Man flees DUI checkpoint; passenger dies

I watched a young man flee a DUI checkpoint on the Country Club Plaza about 1:15 a.m. today and crash into another car and a lightpole. His passenger died.
I watched rescuers pull the still-living driver from the Pontiac G6 that had been travelling an estimated 70 mph when the collisions occurred.
The car they'd bounced off of, a red Saturn, sat a couple hundred feet away with a badly crumpled driver's side. I saw at least two ambulances on the scene; officers said later the Saturn driver was taken to the hospital too.
I saw these things while observing the DUI checkpoint at 46th Terrace and J.C. Nichols Parkway, a joint operation of KC police and the Missouri Highway Patrol, with a motorcycle assist from the county sheriff's office.
I was standing across the street from the checkpoint about 1:15 a.m., listening to Sgt. Roger Hill talk to complaining passengers who'd been left standing in the 38-degree cold while their drinking drivers were being checked for sobriety.
Suddenly I heard tires squealing and turned. I saw an officer start to take off after the Pontiac, which was disappearing over the hill. Then there was the loud crunch of crumpling metal. I heard an officer say, "He's involved."
I spoke with two officers the driver had narrowly missed when he turned around after already entering the checkpoint. As we spoke, an observer from the county prosecutor's office rode up and jumped out of a fire batt chief's car.
"A prosecutor shouldn't have to see sh*t like that!" he said excitedly. "They're splattered all over."
It's 3 a.m. Saturday. Updates to come.

Star story Saturday

Saturday, March 18, 2006:
Update 10:30 a.m. - It was the passenger, not driver, who died, police said this morning.
Update 11:15 a.m. - Jackson County multi-agency DUI results
Update 5:49 p.m. - Car was a Pontiac G6; fatally injured passenger was 18 years old

Sunday, March 19, 2006
Driver's decision to flee is deadly (Star story)

Monday, March 20, 2006:
It'll be a while before we get driver BAC: Update
St. Pat's organizer: What more can we do?

Comments

[joe]

WHAT THE HELL WERE THE COPS DOING...
AGAIN..THESE IDIOT STEROID MANIAC COPS
SHOULD HAVE LET THE CAR GO...LET THEM
OUT OF THE CHECKPOINT...DON'T PURSUS
THE KIDS IN THECAR...ITS OKAY...
LET THEM OUT OF THE BULLSH_T TRAP...
WHY ENDANGER 5 OR 6 PEOPLES LIVES TO
HAUL IN ONE POTENTIAL (WE DONT EVEN KNOW
IF THEY WERE DRUNK IN THE FIRST PLACE)
DRUNK.
THE COPS SHOULD LET THEM GO...THEY SHOULD
HAVE LET BE AND NOONE WOULD HAVE DIED
THAT NIGHT. ON ST. PATS DAY THERE ARE
THOUSANDS OF DRUNKS ON THE ROADS...
AGAIN THE COPS PURSUIT KILLS INNOCENT
PEOPLE....WHY DO THE IDIOT COPS CONTINUE
TO PURSUE PEOPLE IN CARS WHEN THEY KNOW
THAT PURSUIT CAN KILL PEOPLE...STOP THE
INSANITY!

[Joshua]

To the writer of the last message:
If you read the first post, you will note that that author stated they 'heard squealing tires' THEN they observed a police officer 'start' after them. At no time does it state the officer pursued them. It is standard practice at a checkpoint for officers to be assigned to attempt to stop drivers who avoid the checkpoint, as those drivers are usually wishing to hide something.
If the deceased driver had simply either stopped at the checkpoint or not driven if they were intoxicated, this tragedy probably would not have happened. The police officers only REACT to what the people they are dealing with do. Police Officers do not MAKE those people do what they do.
I am given the impression that the author of the last post does not feel that driving intoxicated is at all serious. Driving intoxicated IS attempted murder the instant an intoxicated driver starts the car. I have had friends killed by intoxicated drivers and hope the last author never has to experience that.
To all those reading these posts, please make wise choices when you go out with your friends, what you decide mayeffect thousands of people.

[duh]

Good riddence! It's nice to hear that Darwin's theory hasn't been completed repealed.

I am disturbed to hear anyone state that cops should let a potentialy intoxicated person go. I do enjoy going out with my friends and yes occasionally I do drink....

The difference is this, I do not drive if I am drinking, not only because of the potential consequences of dealing with a DUI, but because over the years I have seen many accidents with fatalities of people that were under the influence.

I do not agree with the first two opinions, this accident would have happened regardless due to the carelessnes of the driver. It is unfortunate, because not only has the young driver affected the lives of the families who's loved ones were killed.

He has affected his own life with the consequences he must face.

[Aerosquid]

i'm guessing the cops were upset that they didn't get to tazer the guy to death.

[Speedo]

Anyone who thinks it's okay to drive 70mph on the Plaza, while drunk, probably needs to get out of the gene pool. I think it's called "Thinning the herd."

[WSU Grad]

Why do police always get the finger pointed at them? I suppose they let them go and the suspects run up over a sidewalk and kill a group of 6 people! Then it's the cops fault for not trying to apprehend them!?! How ignorant. By the way, they announced their checkpoint...der.

Some cops are a-holes but without law enforcement this place would be a living Hades. Think about it.

