14 DUI arrests at Olathe checkpoint

From Olathe PD: Between the hours of 11:30 p.m. on Saturday, July 28th, 2007 and 2:30 a.m. on Sunday July 29th, 2007 the Olathe Police Department, Johnson County Sheriff's Department, Merriam, Leawood Police Departments and the Kansas Highway Patrol conducted a sobriety checkpoint at 119th St. & Renner Rd. Approximately 1290 vehicles were stopped and the drivers interviewed during the brief contact period to determine if they were under the influence of either alcohol or drugs.  They were also provided with educational material on the dangers of drinking and driving. 

During the 3-hour checkpoint the following arrest were made. 14 intoxicated drivers were arrested.  8 individuals were cited for the transportation of an open container of alcohol.  A 9 motorist were issued citations for minor traffic infractions.

Hat Tip: Thanks, Mike!

 

Comments

[paulmcb]

Being a libertarian I won't post the usual about 14 arrests or the obvious about checkpoints themselves.
But what were Merriam and Leawood Police doing in Olathe at a DUI checkpoint? Oh sure, claim it was a county checkpoint so we can invite in officers from surrounding cities.
Seems like a HUGE waste of money, whether paid for by federal grants or whatnot, it is all tax money that should be spent elsewhere.

"They were also provided with educational material on the dangers of drinking and driving"

OMG!! Now they are handing out homework materials too.

[CareBear]

Anon-do you think the police will pull them over again to make sure they did their homework? lol

[kaye]

What a huge waste of time and tax money.

[blarney]

why is it a huge waste of taxpayer money to get drunken and potentially dangerous drivers off the road. This is actually the job of our local governments and I find it amazing that people still whine even when they do it.

You know why it's a waste of time and money. It's called priorities. While the infrastructure collapses, and violent crime rises,instead of addressing major problems in our society, the government spends money on intruding on peoples rights.
Corporate criminals across this country commit crimes of stupendous financial disasters and receive slaps on the wrists compared to the punishment doled out to DUIs.
While your federal government sends soldiers to die for oil, so that corporations can maintain control over everything you think do and say, your local government rapes your constitution.
The few people who might,,and do die, as a result drinking and driving in this country pales in contrast to the millions who have died in foreign countries(see Iraq) because of misguided policies by this government that is supported by the very same people who bitch and moan about people who drink and drive.
When the United States incarcerates one quarter of the worlds prisoners,there is something that should be reevaluated.
And that something is the meaning of the word "Freedom".

[blarney]

That has to be the silliest post. The dui checkpoints are done by your local government not our federal governemtn so your rant about Iraq is not only asinine it's pointless. Our local police are here to ensure public safety which is doing things like getting drunk drivers off the road. Learn a little about government and learn a little about priorities before spewing off on a tangent that has nothing to do with the quesion I asked. Now if you would like to go take a civics class and learn a little about the functions of state, county, local and federal governments and then get back to me that is fine, just let me know. I enjoy reading intelligent and thought out responses, which that was not.

[paulmcb]

Blarney, I've mostly agreed with the posts you make, but on this point you are wrong. Not just incorrect, but because of the arrogance of the statement where you tell someone to learn about the government, you are flat out intenionally wrong.
Sure, the local government/police are running the checzpointz... but the money to pay for all that overtime is coming from the Feds.
As far as priorites, the same thing could be accomplished with increased patrol cars on the streets around bar closing time, at a decreased financial and constitutional cost. Not to mention other crimes.
Ah, but those don't get the federal funds and federal grants for DUI checzpointz so the PD can buy the shiney new toys to play with.

[ScooterJ]

The federal government is indeed part of it, it is they who provides the funding for these illegal search-and-seizure checkpoints. Notice the once again extremely low success rate, as well as the typical arrests for unrelated matters that without the roadblocks the officers would have no probable cause to stop drivers for.

Then compare that approach to the use of saturation patrols in which the police actually do something as novel as go on patrol and watch for signs of impaired driving. (There was even one in OP several weeks ago commented on in this forum.) The number of vehicles stopped goes down tremendously, but both the percentage of arrests and the actual number of arrests skyrocket because the police aren't wasting time stopping innocent peeople.

When public safety is the issue, saturation patrols are the obvious choice. But when a quick, lazy, revenue-generation scheme is needed, throw up a checkpoint.

[paulmcb]

To Kaye and Blarney
asking why it is a huge waste of tax money.

