutional... it is unconstitutional by means of the 4th amendment. If I EVER get stopped at a Drunk driving check point, I will file a lawsuit saying that my rights have been violated. I understand it is for public safety reasons but I am sorry, this is a violation of everything that this country is about.

Redeemed said on January 12, 2012 at 9:21 AM

People will always go out for drinks and therefore inevitably will not make the same rational decision about driving as they would before drinking. Therefore why are we not addressing the real issue of getting drunk people home safely, that is keeping them from getting behind the wheel in the first place. Why should I be delayed due to some folks inability to make rational decisions because they have intoxicated themselves and choose to do something they may not normally do that being operating heavy equipment putting others at risk. We should allow bar owners without repercussion to require their patrons check keys at bar and require a breathalyzer and or be detained be detained there on site before they get a chance to get on the road at. This would be prevention and intervention prior to even risking by allowing for a random road check to get these drunks off our streets.

awol50 said on January 12, 2012 at 9:11 AM

Once again, this has nothing to do with catching drunks, but everything to do with revenue enhancement. In other states that use this gestapo tactic, almost all the citations are for trivial things other than driving drunk such as a broken taillight or seatbelts among other things. But one thing that this will never be used for is checking for illegals, which it should.

dehsa1 said on January 12, 2012 at 9:11 AM

Does unconstitutionality , somehow , change??

puyallup_leon078 said on January 12, 2012 at 9:01 AM

They will just use this new law as a reason to give out a whole bunch of tickets unrelated to drinking and driving. Unconstitutional.....

Sir_Real said on January 12, 2012 at 8:49 AM

Fire MR. Usino! Send him back to North Korea!

stonetrails said on January 12, 2012 at 8:43 AM

Hey Washington, why not just kick our doors in, take our wallets, yank our pants off, stick it in and wiggle it most vigorously. After all, we live to serve you Washington! "Protect and Serve", LOL. Me thinkest more like "Attack and Pillage"