DUI Checkpoint greatness

[theminch]

Texas does not allow DUI checkpoints thay are unconstituional, even though the US Supreme Court advised they are good to go. DONT DRINK AND DRIVE. I have worked too many fatalities, and the drunk always walks away

[mikec]

Very cool thing to do. As stated NOTHING pisses you off more than some twit swerve in front of you at the last minute because they did not want to wait their turn in line for a merge!

Had a Keller cop roll slow in the lane that was to merge, all the way from 2 miles back! it was priceless! Tip my hat to that cop.

I've never understood why those silly people that pour highways and such waste all that concrete in a merge lane. I mean, common sense would tell me to drive on the concrete that they poured (Usually intending for that concrete to be driven on) for the purpose of vehicles driving on that concrete up to the merge point.

Just seems so silly to waste all that expensive concrete when if they hadn't poured it the merge point would be much further back. Heck, why even have that extra lane up that point?

[SS Junk]

Maybe I don't get how a merge works in heavy traffic. I would rather the lane that is to merge wait until the road bottlenecks to get over rather than slow down right next to you with their signal on in hopes you'll let them in. If that means the merge lane travels faster then so be it. Traffic seems to go far smoother if cars move over at the last of the merge lane.

[likeitfast55]

Originally Posted by 03trubluGT
Look what I do for a living Eric. I have helped people for a long time, and I will never fix society's ills.

It's nice just to be a positive influence. One that guides junior officers and stands up to make morally right decisions.

Hell, yesterday I spent an hour out on 287 where it merges to I35 near downtown FTW. I hate people that run up to the merge and cut over, and I spent an hour pulling people out of that line and giving them the option to continue on the path that they were supposed to, or getting cited and continuing onto I35. Out of about 20 people given that option, none wanted the paper. I directed about 50 people back onto 287 and you should have seen the reaction from the drivers that had waited in line. I got a plethora of honks, thumbs up, and waves (no, not with a middle finger).

As a supervisor, am I obligated to do this? No.

I get job satisfaction out of helping the little guy. I did not make a single penny of revenue for the city.

Will my actions stop people from ever cutting over that line? No way.


Now back to my point. At least I tried to do something. I made an effort yesterday that was noticed and appreciated.

Very cool thing to do. As stated NOTHING pisses you off more than some twit swerve in front of you at the last minute because they did not want to wait their turn in line for a merge!

Had a Keller cop roll slow in the lane that was to merge, all the way from 2 miles back! it was priceless! Tip my hat to that cop.

[Blakeski]

There was apparently a DUI checkpoint in Allen tonight, buddy of mine drove past it and called me asking me about it. Anyone else see that?

[racrguy]

Could you slice a piece of information out of a huge section any worse?

There is so much lacking in that quote that it's hard to make an informed decision about it.

I really don't have to make a decision like that because I've never had to.

The procedures followed in Michigan and outlined above were never questioned by either the Michigan Appellate Court or the U.S. Supreme Court. The Michigan plan was analyzed under a Fourth Amendment reasonable analysis by both courts. We believe that the Supreme Court implicitly makes it a requirement that for any DWI checkpoint program to pass constitutional muster, it must at a basic minimum be authorized by a statewide policy emanating from a politically accountable governing body. The procedure followed in Michigan in enacting such a program is an example to be followed in Texas when considering DWI checkpoint programs.
The Fort Worth Court of Appeals stated that the above-quoted language from the U.S. Supreme Court in Sitz, 496 U.S. at 453, 110 S.Ct. at 2487, "instructs courts to defer to officials' choice of enforcement techniques when analyzing prong two of the Brown test." Holt, supra, 852 S.W.2d at 49 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1993). We believe this is incorrect. The courts, under Sitz, are not to blindly defer to whatever enforcement techniques are chosen by the officials. Not only must the threshold finding of statewide authorization be made by the courts, but once a state empowers its peace officers with the authority to conduct DWI roadblocks, the enforcement techniques chosen by such officials must be analyzed by the courts to insure that they are in fact reasonable. To blanketly sanction whatever methodology was used by peace officers authorized to conduct DWI roadblocks would circumvent the entire realm of Fourth Amendment search and seizure jurisprudence.

