15 DUI arrests at KC sobriety checkpoint

From KCPD: The Kansas City Missouri Police Department, along with the Missouri State Highway Patrol conducted a Sobriety Checkpoint on June 23, 2007 from 2100 hours to 0400 hours at 169 Highway and Lou Holland Drive. Northbound traffic was checked with total of 2541 vehicles stopped. A total number of 15 DUI arrests were made, along with 2 possession of a controlled substance, 1 Clay Co Warrant, 3 KC Warrants, 1 Hazardous Moving Violation, and 3 other traffic charges.

Comments

[Door King]

These are interesting, since they are the only samples taken of the percentages of drivers who are actually drunk. I imagine they catch about a third of people who might be over the line, since at the lower limits of legal drunkedness, many people would show no ovservable signs in a cursory inspection.

There has never been any scientific proof that driving drunk causes accidents because we don't know what percentage of people are drunk behind the wheel.

I don't expect anyone here to even know what I'm talking about, so please reserve your insults.

[ScooterJ]

Wow... so over 2,500 cars stopped with a success rate of 0.6%. What a terrific use of police resources. Or make that 0.9% if you count the 10 arrests for things they were not supposed to bee searching for. Hooray for the Constitution!

[crime & PUNISHMENT]

Hooray for 15 lives saved from drunken idiots that are too stupid to not drive while intoxicated!

[ScooterJ]

You really think that there would have been 15 DUI crashes, let along 15 fatal DUI crashes, last night in the Northland alone had they not done that checkpoint? If so, that would be a stunning new record.

Most of those people probably had a couple of beers or a couple of glasses of wine at dinner. For a a small or average sized person the arbitrary legal limit of .08 is incredibly easy to reach and yet show no noticable signs of impairment.

[crime & PUNISHMENT]

Really, where did you do your time in law enforcement, or are you just another bartender spewing garbage to increase the size of your wallet. I am tired of the excuses made for those that cannot understand do not drink and drive. I could care less if it was only 1 crash that was stopped.

[ScooterJ]

It's sad how easily you are willing to surrender your rights for a perceeived notion of safety. Let's just let thee police stop and search everyone, everywhere, at all hours of the day. We'd be able to prevent all sorts of things!

Without the checkpoint, the odds are incredibly good that everyone would have gone home safely and without incident. Meanwhile carjackings and shootings are ignored in other parts of the city.

And no, I'm not a bartender. Are you a police officer?

[crime & PUNISHMENT]

It is sad how you feel that this is surrendering your rights, when it has gone to court many times and been given the OK. No I am not a police officer, but thanks for asking.

[Door King]

Shall we review:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Now then, what was that about surrendering rights?

[alright then, here we go again]

Well Mr. Crime & Punishment we know where you stand on these issues. Do you realize you can get a DUI at a .05? Yes, that is NOT a typo. POINT 05% will get you a DUI.

Checkpoints are a violation of the constitution, plain and simple. It starts off with DUI checkpoints, and then it will expand. In 20 years, they will probably be stopping people at checkpoints to check and see if they have insurance, or some other stupid excuse.

Even the founder of MADD (who is no longer involved in the crazy organization)admits that she started the organization as a deterrent to driving drunk, not a DO NOT DRINK AND DRIVE campaign.

Besides that, I would almost bet and guarantee that more people are fatally shot each year during robberies, carjackings, drug deals, etc., then are killed in DUI crashes. And the stats are so skewed, who would know the truth anyways? Even if a driver had a 0.00% BAC, but the passenger had been drinking, it is logged and classified as a alcohol related crash....talk about skewed statistics.

[Imprtnrd]

All the offender gets is a slap on the wrist for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, time. Iv'e read about it all to often in the Star. Big deal his insurance goes up thats all that happens. Then he or she is SR22 and STILL driving! What's wrong with this picture???

[cochese]

was there a DUI checkpoint downtown too?

[Tom]

.05 will not get you a DUI. If the passenger had been drinking and the driver had not, it's not logged as alcohol related. The person who posted these as fact is, in fact, a moron.

If you're not doing anything wrong, then what are you worried about?