Because TAX MONEY is paying OVERTIME for officers from the state police, county sheriffs office, Olathe PD, Merriam PD, and Leawood PD to sit in parking lot in a KNOWN location for three hours looking for people who have had a drink and then got behind the wheel. The only reason people are so gung ho about DUI checzpointz is because MADD has so conditioned the population with their every subtly changing message. It started out as "friends don't let friends drive DRUNK". Now its become "You DRINK, You DRIVE, You LOSE". What happened to being DRUNK, now you just have to drink?

thats just insane. They stop almost 13 hundred cars and only 14 of them are arrested for a dui. It would be more efficient for the cops to be on patrol looking out for these people, but instead they are setting up a road block enjoying their night while they sit around and have conversations with the 1,276 people who weren't doing anything wrong. Now which would be better to have some cops sitting at a road block in one area or having them split up so they can be on more roads? I'm sure if the city is just in it for the revenue then a road block where you are sure to catch at least what, 10 people is the way to go.

[CareBear]

This is completely not tied to the subject, but since it involved police, I wanted to share. Yesterday on my way home. We were stopped at a red light, an officer was in the left turn lane and he actually RAN the red light. I sat there speaking to myself and then wondered...since this is an intersection with the cameras, will they mail him a ticket?

thats just insane. They stop almost 13 hundred cars and only 14 of them are arrested for a dui. It would be more efficient for the cops to be on patrol looking out for these people, but instead they are setting up a road block enjoying their night while they sit around and have conversations with the 1,276 people who weren't doing anything wrong. Now which would be better to have some cops sitting at a road block in one area or having them split up so they can be on more roads? I'm sure if the city is just in it for the revenue then a road block where you are sure to catch at least what, 10 people is the way to go.

[jpbikerfreak]

Communist Checkpoint!

What's the problem with it? It's completely un-american. No free travel as guaranteed by the US constitution... Guilty until proven innocent... Unreasonable serach and seizure, what else you do you want?

Why not just start going through people's houses? Isn't buying a house a privaledge and not a right?

Now if you would like to go take a civics class and learn a little about the functions of state, county, local and federal governments,,, cough,cough,,

When Drunk Driving Deterrence Becomes Neo-Prohibition

Modern Drunkard Magazine Online

[CareBear]

Hey jpbikerfreak-I'm enjoying the dialogue, but I wish someone would weigh in with the question I asked or is it just too assinine? I know what I think, but would like to hear others weigh in.

[KC Cicero]

It is important to understand that -- by definition -- anyone stopped and ticketed at such a roadblock stop is not driving in an unsafe manner, or else he could be stopped for an actual violation. By definition, we are ticketing those who are driving safely! Weird or what?

The fact is that this has nothing to do with actual public safety. It is just one more way to use fear to deprive us of our liberties. Drunk Drivers. BOO! Child Molesters. BOO! Drug Peddlers. BOO!Terrorists under the bed. BOO! Please Mr. Policeman/DEA/FBI/etc. come save us. Let us spend more money on "security" instead of educating our kids.

Yes, some people drive when they shouldn't. But ACTUAL alcohol-related deaths are no different now -- with a .08 limit -- than they were in 1965 with .15. Yes, there are some perverts out there -- but most are members of the same family as the victim. Yes, drugs are bad for you -- but locking up your kids over drugs is worse, and drug prohibition is what feeds drug-related violence.

And yes, there are real terrorists out there -- but no one in Al Qaida knows where Leawood is -- or cares!

[blarney]

Well to anyone who thinks our state and local governments are not the one in control of the checkpoints then I am laughing at you. BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA

For anyone who wants to somehow tie a link between dui checkpoints and the war in Iraq that is just plain asinine and you really really need a civics lesson.

JP, besides Carebear seem to be the only once with a lick of common sense thus far. Driving is not a right it's a priveledge they are not searching the car they are checking someone to see if they are drunk on a public road. There is no infringement travel is not restricted in any way whatsoever only a means of travel. Now if someone wants to stay off the roads and drink and drive then so be it but it's a different story on our roads.

[blarney]

This is just a sad statement and shows why our different governments are intruding in our lives. Hopefully the next generation will grow up to have a little more sense.

"The fact is that this has nothing to do with actual public safety. It is just one more way to use fear to deprive us of our liberties. Drunk Drivers. BOO! Child Molesters. BOO! Drug Peddlers. BOO!Terrorists under the bed. BOO! Please Mr. Policeman/DEA/FBI/etc. come save us. Let us spend more money on "security" instead of educating our kids."

[KU football fan]

Oh boy, I don't understand why many people like to drink beer and drive while they were drunk! That is very STUPID!

How come everybody can stay home, talk, drink beer and sleep overnight?

