Mother and Teen Daughter Caught Smuggling Money!

[MrJonno]

Sure, but it can be a difference that makes no difference.

It's a policeman job to be suspicious of everyone, he is however restricted on how he can act on those suspicions but there is nothing wrong in having them

[JimC]

I have a big problem with "random" stops. It treats the people as if we're all suspects. The cops ought, in my view, have a good reason to meddle with a person. If they don't, they have no reason to suspect that person or block his or her way. Call me old fashioned.

Random breath tests are for a very definite purpose, and getting drunks off the road is a damned good thing.

Other types of random stops can be problematic, particularly if they involve cops with racist leanings, or simply bored and on a fishing expedition.

At our random breath tests, it's very quick, efficient and polite. You just wind down the window, blow into the tube, and you're on your way very soon after.

[Sean Hayden]

It's a policeman job to be suspicious of everyone, he is however restricted on how he can act on those suspicions but there is nothing wrong in having them

I don't think that's a policeman's job.

There is not always something wrong with being suspicious. But I think the restrictions are what we were discussing and I believe requiring probable cause prior to questioning is a good one. I don't think being suspicious is probable cause, but in practice that's also likely a difference that makes no difference.

It's easy to see the sense of requiring more than suspicion. Are cars suspicious? If so, why? I remember as a kid being pulled over with my step dad and he was obviously bothered by it. He doesn't get upset by much. When the cop had finished my step dad said angrily that we'd only been stopped because we were in a beat up truck in a nice neighborhood.

As an adult I realize that's just common knowledge. I know how to act to avoid suspicion even when appearing otherwise should not be suspicious -weird.

Why should poverty be suspicious? I don't think it is if you need probable cause, but if you're just an asshole like many people are then you can ignore things like problems with personal bias and just go with your gut. If you're a cop you may even do quite well. -scary thought

[MrJonno]

I was stopped for having a large sports bag and pacing up and down waiting for a train. It was a pain as the police made me open up my bag but I would rather thy did that then getting blown up.

[Coito ergo sum]

I have a big problem with "random" stops. It treats the people as if we're all suspects. The cops ought, in my view, have a good reason to meddle with a person. If they don't, they have no reason to suspect that person or block his or her way. Call me old fashioned.

Random breath tests are for a very definite purpose, and getting drunks off the road is a damned good thing.

Other types of random stops can be problematic, particularly if they involve cops with racist leanings, or simply bored and on a fishing expedition.

At our random breath tests, it's very quick, efficient and polite. You just wind down the window, blow into the tube, and you're on your way very soon after.

I don't think it's right to have to blow into tubes for cops if they don't have a good reason for asking me to do so. Driving down the road on a Saturday night is not a good reason.

That's like allowing cops to check a person's citizenship without a good reason to do so.

[pErvinalia]

It saves lives. Probably quite a lot. It's a fair trade off.

[Svartalf]

Does it and is it now? Sorry, but I have doubts.

[Coito ergo sum]

It saves lives. Probably quite a lot. It's a fair trade off.

I'm not convinced that it does save lives.

http://southtownstar.suntimes.com/opini ... oints.html Sobriety checkpoints do a bad job at identifying the drunks, and roving patrols looking for signs of drunken driving do a better job, according to this news article. Checkpoints are extremely expensive exercises in futility.

Moreover, it sets a bad precedent. You know what else could "arguably" make us safer? If cops were allowed to just walk into any home at any time for any reason and look for evidence of crimes. They'd find lots of criminals that way for sure.

Sobriety checkpoints don't work: http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index ... _work.html

But one group said DUI checkpoints are not the most effective way for police to crack down on drunk drivers.
The American Beverage Institute said police hand out more tickets for minor violations like broken taillights and expired insurance cards at DUI checkpoints, than they do for drunk driving.
In fact, the group thinks roving police patrols, also known as saturation patrols, are a more effective solution.
In the 2007 study, the American Beverage Institute found that Virginia had a .33 percent checkpoint success rate versus an 8.1 percent success rate for roving patrols. That means roving patrols were 24.5 times more effective catching drunk drivers than checkpoints, according to the study.

http://wtvr.com/2013/05/24/group-holida ... dont-work/

[Coito ergo sum]

Officials conducting sobriety checkpoints — like the one that took place in Johnson County recently — often fail to make even a single drunken driving arrest despite stopping hundreds of vehicles.

A 2009 University of Maryland study found that checkpoints don’t have “any impact on public perceptions, driver behaviors or alcohol-related crashes, police citations for impaired driving and public perceptions of alcohol-impaired driving risk.

” http://cjonline.com/opinion/2011-05-05/ ... -dont-work

[pErvinalia]

Maybe they do it differently in the US. But they get lots of people here. I don't see how it couldn't save lives.

Regarding your point about walking into your house... that's not really analogous. Being stopped very infrequently for literally seconds and blowing into a tube is such a minor inconvenience that it seems like a fair trade off to reduce levels of drink driving.

[Coito ergo sum]

Maybe they do it differently in the US. But they get lots of people here. I don't see how it couldn't save lives.

Well, if they forego a method that catches more drunks because they are allocating resources to a less effective measure, then they aren't catching as many drunks. That's what is happening here. The drunks learn about and avoid the checkpoints, because the whole idea of checkpoints is that they are public. And, they can't be on every road. Well, not here in the states because we have lots of roads.

Regarding your point about walking into your house... that's not really analogous. Being stopped very infrequently for literally seconds and blowing into a tube is such a minor inconvenience that it seems like a fair trade off to reduce levels of drink driving.

But, is there any evidence that it reduces levels of drunk driving?

[pErvinalia]

I don't see how it couldn't reduce the levels. The penalties are extremely harsh here. It's just not worth risking it.

[Coito ergo sum]

I don't see how it couldn't reduce the levels. The penalties are extremely harsh here. It's just not worth risking it.

Then there must be statistical evidence demonstrating it. Is there?

"I don't see how it couldn't..." isn't really a basis for anything.

One doesn't necessarily have to risk it -- people avoid the checkpoints because they're public and become known. So, you make sure you don't drive where the check point is. That's why the number of drunks apprehended at a checkpoint is very low. However, the roving sobriety cops that look for signs of drunk driving apprehend much more. So, if you want to save lives and discourage drunk driving, wouldn't you want to do what apprehends the most drunks?

[pErvinalia]

Maybe it's different in the states. The checkpoints are random here. There's no way to know where they are unless your mates ring you up and tell you. Are they in a fixed location in the US?

[Hermit]

I have a big problem with "random" stops. It treats the people as if we're all suspects. The cops ought, in my view, have a good reason to meddle with a person. If they don't, they have no reason to suspect that person or block his or her way. Call me old fashioned.

Random breath tests are for a very definite purpose, and getting drunks off the road is a damned good thing.

It saves lives. Probably quite a lot. It's a fair trade off.

Does it and is it now? Sorry, but I have doubts.

Care to check some facts? Start here: "In countries such as the United Kingdom and Australia drunk driving and deaths caused by drunk driving are considerably lower than the USA. Drunk driving deaths in the UK (population 61 million, 31 million cars) were 380 in 2010 (12% of all fatal accidents). In California (population 36 million, 32 million cars) there were 1,489 deaths from traffic accidents related to "alcohol or other drugs" in 2007 (22% of all fatal accidents). Alcohol consumption per capita in the UK and Australia is higher than the US and the legal age for drinking lower." Random breath testing saves lives.