[nomas]

i love the people that come on here and whine about how great these checkpoints are, and how drunk drivers are making the streets of america unsafe to walk your dog on, but when it comes to real crime like drive by shootings and car jackings, they are no where to be found, it would be wrong to pull police away from these checkpoints because drunk drivers are more dangerous than the guys spraying houses with ak-47's.

how many innocent lives are ruined because someone has 2 beers and gets pulled over? i know of several. i know of 1 woman that had 1 glass of wine. 1 GLASS. and was hit by a dumbass on a crotch rocket going 120 mph without a helmet. of course he dies, but what should have been chalked up as a verification of darwinism, didnt. instead, because of bad lawyers, a county that is almost has a prohibition mindset, and a faulty breathalyzer she is doing 10 years in prison. she lost her children, her husband, everything. so, i am sorry for those that have lost people because someone had a case of beer and drove a car and killed someone, but these laws are ridiculous.

and to all those that are so high and mighty and have never, and i mean NEVER in your entire life had 1 drink and driven a vehicle, good for you, you are wither lying, or represent a very very small minority of licensed drivers.

[Maria]

To the person who asked what there was to be worried about if you are not doing anything wrong.... if nothing else, it backs up traffic for awhile and I am ready to get home!

[Kerri]

The ideas of checkpoints creep me out. If they are set up to locate drunk drivers, then why can they issue citations for other offeneses? I don't do drugs, but I don't think it is fair to nab people for pot possession at a DUI checkpoint.

[Tom]

Maria, go around it. By law the police have to give you a way out before you reach the checkpoint.

Kerri, I see your point but pot possession is against the law, as is carrying a concealed weapon without a permit. Don't want to get busted for it? Don't do it.

Nomas, verify your information with a link please. I just don't buy your story. If it's true, the woman had a worthless attorney.

[nomas]

tom

i dont have a link, i know this woman personally. her lawyers werent necessarily bad, they just didnt expect the barrage of lies from the county and the bias of the judge. they breathalyzer that was used was later proved to be unreliable and forced to be removed via other cases around the country. the county she was arrested in has police officers sit at every bar and follow anyone that comes out. it is very anti drunk driving, which is fine, but when someone that would probably test .03 with a reliable breathalyzer is doing 10 years because of incompentence and laws that punish people for driving after drinking more than drug dealers, there is something wrong.

duis keep the county and city governments running, thats why people are gone after so hard for duis and no other reason, it has zero to do with public safety.

[Tom]

She's still in jail? Where did this happen? Her attorney must have been just terrible. It doesn't make any sense.

[nomas]

she is in jail in iowa in warren county, they wont even let her go before the parole board even though she is eligible. their response to her was "we dont even want to hear from you"

[same logic]

So by the people who think this is not a violation of privacy or contrary to our Consitutional rights against non-warrant searches, I suggest that the KC police immediately start randomly searching everyone's homes for unlicensed or illegal firearms. Guns take more lives in this city than do drunk drivers so in order to protect everyone we should all feel happy to bend over and take on random home searches. You have nothing to hide if you are not breaking the law right?

[Tom]

Sure. Why not?

[Carol]

Important to note: they can arrest you for DUI: DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE as opposed to DWI: DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED. As one police officer explained it to me one time, "lady, if you've had NyQuil, and you're behind the wheel, we've got you on a DUI". If they want to get you, they will. And then watch them pat themselves on the back in the media over how many dangerous drivers they've taken off the streets. It disgusts me when I look at the number of shootings and other crime that goes on.

[Quad Kings]

Tom (and whatever other names you use),

You say ".05 will not get you a DUI. If the passenger had been drinking and the driver had not, it's not logged as alcohol related." Please verify your information with a link, or a citation (what's good for the goose...). Actually, .05 CAN get one a DUI. .08 is just a presumptive level (albeit arbitrarily set). If the police can show impaired driving, consistent with alcohol consumption, you can get a DUI. They don't even need BAC to prove a DUI...It's just one way. But it can also be used as evidence of DUI even if not reaching the presumptive level. People are affected differently by alcohol. So you might want to lighten-up (Francis) on the "moron" insults, until you know the facts. That is, play nicely.

In the end, we all need to realize this issue (like most issues) does not have clear-cut, black & white answers.