[CareBear]

Do we know who the anon poster is? Maybe they just don't realize typepad through their name out. Here's something else I want to know. Let's say that said checkpoint had a very disappointing night and my lucky Gestapo was upset that he hadn't written a ticket yet, let's further surmise that I had not done anything wrong, but was extremely nervous because I had NEVER been pulled over in my 31 years of driving. Now because I'm nervous and gittery, would that give him probable cause to assume I have something to hide and he could then search myself, purse and car? Is that his right at a DUI checkpoint?

blarney said
[Well to anyone who thinks our state and local governments are not the one in control of the checkpoints then I am laughing at you. BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA]

Nice, change what was actually written so it means what you *think* we are saying. The MONEY to pay the police officers for the overtime comes from FEDERAL tax money given to the local departments with the stipulation that it be used exclusively to pay for DUI checzpointz. Can you dispute that? Also, The fed imposes sanctions on states/localites that don't play ball with the MADD influenced federal DUI regs.

blarney then claims
[Driving is not a right it's a priveledge they are not searching the car they are checking someone to see if they are drunk on a public road.]

Correct, driving is a priveledge, but the 4th amendment protection is NOT. Furthermore, they aren't just checking for DRUNK drivers, since drunk has a very specific legal definition, and people are arrested for other charges. Also, an officer has discretion to arrest a person stopped at a DUI checzpoint with .00 BAC for DUI if they even smell alcohol. And then the person has to prove they weren't legally drunk, spending their own money to do so. Guilty until proven innocent. That is one of the things MADD is responsible for pushing into law.

MADD started out as a good intentioned group. But it has lost its way, and become a group of people who would probably thrive in a communist country. The lady who started MADD quit because of it.

[paulmcb]

This post is mine (PaulMcB)
MADD started out as a good intentioned group. But it has lost its way, and become a group of people who would probably thrive in a communist country. The lady who started MADD quit because of it.

I'm signed into typepad, it just doesn't like me right now.

[blarney]

PaulMcb I keep saying what I said in the first place. YOU are the one trying to change it. the Fed has nothing to do with the DUI checkpoints it's still our local governments and you inventing what I say or don't say is not going to change that. You go ahead and keep trying to blame this on the wrong people so you can complain about some non-existent right is being trampled.

They are checking for drunk drivers period. If something else gives them probable cause then they can do that. This is still a local issue and it is something that can be changed with voting but it has nothing to do with our civil liberties it has to with us using the public roads. Common sense says that if someone is acting impaired in any way whatsoever they are a danger gas powered multi ton piece of steel that carreens down the road. If you prove yourself not guilty you have the ability to sue for re-imbursement, false imprisonment, etc. You just have to prove you were arrested without cause and nowadays that won't be hard with the video, sound and public input we have as long as you weren't. If you can't prove that then one should stay off the public roads where families and innocents are just abiding by the law and trying to go about their daily lives. Those are the ones who's interests are being served by these checkpoints since with those 13drunk drivers off the road it keeps any of those families from dying.

[blarney]

By the way Paul, that wasn't a claim that was a cold hard fact. DUI checkpoints look for drunk drivers drviing on our public roads.

[Kelly]

Is it not scary to you all that there were 14 drunks out driving around on the roads and could have killed you, your spouse, child, friend, ect....??? How does THAT not piss you off?? Why don't you direct some of your anger and attitude toward the people who choose to endanger others by driving drunk???

[CareBear]

Okay Blarney and Paul, I think you guys are saying the same thing, just in a completely different way. That being said, would you go back and look at my 12:29 post, it puts a whole different spin on a "DUI" checkpoint I think. If they are going to do all of this, why not call it a random car stop? Here in Indy a few months ago, they had a Driver License check and stopped every car going both North and South on Lee's Summit Road between 35th and 23rd Street. Was that for public safety? If hardly think so.

[CareBear]

Kelly-I understand what you are saying, I had a loved one killed by a drunk driver, a think about it everyday. The only thing I'm saying is there has got to be a better way.

[blarney]

CareBear there is a big difference between acting nervous and acting impaired. If you are nervous that is not probably cause that just means you are human. Is there the chance a cop could misinterpret this? Yes but just like so many other things you cannot take the extreme and call it the norm. They have no right to search your car or your purse without probably cause. They can search your person if removed from the car for safety reasons.

These are things that have stood the test of the courts and have won. They have to follow certain guidlines when doing these dui checks such as every 5th car or whatever number they choose will actually have to take a sobriety test. This doesn't mean they can't ask every person if they have had a drink and if someone says yes then they will also have to test. I thought I would toss that in before some bonehead tries some of this what if crap.

[blarney]

Kelly,
Herein lies the rub, these are the same folks who either expect the almighty government to step in and infringe on our rights by way of taxation etc, but then find a problem with the police keeping dangers out of the public. Some folks will just whine and gripe about the police no matter what.

[CareBear]

Thank you blarney, that makes me feel much better. I would love to join you guys at Knuckleheads for a little blues, but I have strep throat and just want to stay in my pajama pants and eat my ice cream. Maybe another time.