I bolded the important part. I also linked the whole decision while you were replying. I was reading through it and realized I hadn't included a link to the decision.

[Randy]

Does that also include the fucking morons who could have gotten over half a mile ago when they first saw the road signs saying the lane is closed and the flashing arrow in the distance, but wait until the lane ends completely and expect you to let them right on in? Because those cocksuckers REALLY piss me off.

^ This X1000 I normally scooch over on them or just ride the person in front of me cause i wont let them in.

[Geor!]

THANK YOU, Nothing pisses me off more than waiting my turn than having some one drive up shoulder or wrong lane and try to push there way in front of me.

Does that also include the fucking morons who could have gotten over half a mile ago when they first saw the road signs saying the lane is closed and the flashing arrow in the distance, but wait until the lane ends completely and expect you to let them right on in? Because those cocksuckers REALLY piss me off.

[03trubluGT]

Again we have the integrity issue. The Texas Criminal Court of Appeals says

This clearly states that in Texas you cannot conduct DWI checkpoints at this point in time. You mean to tell me that if Texas officers refused to conduct a DWI checkpoint they could possibly be fired?

Edit: Oh, wait. Now they call them DL checkpoints, at which they just happen to ask you if you've been drinking.

Could you slice a piece of information out of a huge section any worse?

There is so much lacking in that quote that it's hard to make an informed decision about it.

I really don't have to make a decision like that because I've never had to.

[Mike]

Shut the fuck up.

Blow a goat.

[racrguy]

You don't have to fire every one of them. Just one and they will get the picture.

Haven't you ever seen Tombstone where the good guy holds off all the red sashes with one gun? You don't have to shoot them all, just make them not want to be the first one shot.

Again we have the integrity issue. The Texas Criminal Court of Appeals says

The procedures followed in Michigan and outlined above were never questioned by either the Michigan Appellate Court or the U.S. Supreme Court. The Michigan plan was analyzed under a Fourth Amendment reasonable analysis by both courts. We believe that the Supreme Court implicitly makes it a requirement that for any DWI checkpoint program to pass constitutional muster, it must at a basic minimum be authorized by a statewide policy emanating from a politically accountable governing body. The procedure followed in Michigan in enacting such a program is an example to be followed in Texas when considering DWI checkpoint programs.
The Fort Worth Court of Appeals stated that the above-quoted language from the U.S. Supreme Court in Sitz, 496 U.S. at 453, 110 S.Ct. at 2487, "instructs courts to defer to officials' choice of enforcement techniques when analyzing prong two of the Brown test." Holt, supra, 852 S.W.2d at 49 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1993). We believe this is incorrect. The courts, under Sitz, are not to blindly defer to whatever enforcement techniques are chosen by the officials. Not only must the threshold finding of statewide authorization be made by the courts, but once a state empowers its peace officers with the authority to conduct DWI roadblocks, the enforcement techniques chosen by such officials must be analyzed by the courts to insure that they are in fact reasonable. To blanketly sanction whatever methodology was used by peace officers authorized to conduct DWI roadblocks would circumvent the entire realm of Fourth Amendment search and seizure jurisprudence.

This clearly states that in Texas you cannot conduct DWI checkpoints at this point in time. You mean to tell me that if Texas officers refused to conduct a DWI checkpoint they could possibly be fired?

Edit: Oh, wait. Now they call them DL checkpoints, at which they just happen to ask you if you've been drinking.

Edit#2 forgot the link. http://174.123.24.242/leagle/xmlResu...006&SizeDisp=7

[Samhain]

Hmmm... Four hundred bucks a week AND the finest medical care the state can provide? Well I missed that gravy train

[03trubluGT]

You're stupid if you think the chief is going to fire every officer he's got.

You don't have to fire every one of them. Just one and they will get the picture.

Haven't you ever seen Tombstone where the good guy holds off all the red sashes with one gun? You don't have to shoot them all, just make them not want to be the first one shot.

[racrguy]

And loose there job? Smart move.

You're stupid if you think the chief is going to fire every officer he's got.

[cde21]

THANK YOU, Nothing pisses me off more than waiting my turn than having some one drive up shoulder or wrong lane and try to push there way in front of me.

x1million!! I hate those bastards that do that shit. I scoot over as far as possible without losing my spot in line just to block them lol