[Eldon Painter]

What a terrible tragedy. I saw what was left of the cars early this morning after the crash. I'm not going to blame anyone, but the laws have changed over the years on drinking and driving and the cost of a DUI. Everyone knows that a drunk driver can kill, and recieve more time in jail, and have enormous fines than a street thug that kills someone. I can't say what was going through that young mans mind when he ran from the DUI checkpoint. Maybe going to jail,all of fines, and attorney fees scared him and he didn't make the right decision. We should all pray for his family.

[ciajoe]

Once again, pursuit policies will be a hot
topic of discussion due to this.

I can honestly say I am glad it wasnt my
family driving down the road falling victim
to a drunk driver.

I certainly don't agree with the comments
of whomever the individual was getting out
of the fire captains vehicle, and I don't
blame the officer who was doing his job
pursuing the vehicle either.

[jvinkc]

I suggest the author of the first comment gets a reality check (and grammar check). Any city allows free ride-alongs with the police for their residents. He can go tell them they are "idiot steriod maniacs" to their faces if he/she wants.

[Mel]

I don't believe in check points. I think that drunk drivers should be stopped and ticketed but only if they are doing something wrong. The laws on drinking and driving have gotten so stricked that a person can't even go out to dinner and have a couple drinks without having to worry about a DUI. I drove home last night at about 10 pm and could have have picked out at least 10 cars with intoxicated drivers. But no one was seeing them weave in and out of traffic because so many policeman were tied up stopping people that were not weaving in and out. Get rid of the check points and put the policeman on more streets. And yes I had 2 beers before driving last night.

[Robert WitbolsFeugen]

Why does society only enforce intoxication limits after the drunks drive an automobile? Most people who drink too much are dangerous long before they start driving.
As one blogger noted, it is fairly easy to spot a drunk why wait till he hides behind a tinted windshield? A few officers in the crowd trained to spot a drunk and call him a cab might be a solution.

[Jimmy conway]

Stop blaming police officers for doing their jobs. This kid had issues before he even got behind the wheel. Once again the parents have failed and raised another idiot that society has to babysit (not anymore). Watch the news last night, idiots punching women in Westport during parade, jumping on her car. Wake up people and police your children. Teach them to behave out in public and the police will not have to get involved. Start the draft.

[Scott R.]

Who here is just upset that they can not drink and drive?
OK Numero uno... the guy turned and fled the checkpoint. My first guess is he was going 70 about the time the cop went to chase him. Because if you read... you will see he made it 3 blocks before crashing. Not like it was a 15 mile chase.
Numero dos. Police shouldn't have to wait in the crowd to call people cabs. Being drunk at a bar is not illegal. Being stupid enough to get behind the wheel is. It is YOUR or your friends responsibility to make sure you do not drive. Not an officer. Take care of yourselves and don't expect someone else to do it for you.
Number 3. I know I switched gears witht he numbers. If your only deterrant for not drinking and driving is possibly going to jail then you need to seek help. If you are no longer worried about your safety, your passengers safeties, and everyone else you may ram your '78 oldsmobile into on any given friday, you have lost sight of the important things in life. Like breathing.

Whether the driver was drunk, had warrants, no DL, no insurance or had dope with him, he made the decision to turn and flee. It's the driver's fault. If they would have taken responsibility for their situation, nobody would have been killed, hurt or made to suffer from looking at the aftermath. Very selfish and cruel.

I've been through two check points in my life. I was the designated sober driver for my group of friends the first time. It was quick and painless for us, not so for the guy who came before us. He was being cuffed, but he did cooperate.

Second time, along with the usual ID check and "where have you been and where are you going" routine, a police dog was used. Lucky dog found and ate a couple of fries that were on the floorboard and then he alerted on something. I thought for a second that the police planted dope in my car. The something was a tennis ball he retrieved from under the passenger seat after being given a command. The officers laughed. I didn't.

I still agree with having check points. I wish there were check points done by every bar on a daily basis. Too many times I've been the one to have a weaving car on my bumper or the plastered person who is attracted to the oncoming, shiny headlights of my car and drifts into my lane.

[Ed]

Checkpoints are a guilty until proven innocent trap that infringe on basic constitutional rights of personal privacy. Yes I think you should be guilty of doing something before the cops can stop and interrogate you. Notice the fault was the driver, but it was caused by the reaction top a nazi checkpoint. Cops should inly stop those who are doing something wrong. Simple.

[thomas]

All those that blame the police for setting up checkpoints will be the first to complain when a drunk driver kills one of their family. Thru their sobs and grief, they will complain that the police should have set up checkpoints and taken the drunks off of the street.

It is real simple: Go have a good time, drink all you want, but don't drive. Why don't people get this?

[Zithromyicin]

Driving intoxicated IS attempted murder the instant an intoxicated driver starts the car.

No it isn't. Don't thin a word's meaning by trying to apply it where it doesn't.

Sorry about the loss of your friends.

[Demetri]

I saw that wreck happen last night, what a crazy horrible night. It was my brother's 21st bday on top of everything. I saw a fight and another girl got the living CRAP beat out of her, teeth were knocked out and she had blood everywhere. THEN I see that wreck happened. I pulled over to help but the cops were already there.

I started crying for the families and I felt so helpless.
My prayers to the families of those kids who died.

[Ron]

Check points do not help alleviat the problem of drunk driving. If the police were on the street more you could spot ten times the amt of people driving drunk than you could at a check point. Granted this kid was going to run anyway so dont try and blame the police on that. He most likely was doing something illegal

[M. Wano]

My husband and I were talking last night about the inability to simply call a cab or designate a sober driver when groups of people go out.