[paulmcb]

Sorry for the delay in replying Blarney, got hot and been in the pool most of the day.
What the Fed has to do with it is: they pay for it.
These DUI checkpoints aren't paid for with local money. Not one dime.
That is a fact.
Without the federal tax money being doled out to JoCo, or JaCo, or any city, these DUI roadblocks wouldn't exist. See, MADD doesn't have the clout locally to mandate counties and cities pay for all this overtime, but they do have the clout in DC... they spend a lot of money getting national politicians in their pockets. The ones who don't play ball with them don't last long because MADD throws lots of money against them.
Oh, and as a libertarian, I certainly don't expect the government to step in and infringe on our rights... whether it is taxation or the right to be free from warrantless searches without probable cause.
Carebear, in answer to your post at 12:29, if the officer feels your are "under the influence" at a DUI checkpoint... he can arrest and charge you with DUI, even though it was only you were feeling nervous. It is then up to you to prove in court that the officer was wrong. Do a GOOGLE search, there was a person arrested in the last 3 months for DUI with a BAC of .00, just because the cop felt they were drunk. Also, you can be arrested and charged if you refuse a sobriety test. That is a clear 5th amendment violation against self incrimination, especially considering that eating homemade bread can give you a BAC over the legal limit.

[CareBear]

So paulmcb-I can be arrested because the officer says I'm under the influence just because he's cranky that he hasn't written one ticket and then I have to prove I'm not? There are alot of things that can register in a BAC, something as simple as gum, whitening mouthwash or toothpaste. As I said to Kelly earlier today, I had a loved one killed by a drunk driver so I'm all for keeping the drunks off the street, but I truly believe there has to be a better way to handle it. I also think that you and Blarney were pretty much saying the same thing, just in a different way.

[Bobseager]

blog nazis grow some balls. so much for freedom of speech.

[JC_in_KC]

Paul, not sure what you are putting in your bread, but you might want to change your recipe. I see the same people bitch week after week about how alcohol is worse than weed and weed should be legal because alcohol is the real evil. Then they come in here and get mad because something is being done against those who make the roads unsafe by drinking alcohol and driving. As for you 0.0 BAC notion, that is a truth. Tha is because weed, crack, meth, and all the other drugs that you and your type want legal do not show up in a BAC test. Finally the right of free passage has not been violated, there are many ways to obtain free passage from walking, to taking a bus, limo or cab. A drunk hitting me, my family, or my friends has clearly taken away the right of free passage. My suggestioin is that if you do no like MADD, then start your own 501 and get a different message out. I doubt it will be very successful as you are a fringe minority.

[blarney]

Paul, I have done multiple searches on the funding on sobriety and dui checkpoints. I have found nothing where the fed is funding these either partially or totally. I have found where state governments are increasing funding on them though in Ca., Utah, Mo, Florida, Maryland and Massachusettes. Now I know you are highly convinced that the fed is paying for this but so far nothing I have found supports this, in fact with states controlling the increasing of funding for them I would say (as I already said) that it's a state and local government issue. If you have something from a government site that shows differently please feel free to show it.

[feeble]

JC_In_KC, with the exception of unleven breads, that is those made without yeast, ALL freshly baked bread contains trace amounts of alcohol.

Now, it's pretty much impossible to eat enough bread to be in any weight impaired (well, maybe besides that who "carbohydrate coma" thing) but it could cause you to fail a breathylzer. Go directly to jail, do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

The really awesome part is that the breathylzers used in the field can be startling inaccurate. Of course, it doesn't really matter because you can be arrested for DUI by simply failing any of the field sobriety tests, which are all very subjective and non-scientific.

[JC_in_KC]

feeble, I would have to see where your facts are coming from about the bread. I find it hard to believe that there is enough alcohol in bread to cause a .08 BAC. Also the machines used at the checkpoints are the same machines used at the stations. They go through the same maintenance. So your comment on inaccuracy is just that, inaccurate.

[CareBear]

http://www.turbo-yeast.com/intro.html

Sorry guys, don't know how to do links, but this might help. I do know one thing, I grew up on homemade bread and rolls from both my Mom and Grammy, we never had anything but homemade. There is another sight that talks about using yeast in distillers, etc. Anyway, for what's worth, here it is.

[JC_in_KC]

Alright CB, you got me the info. After skimming through it, it appears that those who would eat this kind of bread would probably know it and be eating it intentionally.

[CareBear]

JC_in_KC, you mean I contributed something intellectually? I gotta mark the date cause I'm usually not the is this what you're looking for kinda girl!! I'm the HUH? Did you go to the other website? There's another way to use turbo yeast that is even more powerful, but I don't think anyone could actually make bread using that one. The only yeast I knew about until today was Baker's. I always say I try to learn something new everyday.