[Carol]

QUAD KINGS:

AMEN! You are exactly right; the numbers are completely irrelevent. They don't care if you are "intoxicated"; they want to know if there is a hint of alcohol. And if there is, it is considered an "influence". That is exactly the point people miss and think they are safe if they stay below the magical .08 level.

[Kerri]

I don't carry illegal firearms or pot in my car. And I don't want to be searched for such crap. I am tired of the government overstepping their boundaries and their purpose.

[Tom]

I don't need to verify the information with a link. Show me one instance where a person has received a DUI with a BAC of less than .08% and no other (illegal) drugs in their system.

[nomas]

here you go tom:

"However, in several of the cases where the chemical test has been in the 0.06% to 0.79% BAC range, the dismissal required unnecessary review with opposing counsel without the requisite automatic dismissal due to alleged “substantial evidence” of intoxication even though in each case the driver was shown on videotape to pass the standardized field sobriety tests. In short, in many of our cases the Kansas City police are writing all sobriety checkpoint cases for DWI where the result is above 0.05% BAC without any “substantial evidence” of intoxication, other than odor of alcohol or admissions of drinking. It is, of course, not illegal to drink and drive—only to drive impaired, and odor of alcohol and admissions of drinking (particularly where the driver passes the tests and gets arrested anyway) does not equal “observations of substantial impairment” regardless of what the police believe."

Link

[Kristy]

I actually went through the checkpoint Saturday night at 1:30am with my friends. It did not back up traffic at all. It was quick, and painless. They didn't give me the third degree on anything. They asked me a question, and I answered it. I had a glass of wine with dinner and I even told them that and they were fine with it. And for the record, when there are checkpoints it doesn't take away from the regular resources for that evening's patrol. They are set up in addition to the police out on the streets that night. It's usually officers that signed up even though they were scheduled as "off duty". Obviously the people that are whining about it on here are the ones who have been burned by it in the past because they were actually driving drunk. Deal with it, and take responsibility for your own actions. By the way, I am not a cop, nor is anyone in my family- before someone makes that assumption.

[Quad Kings]

TOM, TOM, TOM,

Think this is just a little inconsistent?:
"Nomas, verify your information with a link please. I just don't buy your story..."
Posted by: Tom | Monday, June 25, 2007 at 10:20 AM

"I don't need to verify the information with a link (nya-nya-nya)."
Posted by: Tom | Monday, June 25, 2007 at 11:47 AM

Kansas Statute 8-1567. Driving under influence of alcohol or drugs; blood alcohol concentration; penalties.

(a) No person shall operate or attempt to operate any vehicle within this state while:

(1) The alcohol concentration in the person's blood or breath as shown by any competent evidence, including other competent evidence, as defined in paragraph (1) of subsection (f) of K.S.A. 8-1013, and amendments thereto, is .08 or more;

(2) the alcohol concentration in the person's blood or breath, as measured within two hours of the time of operating or attempting to operate a vehicle, is .08 or more;

(3) under the influence of alcohol to a degree that renders the person incapable of safely driving a vehicle;

(4) under the influence of any drug or combination of drugs to a degree that renders the person incapable of safely driving a vehicle; or

(5) under the influence of a combination of alcohol and any drug or drugs to a degree that renders the person incapable of safely driving a vehicle.

(b) No person shall operate or attempt to operate any vehicle within this state if the person is a habitual user of any narcotic, hypnotic, somnifacient or stimulating drug.

(c) If a person is charged with a violation of this section involving drugs, the fact that the person is or has been entitled to use the drug under the laws of this state shall not constitute a defense against the charge.

Posted by: Tom | Monday, June 25, 2007 at 11:47 AM

[W P]

How do you ever justify NOT going after drunk drivers? Do you not watch the news? There are several deaths each week.

If they tell you they had 1 drink and got a DUI/DWI from it, their lying. Ever ask a drunk person how many drinks they had? Rarely are they even close.

[ScooterJ]

Funny how Kristy doesn't want us making assumptions just two sentences after she declares that "Obviously the people that are whining about it on here are the ones who have been burned by it in the past because they were actually driving drunk."