Why is it still so hard for people to think rationally about the consequenses of driving while intoxicated? There's absolutely no excuse for not being responsible enough to find a way to get yourself and your friends home.

You think the checkpoint was the cause of the crash? Think again. That person was already in the vehicle driving to wherever he'd planned to go. That wreck could have happened anywhere. Just so happened the driver ignored all of the announcments (or might not have rememberred the location of the checkpoint in their drunken stupor), became scared, and decided to floor it again. Do you think that he'd obeyed all traffic laws and driven responsibly up untill that point? Yeah, right.

Frankly, I'm glad for checkpoints. If you'll read the DUI results, you'll see all of the good those officers did last night. Just think of all of the people who got to spend a night in jail, sobering up, off of the streets that could have killed you, or your family, or your friends. And maybe because of that experience, they'll think twice next time about being responsible when they choose to go out and get drunk.

England out of Ireland!

If England would release our people, St Patrick's day would be a day of no liquor. NO DUI, no accidents, no deaths. Blame it on the English.

[Drunk]

You all know that the system is set up so that you can have these tickets dropped down to many lesser charges if you are willing to pay up & increase your fine. This gives money for additional law enforcement. Didn't need to end this way. Driver should have just faced the music & cleaned up his mess later.

Maybe he can still get off for Failure to Yield (to a lightpole).

[Lightpole]

The law can be twisted in many ways. Even around a lightpole. The key is that you have to make it to court alive.

[E.P.]

Please, their are devistated family members that could read what some of you insensitive people are writing about their loved ones. "failure to yield a lightpole, making it to court alive. I hope an accident like this doesn't happen to you or any of your family members, but if it does, accept that their are people like yourself ready to bash you.

As a bartender in Westport who is the first to refuse service to someone who is intoxicated (and it most certainly is illegal to serve an intoxicated person - the writer below who said it is not illegal to be drunk in a bar is only partially right: that drunken person is going to leave the bar and it IS illegal to be drunk in public, not just to drive in that condition), I can say I'm glad the police are out there at the checkpoints. It's absurd to think this accident was in any way their fault - to the contrary, it is exactly what they were trying to prevent.

I drive through that intersection every day on my way to and every night on my way home from work. I missed that tragedy by about five minutes.

And I don't drink at work, so I was driving sober, in case you wondered.

I'd love for people to grow up and realize that St. Pat's, New Year's and other such holidays are not great excuses to drink themselves into violent rages and oblivious stupors in public. It would make my job easier and I wouldn't have to see people who've been beaten up and women who've had men assault them and urinate on them in the streets of Westport coming in to my place and cleaning themselves up.

As an aside, I also noticed on the news that the car that was wrapped around the light pole had dealer tags on it. There may be more to this story.

Thank a cop next time you see one. I always do.

[Harry Paratestes]

This is far to many civil rights violations! These checkpoints are no different than the Gestapo. "As long as the [Gestapo/Police] ... carries out the will of the leadership, it is acting legally."

[Gary]

So go ahead and call me insensitive, but if it saves someone’s life, then so-be-it. There are a number of tragedies here. First, why do we have to change a day of honor to a St. into a drunken stupor? Where is it that St. Patrick ever drank green beer and got drunk? The Irish should be ashamed - I am Irish and I am ashamed we let this feast day get totally out of hand. Second, I never left anything to the imagination about my feelings and the consequences that would most certainly occure, concerning underage drinking and especially drinking and driving to my daughter and her friends while they were growing up. Now grown, they will be the first to tell you that it was a very good move on my part and kept them out of awkward situations. Parents need to be “Parents” first, let your children choose their own best friends. Most “parents” find they are in fact their children’s best friends. Third - there is ignorance and there is stupid. Ignorance can be corrected by education. Stupid is rarely changeable. So to “Stupid” who was to cowardly to leave a name. If you think you live in a Gestapo police state, I suggest you move to Iran and see what it is like. If you can read, then try a history book, look up Hitler and read about the tactics of what the Gestapo. If you can’t read, then just listen to main stream media nightly news, believe every word they say and remain stupid for the remainder of your life.

[sup]

Gary,

The "Stupid" you are referring to is actually a 12 year old boy from Colorado Springs. (see this report: Danny the Crime Scene spoofer)

He has posted over 300 comments with 160 names, so it's a safe bet that most of these "Cops are Evil" comments come from him.

[Harry Paratestes]

I am not that person... I'm your next door neighbor and I work with you. I must be stupid because I don't think like you... Look up the history of the Gestapo. It was just like the FBI until people with unscrupulous behaveor came to power.
I know without a shadow of a doubt I now more about history than you Gary... Why don't you try think for yourself or you'll be goose stepp'n down Main St. saying it's for the good of the people.

I love the police. That doesn't mean I'm okay with being searched without cause.

Hopefully the driver and passengers weren't black and the officer white. That way we won't have to hear that it was racially motivated or they were stopping them only because they were black.

Harry,

I'm glad you "now" a lot about history. Too bad you don't know how to spell "know". Ha.

[Harry Paratestes]

Typos happen... I missed an ing too. If you are going to correct posts get all the mistakes on all the posts.

[Bitch]

Probably was a young black male. they always make these mistakes. it is just thier nature.

[W!]

