• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

How many checkpoints catch no DUIs?

Wow, "the weird things you've seen people drunk from" is probably worthy of it's own thread! When listerine was mentioned, I hadn't even considered that someone would swallow it, I thought it was a false positive kind of thing. Nope!
 
byke said:
Wow, "the weird things you've seen people drunk from" is probably worthy of it's own thread! When listerine was mentioned, I hadn't even considered that someone would swallow it, I thought it was a false positive kind of thing. Nope!
Click to expand...

Naw! In order to get a false positive with mouth alcohol from listerine or binaca one would have to spray/swig some immediately before blowing into the machine. Otherwise it dissipates in seconds.
 
Rel said:
We had a guy hammered, I mean HAMMERED on vanilla extract a few weeks ago..... :facepalm
Click to expand...

keebler1.jpg
 
^^^ :laughing

bojangle said:
Naw! In order to get a false positive with mouth alcohol from listerine or binaca one would have to spray/swig some immediately before blowing into the machine. Otherwise it dissipates in seconds.
Click to expand...

Ahhh, is that why they/you like long blows (NPI)? To average out whatever is only in the mouth?
 
bojangle said:
That's a thing? I never heard of anyone getting hammered on vanilla extract. Wouldn't have thought it was possible.
Click to expand...

Plenty of alcohol in it...what I don't get is that it can't possibly be cheaper to consume enough to get a buzz off it.
 
Vanilla extract is 40 % at 4 bucks a bottle. Drinking that amount to get you hammered will destroy your liver pretty damn quick.
 
hopefully there wasn't any DUI drivers that night because people are learning, its not worth it. and funny on the arrest of the guy drinking Listerine and the vanilla extract guy:rofl
 
Rel said:
Honestly, Im not sure. I think that its part of the requirements for having a DUI checkpoint. Might be part of case law, or the grant or previous case rulings. :dunno
Click to expand...

Ingersoll v. Palmer, 43 Cal.3d 1321 (1987) (California Supreme Court)

"Advance publicity is important to the maintenance of a constitutionally permissible sobriety checkpoint. Publicity both reduces the intrusiveness of the stop and increases the deterrent effect of the roadblock.

The concurring opinion in State ex rel. Ekstrom v. Justice Ct. of State, supra, 663 P.2d 992, at page 1001 explained the value of advance publicity: "Such publicity would warn those using the highways that they might expect to find roadblocks designed to check for sobriety; the warning may well decrease the chance of apprehending `ordinary' criminals, but should certainly have a considerable deterring effect by either dissuading people from taking `one more for the road,' persuading them to drink at home, or inducing them to take taxicabs. Any one of these goals, if achieved, would have the salutary effect of interfering with the lethal combination of alcohol and gasoline. Advance notice would limit intrusion upon personal dignity and security because those being stopped would anticipate and understand what was happening." (663 P.2d 992, 1001, conc. opn. Feldman, J.; see also State v. Deskins, supra, 673 P.2d 1174, 1182.)

Publicity also serves to establish the legitimacy of sobriety checkpoints in the minds of motorists. Although the court in Jones v. State, supra, 459 So.2d 1068, found that advance publicity was not constitutionally mandated for all sobriety roadblocks, nevertheless the court offered the observation, consistent with finding reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment, that 1347*1347 "`[A]dvance publication of the date of an intended roadblock, even without announcing its precise location, would have the virtue of reducing surprise, fear, and inconvenience.' [Citation.]" (Id., at p. 1080.)

In the instant case, substantial advance publicity accompanied each sobriety checkpoint instituted."
 
Hmmm...I thought it was a USSC deal. Then again, the states make the choice to use sobriety checkpoints or not so it's probably left up to the states whether or not advanced notice is required too.
 
Depends what you mean by advance notice. There is advance publicity and then advance notice (like posting up big ole signs that a DUI checkpoint is coming up). The Supreme Court weighed in on DUI checkpoints (Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990)) subsequent to Ingersoll, but the majority didn't require advance publicity. Either way, for CA, Ingersoll is one of the sources in case law, and does a good job of laying out the different requirements for a checkpoint.
 
Last edited:
Wouldn't it be more effective to rotate around to all the bars, have an observer inside noting who is drinking and how much, and then when they leave if they get behind the wheel, pull them over? I mean, if your goal is REALLY to catch DUIs, then I think that would work a hell of a lot better...
 
byke said:
Ahhh, is that why they/you like long blows (NPI)? To average out whatever is only in the mouth?
Click to expand...

Yeah, the machines require long blows to get the deep lung alcohol. We are also required to do 15-minute observations before administering to make sure nothing is consumed or regurgitated.

But I've seen a test done immediately following a squirt of binaca in the mouth. The readings were sky high. A retest in less than a minute showed 0.00%. The breath tests are designed to get accurate results and prevent false positives.
 
DaveT319 said:
Wouldn't it be more effective to rotate around to all the bars, have an observer inside noting who is drinking and how much, and then when they leave if they get behind the wheel, pull them over? I mean, if your goal is REALLY to catch DUIs, then I think that would work a hell of a lot better...
Click to expand...

And if they lose the car, the driver crashes and kills someone, then the dept is held liable for letting him get behind the wheel knowing he was too drunk to drive?

The goal isn't catching drunk drivers. The goal is keeping drunk drivers off the road. That's why checkpoints are as much an public awareness and deterrent as they are an enforcement action.
 
Last edited:
Nick said:
The goal isn't catching drunk drivers. The goal is keeping drunk drivers off the road. That's why checkpoints are as much an public awareness and deterrent as they are an enforcement action.
Click to expand...

I wish LEOs would use the same reasoning when hiding to catch speeders.
 
Don't forget about people who soak tampons in vodka and then hide them in their asses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top