Never been arrested for DUI, haven't been pulled over for anything at all in years, haven't been stuck in a checkpoint in about 20 years. But I still hate abuse of power and the destruction of the Constitution.

And, Tom, if you say no one gets arrested without blowing .08, you mustn't have been on this blog last weekend when the story about the cop who arrested numerous people below .08 was posted. Then there's this guy who was arrested for DUI aftter blowing .000!

[alright then, here we go again]

Thank you Quad Kings for pointing out what I would have as soon as I logged back in and for pointing out the truth.

Tom - go find your own stats and do a little digging yourself. Alcohol related accidents don't always mean the alcohol was consumed by the driver. Shall I find you a link? :)

Oh and thanks for calling me a moron. I love it when I make someone's day great!

[Danny]

I object to it, because I have been backed up 20 minutes by them, and I have not been arrested for anything.

Basically, if I don't give them a reason (probable cause) to question me and comply with the laws, I feel I have the right to proceed to my destination unimpeded by law enforcement.

Spread those officers to various parts of the area and I am positive they would catch many more drunk drivers, who are actually threats to public safety.

I have no stats on me, just logic.

By the way, since when did standing up for what you think is right whining?

[Kerri]

I am certainly not defending driving drunk. I just don't think they should be able to search your car or cite you for anything else at a checkpoint. (Besides being a fugative)

[get real]

So glad they stopped the idiots from driving around while using their cars as weapons. Maybe Scooter would feel differently if his best friend or a close family member had been killed, like me.

I'm willing to hand over my driving freedom if it means catching just one of these morons.

And look - they did it in the MIDDLE of a Saturday night. They weren't pulling over cars during rush hour on their way home from work, were they ... they were stopping them after a night on the town.

[Nick]

"I'm willing to hand over my driving freedom if it means catching just one of these morons." get real

And you have the nerve to call someone else a moron?

[milwolf]

At .6% , what a waste of the PUBLIC's $$$$ !!! Like I say, the overtime paid to the off-duty cops is another form of welfare and wealth transfer from taxpayers to lazy law enforcement!!!

I bet the regular street patrols made more meaningful arrests.

I agree with the previous comments that these are a violation of our 4th Amendment rights, regardless of the Supreme Court. Remember, the Supreme Court once sanctioned slavery and segregation!!!!

[Courtney]

"wealth transfer from taxpayers to lazy law enforcement"
Are you kidding Milwolf? Do you know how much cops make? I do, I'm married to one. And you can bet that I'd rather him not be out keeping unappreciative ignorant people like you safe. But you probably don't need cops, huh?

[Kristy]

I never said don't make assumptions. I said before someone assumed where I was coming from, but that's fine. I understand that some people have been hassled by checkpoints before; that in some instances officers may have abused their power. It's probably true. But there are "jerks" in every profession. Our system is obviously not a flawless one. It's run by real people which assures us that there will most definitely be flaws, and if you witness one then take it up with their employers. It doesn't help to complain about it and do nothing further. I have to admit that I'm no angel and that I have driven drunk before, especially while in college. But if I went through a checkpoint while being drunk and got arrested then I would have no one to blame but myself. It's not the officers' faults that I made a bad choice and they're forced to do their jobs. Again, it's all about taking responsibility for your own actions. I would rather there be a flawed system in place than no system at all. And I apologize for using the term "whining". I'll say complaining instead. No one here said it's fun fun fun to go through checkpoints. It's definitely okay to question the system, but atleast understand why it's there to begin with. It is a problem when people decide to go out and have more than their fair share of drinks and do not want to be hassled while driving home drunk instead of making the decision to simply crash at a friend's house or take a cab home. I would rather pay a hefty fine to take a cab ride home than pay a hefty fine in jail for killing an innocent person because I was too stupid to be responsible while drinking.

[Zek]

Courtney- while I cannot speak for Mil, I think what was meant is that the departments get more money not the individual cops.

These checkpoints are a blatant infringement upon individuals rights, but they will never be stopped but only become more and more common. The you watch my back and i'll watch yours of the legal system and law enforcement continues to be in full swing.

[Lt. Dangle]

We all know that cops don't choose their profession because of the pay.

They become cops because they aren't qualified to do anything else and enjoy the power trip. Not to mention getting paid to read magazines at Quik Trip.