Greg, glad to see you finally did a ride along in the "big city" instead of hitting these suburban agencies. I was working last night and heard the crash over the radio. Just to clarify something that might not be clear from the article or the original post. This guy was NOT being chased when he wrecked. There were officers that were going to try to chase him - but they hadn't even pulled out yet when the guy t-boned an innocent motorist.

The driver of the vehicle was pinned across the dead body of his passenger for quite a while.

To the person that said something about "if these officers would have been driving around looking for DUI's". Maybe Greg could verify this - but there was also what is called a "Wolfpack" last night in conjunction with the checkpoint - where there were many officers out driving around whose sole job was to look for an pull over drunk drivers. These arrests were then taken to the checkpoint and processed. So... there WAS additional officers looking for drunks all over the area (and not just Kansas City... there were many area agencies involved).

[Brad]

W!, thanks for the info. There aren't too many of these posts that have something to say besides "checkpoints/cops/red light cameras/government/slippery slope bad" or "die drunk die!".

What a dipsh*t statement that DUI checkpoints compare to the Gestapo. They came for the bad drivers and I did nothing, they came for the slobbering drunks and I did nothing...when they came for me, no one was left. You are an ass, wrap yourself around a pole.

[blockquote]

Police checkpoints,,,Ain't it great to be Free?

St. Patrick's Day was fine until all the black people started showing up. You didn't see any white people running around with guns on the news. Nobody fought or robbed, everyone just drank and had fun.

[signal]

The whole DUI scenario, which really started in the early seventies, was the beginning of the erosion of our rights in this country.
As anyone over 50 knows, it was common place to have a beer while you drove around on weekends.
Then came the groups like MADD, which started pressure on politicians and now we are to the point of having roadblocks(like was common place in Nazi Germany).--And this country is following more in the Nazi nation model every day.
If you told someone back in the sixties that by the year 2000 the police would be able to pull you out of your cae, impound your car(and possibly confiscate to sell),
throw you in jail with without trial, with no guaranteed constitutional rights ie,,right to have an attorney present during questioning,,etc,,they would have laughed in your face.
Now two beers and you are legally drunk.How did we allow this country to come to this?
It's not fair to the millions of people who have driven intoxicated for years without an accident, to be punished for the few that can not control their actions.
I would rather live in a country where the citizens did'nt fear it's own government and accept what is known in government language as "collateral damage", than to live as a subject of a George Orwellian nightmare.
Link to a DUI blog that questions the legal issues relating to our fading constitutional rights-- www.duiblog.com

"Why does society only enforce intoxication limits after the drunks drive an automobile? Most people who drink too much are dangerous long before they start driving.
As one blogger noted, it is fairly easy to spot a drunk why wait till he hides behind a tinted windshield? A few officers in the crowd trained to spot a drunk and call him a cab might be a solution".

This is another great quote. Have an officer spot a drunk and call him a cab. How about the officer spot a drunk and change his diaper or wipe his a$%! How about being responsible for your own actions. What a joke! This site is a joke. Good luck with future blogs because this is a waste.

[Tracee]

To the writer who calls themselves "bitch", I thought we were talking about DUI, etc. here, and not the "nature of young black males". Why don't you hook up with the klan and write about something relevant with them, like... who's trailer's gettin' hauled away for nonpayment, or who bought the most lighter fluid at the store today.
Fer God's sake, grow up or leave, you BIGOT.

[Harry Paratestes]

I think it's great that so many with no logical argument to back their side use the insult route. Wrap myself around a pole? I'll die some day and so will you but it won't be because I was drinking and driving... I do n't do that. My basic argument is and always will be... "I'm not okay with being searched without cause." "Ever..."

Signal! Great site! www.duiblog.com

[duh]

FACT: The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of sobriety checkpoints in 1990. If conducted properly, sobriety checkpoints do not constitute illegal search and seizure in most states. The U.S. Supreme Court decision held that the interest in reducing alcohol-impaired driving was sufficient to justify the brief intrusion of a properly conducted sobriety checkpoint.

FICTION: Slippery Slope. In today's litigious society, there is no such thing as a slippery slope. Any erosion of rights is an uphill battle, not a downward slide.

[W!]

Signal - you talk about the 1950's as the turning point. My (now deceased) grandfather was a teen in the mid 1950's. One Sunday afternoon him and his brother were slobbering drunk and got behind the wheel of a pickup truck and proceeded to hit and kill a man walking along the side of the road. They were in a rural area, and knew the right people - and ended up with little or no punishment. I didn't find out about this until my grandfather was diagnosed with cancer - and dying.

I am not only ashamed of what he did - and will always have that in the back of my mind when I think of him... but I feel that the story only goes to show how the treatment of drunk drivers in the past was incredibly inadequate. Should he have been locked up for years.... maybe.... he turned out to be a life-long alcoholic, and brought a lot of pain on many of my other family members.

We as a society have learned over the years what a toll drunk driving takes on society. People try to excuse the behavior by hiding behind "privacy rights", or "personal choices", but the simple fact is that people who drink and drive are much more likely to cause an accident. There is NO STATISTIC ANYWHERE that shows the contrary.

And to those that say "I can't even have two beers and drive". Nothing could be farther from the truth (this is one of those myths proposed by those anti-drunk-driving-law folks). The AVERAGE person needs quite a bit more than "two beers" to be legally intoxicated. Most people need 4 or 5 servings of alcohol within an hour to reach intoxication levels. The funny thing is - so many people think that "two beers" is the magic number - that about 99% of the people pulled over will respond that they have had "two beers" when asked. Watch a few episodes of Cops sometimes..... people who can't even stand up will claim that they have only had "two beers".

