8 DUI arrests during Merriam checkpoint, saturation patrol

From Merriam PD: The Merriam Police Department and Johnson County area law enforcement agencies completed a DUI Checkpoint on Friday September 18 from 7:30 PM until 11:00 PM. The DUI Saturation Patrol was from 11:00 PM to 3:00 AM Friday September 18th and 19th.

During that time officers checked a little over 500 drivers for signs of intoxication. They arrested 3 drivers for driving under the influence of alcohol, 3 drivers for having open alcohol containers in their cars, 1 driver for possession of drugs and two for outstanding warrants.

During the DUI Saturation Patrol officers arrested 5 drivers for DUI and one intoxicated pedestrian.

We would like to thank the citizens for their patients during the DUI Checkpoint and remind everyone that drinking and driving do not mix.

Agencies Involved:

• Merriam Police Department
• Johnson County Sheriff’s Department
• Kansas Highway Patrol
• Lenexa Police Department
• Mission Police Department
• Prairie Village Police Department
• Shawnee Police Department
• Olathe Police Department

Comments

[Sasquach]

Interesting: During the saturation patrol, during which the police did not have to stop 500 drivers without reasonable suspicion, a greater # of DUI arrests were made. Now it doesn't say how many people were stopped at the saturation patrol, but as long as it was fewer than 834 people stopped, the DUI arrest rate per # of vehicles detained for the saturation patrol is going to be hire than the abysmal 0.6% from the checkpoint. Now tell me again why checkpoints are a good thing given the alternatives?

[Tim P]

So where was this one at?

[Man in a Mission]

Sasquatch - . . . hire than ?

Also, someone needs to go back and study one's maths, 3+3+1+2=9 not 8.

[D-man]

Man in a Mission needs to realize they are counting offenses and not instances. It's possible that one of the DUI arrests had a open container. But I'm guessing it's the drugs that was the subsequent charge, as in they arrested them and when they were frisking them a bag of pot was found.

[Obama is the Man]

What a waste of precious taxpayer Dollars --
.6% arrested for DUI.. An open container is not the same as a DUI!

[Sasquach]

MIAM,

the incidental non-DUI arrests are nice, but how many people were arrested for the stated purpose of the checkpoint (without which the checkpoint, and the other arrests associated with it would be illegal)?

If your Dr. Scholes foot odor pads, incidentally, made you a little taller, but still left you with bad foot odor, does that mean they are effective?

[sickoftheidiots]

.6% hardly justifies the Constitutional exception necessary for these checkpoints to exist. .6 is the lowest I've seen, but it's almost never more than 2-3% which seems woefully insufficient to justify their use. Particularly when other, constitutinally valid methods, produce better results.

[Man in a Mission]

What D-Man needs to realize is that even if he is right about individuals being arrested, then the correct answer of number of people arrested for DUI is 3 (per the article). The only way 8 would be correct would be (possibly, but unknown due to how the statistics are presented) if the total number of people arrest for various charges, including, but not limited to DUI were 8. However, from this report, we can only know that a total of 9 charges were filed against somewhere between 3 and 9 individuals.

Sasquatch -

The point I was making was not regards the count of charges versus number of arrests or even about the efficacy of patrols, checkpoints, or other enforcement measures, but rather about the invalid count listed in the headline to this post. I still stand (in my Dr. Scholl's) by my original observation about your use of hire instead of higher. Sorry, but it your spelling and grammar that stink, not my reasoning.