Besides, they supplement their income from stealing evidence.

[mollie]

It's so nice to read that there are people that believe that check points are illegal. I expected a bunch of feel good yeah-for-cops comments. Pot smoking is illegal, but what would you think of a house to house raids of 2000 houses to find 15 potsmokers? You say the drinkers are endangering others- that argument can be used so broadly to so many other atrocities that happen every day.

Good to see there are people out there not willing to sacrifice their civil rights for scare tactics-boogie men out on the road with 2 glasses of wine in them.

Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones

[Courtney]

Dangle - You're just trying to rile people up. You know good and well that the majority of cops have college degrees. There are some cops out there who are powertrippers and dishonest, but don't judge the majority of the actions of a few.

[Dan]

Checkpoints are legal and part of normal police activities. If you are not drinking and driving under the influence then you shouldn't have anything to worry about. If the police want to search the rest of your car they must ask permission to do so before. If you grant them permission and they find something, well then that is your fault.

Also I have know police officers with Master's degrees. Normal police officers just want to serve their communities, just like firemen and men and women of our armed forces.

[alright then, here we go again]

Checkpoints are legal only because not enough people understand the ramifications of what is REALLY going on. According to the Constitution, checkpoints are a violation of our rights, and therefore, not legal.

[Don in T-town]

I think it would be more productive to set up a check point at 95th & Metcalf at 5:00 pm today and arrest everyone that's driving and using a cell phone or a blackberry. Those idiots are more dangerous than a few tipsy drivers at 1:30 in the morning.

[Imprtnrd]

I don't know about the 1:30 in the morning tipsy drivers. I do agree that people need to HANG UP & DRIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[a local reader]

I'm SOOOO thankful all of you legal experts in here aren't part of the criminal justice system I know.

I'll keep it simple for you...in both the MO and KS Driver's Handbooks, it tells you that having a license and operating a motor vehicle on a public road is a PRIVILEGE and NOT a RIGHT! The next time you renew be sure and READ that form they give you to sign that states you UNDERSTAND this, AGREE with it, and are WILLING to submit to the checkpoints, questioning by police officers and *GASP* chemical test administered by medical personnel at the hospital if you are involved in a traffic accident involving injuries.

It's all there, in black and white. THAT'S why the checkpoints don't fail the constitutionality litmus test. YOU agreed to obey the LAW that was passed that said in order to get a license, YOU AGREE to submit to tests to determine if your driving is impaired by alcohol or other chemical(s).

I challenge anyone of you fair readers to go out and find someone who has had a family member killed in a drunken driving related accident, and tell me THEY don't wish the intoxicated party (be it their family member, or the person who was intoxicated and killed their loved one) hadn't been stopped by one of these check-points before the crash occurred.

[don won]

The dui checkpoints have went to court, nothing other than that. So, with that in mind, anyone who got stopped at the checkpoint should have been let go if soberiety has been proven. Anything else that was found or obtained is null and void and should be appealed to the higher courts. Safety is one thing, an excuse around our rights is another.

[AA]

Overland Park woman is sentenced in DUI crash
Karen N. Sloan receives 76 months for an accident that killed a man and his mother.
By BENITA Y. WILLIAMS
The Kansas City Star
If Sarah Stewart’s phone rings around 9 a.m., for a moment she thinks it’s her mother-in-law calling to make sure Sarah’s bad back is not keeping her from getting out of bed.

Then she realizes that’s impossible.

Sarah’s mother-in-law, Emmagene Stewart, 89, was killed by a drunken driver last year. Sarah Stewart’s husband, Lloyd E. Stewart, 65, died with his mother in the crash.

“I still think of things I’d like to tell him,” Sarah Stewart said at a sentencing hearing Friday for Karen N. Sloan, the Overland Park woman responsible for the deaths. “Then I realize he won’t be home.”

Sloan, 43, was sentenced to 76 months in prison.

During the hearing, Sloan tearfully apologized to the Stewart family and said she was an alcoholic who had lacked the strength to seek treatment. She said she would dedicate her life to helping others like her seek help.