Anyway - the point is.... there are so many options available to people out there.... that there should be NO REASON for anyone to drive drunk. Why is it so tough to have a "designated driver"? Why is it so tough to stop drinking a few hours before you have to drive home? Why is it so tough to call a cab..... you just spent $80 on drinks... you can't spend $20 more to potentially save a life? Why can't you take one of these busses that our tax dollars are paying for?

Why is it so difficult for people to BE RESPONSIBLE? The common arguement for lowering the drinking age - or legalizing drugs is that people should be able to make their own choice. Well.... over 17,000 people died in alcohol related crashes in 2003. In 2002, over 1.5 million people were arrested for DUI in America. It is obvious that (some) people cannot be responsible and make good choices.

Was the checkpoint fatality the only alcohol related one that night? Or maybe one of 2 or 3 ? Once again our finest earning their money. They had roac blocks, chase crews, and still couldn't that right. What a waste of resources and what an incredible infringement on our rights. I can't believe so many people dismiss what they are doing with the road blocks. Make no mistake, our forefathers who gave so much for all of us to have our many freedoms are looking down in disgust at how we have let them rot away.

[signal]

And so W, I should be punished for your grandfathers actions? I should quietly stand by and watch as my GUARANTEED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS are slowly pecked away? What about the inconvenience created to all the rest those drivers in those stops who had'nt had anything to drink?
You probably also are'nt concerned about having to give a drug test either are you?
You have allowed yourself to be so conditioned that you have become a lemming.
And now ,we have gotten to the point where we are subjected to warrantless searches.
Your phony city is a prime example of what is wrong with America today.
Kansas City has so much racial prejudice, as is witnessed in this thread, and for christs sake you can't even buy a bong in a hundred miles.
He,he,,sorry, to get derailed.
What I was trying to express,was, when they started the fierce drunk driving campaigns, in the early seventies, it went hand in hand with the beginnings of the Drug War.
And that was where they started the war against our consitutional rights.
(And remember, Bush had at least one DUI, Cheney has had at least two, and Laura Bush committed vehicular homicide)

[W!]

First, as a Police Department member, I can be asked to submit to a drug test at any time with no warning. That is a condition of my employment (as it should be of any citizen who has a job or receives any form of government assistance). As a citizen who drives my vehicle down the street - being stopped for 5 minutes once every four or five years (I've been driving for 15 years now and have been through a checkpoint 3 times) is not an inconvenience if it takes even ONE drunk off the street who could potentially injure myself or a loved one. The price of living in a "free" society is that we all have to pay for the mistakes of others. Laws are basically not much more than a way to prevent people from making the same mistakes as others (at least most of the more controversial laws are). You - as a citizen of this country have chosen to abide by the laws and rules that we ALL live under. When you chose to drive a vehicle - you are accepting the rules that go along with the PRIVLEDGE of driving. If you can't or don't want to follow those rules - then you shouldn't be driving.

The problem with much of society is that many folks want to use any individual topic as a way to spout off on all of their grievances. Look at your last post Signal. You use the DUI topic - to discuss: drug laws, warrantless searches, racial inequality, purchasing narcotics paraphernalia.... and of course Bush, and Cheney.

This is a common tactic made by people that are losing an arguement or don't have a valid point to make...... throw up 5 other issues to muddy the water.

What is the REAL reason you don't like DUI laws? Are you a habitual drunk driver? Are you a drug addict or alcoholic? A person with nothing to hide has nothing to fear. The questions you asked - about drug testing or "warrantless" searches do NOT scare me becausse I have nothing to hide. I have given up many of the rights that the average citizen has just so I may be a member of Law Enforcement. I don't do it for money or fame - I do it for the pride it gives me at the end of the night that I might have made a difference. What sort of difference have YOU made today?

[Harry Paratestes]

W! Thank you for the service.

You have a bias when it comes to a warrentless search. You go to work and take pirde in what you do... All the respect! What about those who abuse their power? You need to look no further than the local news for an illustration of this. Abuse of power is just one example of why a warrent is required for searches.

W!, you made a choice to give up certain rights, must others have not. You say if you are doing nothing wrong than you have nothing to hide. It's not your right to decide for other if this is true.

[Beth]

If sitting at a checkpoint bothers you then stay home. I have lost family members and friends to drunk driving. Not once have we blamed the POLICE for not stopping them before this happened. When you get behind the wheel when you have been drinking, it is the same as going out with a loaded gun. The Police would rather inconvenience you for a few minutes and if necessary take you off the streets than to work an accident you have caused and have to clean up your remains or the remains of innocent people, because they hadn't stopped you.

The person who posted the first comment, hope you die soon and get killed by a drunk better yet you sound like a drunk go kill yourself!

You people are stupid stupid stupid.

The kid made a horrible decision that cost a quality young man his life. It is not the cops fault; everyone knew there were going to be check points, especially in that location.

It would have been much better for the kid driving to have taken the DUI, and we wouldn’t have lost a good young man over such a stupid thing.

Hopefully they charge the driver with Vehicular Manslaughter and avaiding police and Drunk Driving then maybe he won’t make the same stupid decision that endangers all of our lives, his own life and his friends..

[openmind]

Greg, do you have any updates regarding this story? Do we know for sure that the driver was drunk? I am not really doubting this, but he could have also ran b/c he had warrants or for some other reason.
I am the first person to defend against violations of civil liberties, but I think that these check points, if done correctly, are a good thing. If the scope is limited to just sobriety (and from the arrests it appears it is not) then I think these are a great way to save lives. I don’t exactly know how these things work (I haven’t had the pleasure of driving through one) but I do not think that the officers should be able to search the cars, or run warrant checks on the drivers. FYI, it has been upheld in several state supreme courts that police cannot ask for identification from passengers for any purpose other than as a witness for a crime, no warrant checks. That is not to say that they don’t get away with this if you don’t stand up for your rights.
Anyway, I have no problem submitting to sobriety checks, as long as the courts do not let them become fishing expeditions that police use to check warrants and search cars. This is beyond the intended scope of the stop, and I think a warrant should be required to do anything other than a random sobriety check. Once again, I am the first person to stand up for civil liberties, however I think that, as long as the scope is limited, the benefits of these checkpoints greatly outweigh the potential harm.
A couple of other things, “slippery slope” does exist with regard to legal precedent. Once that initial precedent is set, it is much easier to gradually erode rights. Also, W! are you a police officer? If you are thank you for your service. There are jerk cops out there, but there are also great ones that truly want to help people. Again, this is coming from one of the most liberal people you will meet.

[Jake]

Consuming alcohol is the problem here. If you have to drink to have fun, relax, etc., then there is something wrong with you - every one of you - period. Alcohol was accidently invented by men, who then proceded to continue making and drinking it to GET DRUNK. Alcohol is THE reason the police have checkpoints. They're not stopping you to see if you had an adequate meal, enjoyed yourself at the movies, etc. They're seeing if you voluntarily drank alcohol and are impaired - TO KEEP YOU FROM KILLING YOURSELF OR OTHERS!
You want to drink alcoholand get drunk? Do it in the privacy of your own home and STAY THERE - and don't risk MY or MY FAMILY'S, or MY FRIEND'S LIVES! ANYONE who condones the use of alcohol in ANY other manner is an IDIOT!

[Steve]

OK, the truth. If the city was really interested in stopping drunk driving they would check people leaving the bar, before they got into a car. Sounds logical right, but there is no money in that solution. Let's wait till they get behind the wheel of a car and then ruin years of their life, charge them high court fees, help the lawyers out and don't forget the class fee and the, which class should I be in, fee. Then lets tack on a SR-22 for 2 years. Now, we know we can't put a cop in every bar, but we can make the bar place a bouncer, (HMM, already there) checking people at the door who had to tell who was driving when they came in. And they can't leave till a cab, or proof of a sober driver. Ok, what about people walking bar to bar. Since this is very few of the total people, have a wrist band, stamp, or something proving they live within walking distance, maybe something you could pick up at the DMV, HMMM, this could make some money! I don't agree drunk people should be driving, but having a couple of drinks with dinner and risk going to jail is a group of people paying the bill for a overly strict policy. Notice, the drunk alcohol level has been forced down due to the money it generates. You don't see cops watching or following rapists, or killers, No, but they will sit outside a bar a wait for people to leave knowing they have a better than 70% chance of a bust. I'm all for cleaning up the streets but if you are really concerned, stop it at the door, not after it will make the city money!

[Harry Paratestes]

Police stopped 996 southbound vehicles at 46th Terrace and J.C. Nichols Parkway and determined the 28 drivers were intoxicated. Police also arrested four persons for outstanding warrants.

Again numbers do not lie. Good old police work is still more effective. The checkpoints are for grand standing.

[CRYSTAL]

I read a comment on everyone was having fun until the black people showed up. Shame on you. And my next comment if for the family of the deceased if you ever happen to read this, young people make a lot of bad decisions, and I'm sorry that this decision caused someone to loss their life. Sometimes going out having a good time can be tragic no matter if your black or white. We all should know by now. Some people need to be a little more sensitive. Especially now that this young man's family have to arrange for his burial.

[Crime Scene KC]

Hi openmind,

I'm trying to gather police reports and follow up. See my update

Thanks,
Greg Reeves

[Brittany]

I was surprised that only 28 people were determined intoxicated. I thought it would be higher. I think that checkpoints are a good thing. I am sure there are other ways of determining who is drunk but right now this seems to be the most realistic or feasible solution. It is sad that a driver decided to do a Uturn instead of going through the checkpoint. Regardless of the reason a young person lost their life because of that split decision. I think that W made quite a few valid points in her/his postings.

[SS]

When are people going to take responsibility for their own actions? The man driving the car made decisions based on choices, albeit not the best choices to drink, to drive while intoxicated, and to run from the check point. I doubt he was forced to do any of these things, he just made bad decisions.

His life, the family of his passenger and the family of the car he hit will be impacted for the rest of their natural lives all because of dumb decisions.

Sure, it is a pain to be involved in a check point, but as previously noted, the people that gripe and complain about a check point are the ones that will bitch even louder if something happens to a loved one or friend of theirs. Then you will hear, "Where were the police when this happened? Why wasn't this stopped?" You all know the scenario.

If you are concerned about driving while intoxicated, purchase one of those portable breathalyzers. (I learned this from one of my daughters when she was in college ). Take a big hit on it before you enter your car. If it registers get a cab. If the fare is going to be large, consider the alternative (e.g., this accident) and I bet you are worth far more then what the cab fare will be.