“If there was anything I could do to make it right, I promise, I know I would,” Sloan told the Stewarts. “I was a very sick person, and I won’t let these lives be lost in vain. … I see my own children with my parents, and I think of you.”

The prosecution and the victims’ relatives had asked that Sloan receive the maximum sentence of 86 months.

Instead, Johnson County District Judge Thomas Bornholdt sentenced her to 38 months for each death and ordered that the sentences be served consecutively.

“I cannot justify imposing concurrent sentences, but I want to treat this defendant differently than if she had not shown remorse,” Bornholdt said.

After the hearing, members of the Stewart family said they were satisfied with the consecutive sentences.

During the hearing, relatives told Bornholdt that Emmagene and Lloyd Stewart, who lived in Johnson County, had attended church and were heading to an 8-year-old relative’s birthday party when they were killed.

Authorities said Sloan was southbound on U.S. 69 between 87th and 95th streets when she lost control of her Ford pickup in the early evening of July 22, 2006. The pickup hit the median, became airborne and landed atop the northbound Chrysler Sebring carrying the Stewarts.

Sloan’s blood alcohol content was 0.35, more than four times the Kansas legal limit of 0.08, according to testimony at her preliminary hearing. Prosecutors said she had also taken muscle relaxants.

Sloan eventually pleaded no contest and then was found guilty of two counts of involuntary manslaughter, driving under the influence.

At Friday’s hearing, defense attorney Tom McGraw asked for leniency. He said Sloan, a mother of three, is active in her church and is part of a choral group that sings at nursing homes.

McGraw said Sloan was having personal problems and had turned to alcohol at least a year before the accident. Since then, he said, Sloan has successfully completed alcohol treatment and attends Alcoholics Anonymous.

[KC Brougham]

Catch a cab.

[a local reader]

hey don won,

Do a little research about the 'plain view doctrine', and an officer's 'Probable Cause, Reasonable Suspicion, and Reasonableness Standards'

It's pretty clearcut...and you'd be AMAZED how many people roll up to a check-point with smoke and odor literally rolling out of the car like a Cheech and Chong movie!

It does not seem that less than 1% is worth the time of the police force. However, maybe it is a tribute that people are being more mindful of not driving while drinking.

[PTT]

While residing on the Florida Gulf Coast I had the opportunity to know a number of Stat and County as well as City police officers and they all revealed that it is a common practice to NOT arrest obvious indigent DUI offenders as it puts a heavy burden on the Countys Jail budget! I also got that same information from more than one Attorney at the Public Defenders Office!! The practice was that if the penniless drunk hadn't wrecked/injured anyone or thing they were given a chance to call someone to come and get them. If they couldn't get help then they would be tossed in the drunk tank and their usually illegally registered or uninsured vehical was towed. NO DUI CHARGES!!! One chronic drunk I knew had been given a DUI pass four times because he was homeless living in his van! The area in question has a large immigrant population also. Just an example of selective enforcement by the powers that be. If you appear to be able to pay the thousands of dollars a DUI ends up costing you then your going to jail.

[Anonymous]

I actually know someone who got stopped in the checkpoint and they had an ounce of pot on them and didnt get caught.

[Benjamin]

How many of those arrested for DUI were between 18-21 years old. Those individuals can be charged for a DUI for just a trace of alcohol in their systems. This is just wrong. These people can vote, die for this country, considered adults for every crime, but yet we treat them as though they are substandards adults incapable of making rational decisions. If this is the case, they should not be in the military, be able to vote, nor be charged as adults. Our criminal justice system lacks intelligence and the cops are too ignorant to say enough is enough.

[SLC]

To those would be legal experts who think that all this passes the mustard just because they put it in writing. The 9th and 10th amendments mean all things not enumerated are reserved to the people and the states. And to those same readers I'm sure they think free speach zones are legal too. The 1st begins with Congress shall pass no law. Just because some state official and Judge says its OK doesn't make it so. I think you better read the real reason this gets through the courts, Congress has made all of us slaves by and through the SSN and title 8 of the US code.
You and I (all of us) have the right to freedom of travel, look back in real history books and you will see all that I'm saying is true. Just have to open your eyes to the reality of it. And remember a Judge stopped in Illinois recently refused a breath test saying its a known fact its unreliable and his boss the Chief Judge was seen dumping out an open bottle of beer and both were not cited. So wheres your belief in what the law says mean a damn thing.