I feel for all of the families because nothing will be the same because of stupid mistakes and bad decisions.

[kcshocker]

jvinkc, this is the dumbest comment I've read here. "I think that drunk drivers should be stopped and ticketed but only if they are doing something wrong."

DRUNK DRIVERS ARE DOING SOMETHING WRONG!!! THEY ARE DRUNK, AND THEY ARE DRIVING!!! GET A CLUE!!!

[duh]

"Police stopped 996 southbound vehicles at 46th Terrace and J.C. Nichols Parkway and determined the 28 drivers were intoxicated."

A 3% catch rate is pretty good. It's more than they get at the airport security checkpoints, and those take alot longer to get through.

Good job guys, the VAST majority of the population supports what you are doing.

Two things (maybe three):

One - it cracks me up that so many people have such strong opinions about certain topics, yet they appear stupid due to constant spelling errors and poor grammar. If you want people to take your opinions serious, please refer to a dictionary when necessary and proof read your posts before actually submitting them. Otherwise, if you don't take the topic of conversation serious enough to value the impact that your words will have on other people's beliefs (which will be "no impact" if you sound like a dunce), please don't waste our time with your post.

Two - I know that everyone is entitled to their opinions in this country, but it's simply ignorant to bring hatred and racism into this particular storyline. There was no talk of police abuse, black vs. white, etc. Save your hatred for when it is justified and stop looking for excuses to bring up these topics.

Three - For those of you who weren't paying attention to the story when you read it, the driver did not die. Only his passenger died. I noticed numerous posts that refer to a dead driver, but that wasn't the case.

I understand that posting is good because it is evidence that we are all allowed to have our own opinion, but please be mature, informed, and intelligent in doing so.

You know what who cares if someone misspells something. Some people have more important things to think about then spelling. GET OVER YOURSELF!!!

[duh]

The original story posted by the Star was that the driver died. The Star corrected their (or would you prefer they're, there, thar) error after this blog began.

I do not take you “serious” because of grammatical errors. You should have used “seriously” because it is an adverb describing “how you are taking” a person's opinion.

I do agree that they’re r alot of misspellings on this here site tho. It’s a sham that noone every tooken a grammer class. I still get what people are saying through. I do agree wit what your saying b/c it is hard too understand wat ignerant peoples who cant spell or use grammer are saying.

Sorry too be an arse, I love ironey tho.

Yew our knot may king two mush cents.

I guess that means you as well? Then vs. than? Well, if you take the entire content of my post into consideration instead of the little part that aggravated you so much, you will notice that my point was to make intelligent comments in your posts and think about what is being discussed. Spelling was the minor point of my post. But, good job in proving my point.

The story was about an unfortunate event where a person made a poor choice and killed their passenger and injured others by doing so. People enjoy trying to make this into a political platform, when all it really is is a statement of a St. Patrick's Day accident due to a drunk driver. Let's feel for the family that lost someone, let's care about the innocent people injured in the Saturn, and let's be thankful that there are officers that there are officers willing to do what they do. In all truth, we all know what this place would be like without law enforcement.

I would think that if people have better things to do than be educated and know how to spell the words they are attempting to use, they probably have better things to do than write posts turning a situation into something that it isn't. I am "over myself" and I won't apologize for expecting my peers to take some pride in themselves and what they have to say. After all, someone lost their life and there is a family who probably would not appreciate reading that people are more concerned about getting by checkpoints than what happened to the deceased last weekend.

Why don't y'all take this to a dipsh*t blog site and leave the rest of us to our thoughts? BTW, the "anal spelling" poster has a point - you don't have time to spell your words right, but you'll take the time to spell all of your words wrong?

[Rosepins]

i am truly disgusted by anyone who defends the rights of drunk drivers.

no one is talking about what happened to the driver of the second car. i was home (yes, kc is my home and i love it forever) last week and met him only the day before.

the second driver's life will forever be changed because some brat kid decided to go out and party without thinking about the consequences.

i have lost friends in drunk driving incidents (not accidents) who were the cause, and i have no sympathy for someone who believes they are more entitled to life than someone else.

Steve,
Did you eat a bowl of stupid for breakfast?
Why would the cops follow around rapists or murderers instead of drunks? I think they'd probably arrest a murderer or rapist. Besides, do you really think the police are going to stop more murderers or rapists before they kill or rape than the number of drunk people they are going to stop before they hurt or kill someone else?
And as for bouncers not letting drunk people leave - come on now. That would be a feasible option if you are willing to pay double what you pay now for a meal/drink out at a restaurant or bar so the bars could increase their staffs for that. And besides, a bouncer holding someone at a bar and not allowing them to leave is otherwise known as entrapment, which is illegal.

[diana]

I just want to thank the one person who wrote in with their facts straight. The person who died was guilty of NO crime!! They were riding with someone who may or may not have been drinking. I couldn't agree with you more when you say that we need to show some humanity and sympathy for the family of the young man who lost his life. Most of the comments on this subject sound like they were written by people who dodged(BECAUSE THEY WERE DRUNK!!!!) a couple check points themselves!!! I bet most of you are trying to find fault and point your finger or CAST THE FIRST STONE, when you have no right. We all have done stupid things especially when we were TEENAGERS!!!!! This kid did not set out to kill his friend!!!! How about a little compassion???

To the English teacher bitching about grammar and spelling. Go read a book in the corner of the library where you belong. You don't belong in the real world. People like you are book worms with no common sense. IDIOT!

[kumcdoctor]

Love this great country!
Only in America that people have time
to argue among each other and wasting
time. Go grab a book, read and learn
something. Become a nurse, a doctor
so that you may someday help people that got
hurt in a senseless accidents cause by
poor judgement. Accidents will always
happen no matter what. Oh one last thing..
could someone check my spelling and grammar?
after all I am a doctor! lol

[Mike]

To whoever wrote back to Steve. The bowl of cereal is on you. He was making silly suggestions, not serious solutions. The POINT he was making is if the city truely wanted to stop drinking and driving it could be stopped at the bar, by whatever means, instead of letting people leave drunk, and drive, like the whole friends don't let friends drive drunk thing. We are talking about SAVING lives not letting drunk people decide. SO, IF THE CITY IS TRING TO SAVE LIVES WHY DO THEY WAIT TILL YOUR DRIVING (FROM AN OBVIOUS DRINKING SITUATION)JUST TO ARREST YOU AND COST YOU ALOT OF MONEY, MAYBE JAIL TIME AND A COUPLE YEARS OF YOUR LIFE, AND TELL YOU-"WELL YOU COULD OF HURT SOMEONE." Seems to me there could be another less costly solution like checking the driver before he-she drives. That would save lives wouldn't it, maybe take the keys and make them pick them up in the morning, they can have them if they leave in a cab, whatever. I would bet you, that would just cost to much money, eaiser to wait till they are driving, that makes money.

Love this great country!
Only in America that people have time
to argue among each other and wasting
time. Go grab a book, read and learn
something. Become a nurse, a doctor
so that you may someday help people that got
hurt in a senseless accidents cause by
poor judgement. Accidents will always
happen no matter what. Oh one last thing..
could someone check my spelling and grammar?
after all I am a doctor! lol

To the dumbass Doctor. You spelled judgment wrong and you should have capatilized After to being the sentence. Go back to Doctor School. Go help someone you geek!

[Richard]

THIS IS WHAT I WENT THROUGH ON ST. PATRICKS' NIGHT IN WESTPORT, TRYING TO DO THE RIGHT THING, WAITED 20 MINUTES FOR A CAB THEN WHEN I FINALLY GOT A CAB, HE DIDN'T FEEL LIKE TAKING ME WHERE I WANTED TO GO (HOME), SO HE DENIED ME A RIDE, THIS IS NOT THE ONLY PROBLEM THAT ARISES FROM CABS, WHEN THEY THINK YOUR REALLY OUT OF IT, NOT ALL, BUT FOR ME IT'S THE MAJORITY OF THEM I GET , THEY TRY TO RUN YOU UP, WHEN YOU CALL THEM ON IT, THEY PLAY THE MIND GAME, DON'T TELL ME HOW TO DRIVE. SO WITH THIS IN MIND, WHAT MESSAGE IS THIS SENDING US? WHAT WOULD M.A.D.D. THINK? I HAVE PATIENCE, HEAVEN HELP THE DRIVER WHO DOESN'T AND WHOEVER HE/SHE MAY HURT.

[Tom]

I like the blog about a better solution. How about a city run bus system for Friday and Sat. night. It will cost so much for how ever far you are going. Oh, but wait, that would save lives, get most of the over .08 people off the road, but, it doesn't make as much money as waiting till they drive themselves and get busted. I doubt the city will go for that!

[thinking]

KUMCDoctor wrote, "to me there could be another less costly solution like checking the driver before he-she drives."

I agree. In fact, I think we should post cardiac surgeons at every McDonalds to stop people from eating fries and Big Macs. That would prevent all the heart issues.

Oh wait, we can't afford cardiac surgeons at every McDonalds. Hmm. Maybe we can't afford to place police at every place a person can get drunk (bars, homes, halls, etc.).

Check points serve a useful purpose:
- They check areas and times that are more likely to have drunks with the intention of catching them near the source
- They remind people that drunk driving is illegal

[sup]

Richard, when you sober up, don't forget to turn your caps lock off.

Buses won't solve the problem. Drunks won't admit they can't drive as long as they can still walk. Besides, it's obvious nobody in this town has an appetite for mass transportation. People want to drive (I think that's in the Constitution somewhere).

[Friend of the driver]

Well i am here to say for one he wasn't drunk and for two the should have let him go about his business. and he only went 70 caue the police came after him and those of you who are going off the police then you need to snap back to reality and they lie to get by....so fuck um. Love you baby!!!! He is doing well.

[Richard]

SUP, IT GOT UR ATTENTION, now I will.

[milwolf]

Monday.

Thanks for your mindless rhetoric. You would make a great member of the Gestapo.

The Supreme Court is nothing more than a collection lawyers with agendas. This same body of lawyers also ruled that Slavery was legal -Dred Scott , outlawed school prayer , and that segregation was ok -Plessy v Ferguson.

Perhaps you have forgotten the first three words to the Constitution " WE the People" or the Missouri State motto " Let the People (not MADD or lazy traffic cops ) Reign Supreme.

Sobriety checkpoints are unconstitutional and a violation of our 4th Amendment rights.
Where is your warrant and probable cause?

By the way, my late dad was KCMOPD and I am proud of it.He was not a "gun and Badge "
freak like you !!!