[Countryboy888]

What pisses me off is that the city just does this to look good in the public eye. That and the fact that they will make thousands of dollars from the people arrested for DUI. Maybe that explains why it is so bad to drink and drive yet up until the third time just let you get away with a broken tail light after you've paid a couple thousand dollars.

[bigboob]

why not a check point at 35 and prospect for guns and drugs.. or some of those other high crime ares.. maybe get a few guns, thugs, and gang bangers off the street..

i bet i would have better results.

[W P]

I'll gladly pay my $1.00 that went to this operation to prevent another death from happending.

It sounds like there are a lot of people on this board that don't accept responsibility.

[Not Jerry Prudence]

Look, it's all well and good to moralize and pontificate about the dangers of drunk driving. It's a very safe form of a holier-than-thou attitute but it is the Kansas City Municipal Court system that shows us that DUI/DWI and these illegal Checkpoints are NOTHING other than a cynical source of revenue for the city's coffers.

Earlier/above we read of the KCPD's RIGHT to book you with .05 when the national/state law is .08. The reason they DO this is because they know a lawyer can get this .05 charge reduced to "Defective Equipment" in a manner similar to those bogus-ass speeding tickets they write. Just go to a lawyer, pay the city a bribe/fine and it goes away, no record no points.

This KC court system is not a court of oversight or one of Constitutional legality. It is in fact a Police Court, the Judges work and are paid by the Police Board. Their job is to rubber stamp the charges made by the KCPD despite any evidence. Those of you who have been in a KC Municipal courtroom, particularly that of Judge Reid, the biggest crook ever to don a black cape, (Well...) know what I mean.

When this system of bribery, that includes the outright dismissal, (if you have the right lawyer) of those precious, people- saving charges of DUI, was challenged and brought down by the KC City Council last year, Judge Reid refused to obey and continued to take these city bribes in dealing with hundreds of offenses. Faced with the loss of $Millions in city revenues, the Council folded, the system remains in place today. Crooked is as crooked does. And KCPD is as crooked as it comes. They can charge you with anything, search you for any reason and, yes, as we have seen repeatedly before, shoot you for any reason...

How do we know the KC court system is a bogus fraud? Because these so-called "City Charges" that include misdemeanors etc. are not even considered convictions outside of the city. They do NOT even rise to the level of misdemeanor charges and in most court cases run by real Constitutional courts outside of the county, KC City Charges and Convictions cannot be admitted as evidence of past criminal behavior.

Nice legal system, there, KC. What, is this the 1920's?

[poorbabies]

For those who don't believe our officers do much or do a good job I challenge you to do a ride-along for an evening. Anyone can do them at any time. For the rest of you who wanna complain about where you live... MOVE. Quit being a bunch of whiny cry-babies that are obsessed with conspiracy theories. You probably have a nice cushy job sittin on your butt all day judging others and not being proactiv. Take a cab home and you won't be "inconvenienced" with people trying to save other's lives. :)

[alright then, here we go again]

Awww....poorbabies, what a sweet speech. I have done a ride along - hasn't changed my mind any on the DUI / checkpoint issue at all. It is not a matter of saving lives - it is a matter of making money for the PD's of the world. And go review the stats - drunk driving fatalities have not necessarily decreased due to the crackdown on "don't drink and drive." Most of the people getting the DUI's now days are the ones who can "afford" them - not the habitual repeat offenders with the lack of funds to pay for their offenses. Yet, they get out of jail after a day or two, and are back at it!

[don won]

I was not talking about clear or plain view, I was talking about the just because view. Just because I am in power and I can do this, or while ur here Why don't I look in ur trunk. If I went thru a check point sober and had a 357 S&W in plain view, give me the cuffs I'll put them on myself.

[poorbabies]

Waaaaahhhhhh, boo hoo. Tear. I really feel sorry for you drunk drivers. Always the victims. Cry me a freakin' river. :)

[don won]

Whose crying, I am tired of being sober and going thru the check point. besides the smartest drunk drivers go thru side streets, so boo hoo to you. bend over for the government if you want to.