NJSP Troopers to get daily MADD propaganda before starting their shifts

[TurboDan]

Yeah... what the title said:

Troopers who patrol New Jersey?s roads will have an unusual start to their days this holiday season: daily shift briefings will include personal stories from MADD representatives.

Colonel Rick Fuentes, the State Police Superintendent, hopes the presentations by Mothers Against Drunk Driving helps troopers make the connection between their vigilance and the power it has to protect a family from intense suffering and pain.

http://www.cliffviewpilot.com/public-safety/774-nj-state-police-boss-gives-troopers-unusual-task

[Rupert]

Maybe DAMM can give them a debriefing in the evening...

[James Young]

Next, they'll be hearing from the Women's Christian Temperance Union.  MADD is just a modern version of the WCTU, neo-prohibitionist and much more interested in fund-raising than promoting policies and activities that would improve the drunk-driving crash-, injury- and fatality rates.

[MaxPower]

I pity the cops who have to so throuh those briefings. All the officers that I deal with don't seem to need to be reminded to be vigilent, especially by some interest group.

[TurboDan]

I pity the cops who have to so throuh those briefings. All the officers that I deal with don't seem to need to be reminded to be vigilent, especially by some interest group.

This was met by a big, collective rolleyes on the NJ LE forum where I found it posted originally.

[dazzleman]

This was met by a big, collective rolleyes on the NJ LE forum where I found it posted originally.

Why would the NJSP require their officers to attend a briefing by MADD?  Did MADD pay them or something?

[TurboDan]

Why would the NJSP require their officers to attend a briefing by MADD?  Did MADD pay them or something?

I'm sure they greased the politician who's responsible for appointing the State Police Superintendent. Of course, it doesn't help that our state AG is an anti-cop weenie liberal who's probably a card-carrying MADD member. I'm surprised she doesn't deputize MADD soccer moms to make DWI arrests.

[James Young]

MADD likes to engage official agencies because it gives them the imprimatur of an official spokesman and therefore an expert in the field.  Never mind that much of their focus has switched from drunk driving to fund-raising.  They have been sanctioned by several states for failure to comply with rules for non-profit organizations.  The founder, Candy Lightner, no longer has any dealings with them. 

Several years ago (2002?), MADD joined with the Tulsa Police Department and the Tulsa Public Schools to present ?evidence? of the impact of drunk driving, except that the vehicle displayed was crashed by a driver who fell asleep and ran off the road.  They bolted on some Oklahoma plates, threw several empty beer cans inside and told all the kids it was a bunch of kids who got liquored up and hit a family.  Lying bastards. 

[dazzleman]

I'm sure they greased the politician who's responsible for appointing the State Police Superintendent. Of course, it doesn't help that our state AG is an anti-cop weenie liberal who's probably a card-carrying MADD member. I'm surprised she doesn't deputize MADD soccer moms to make DWI arrests.

Was she re-elected in November?

[TurboDan]

Was she re-elected in November?

The AG is appointed by the governor in NJ. Since the current governor (Corzine) was just kicked out of office, there will be a new AG when Chris Christie becomes governor in January.

[dazzleman]

In Connecticut, the AG is elected.  We've had the same pompous, self-worshipping publicity hound windbag for about 20 years

[TurboDan]

In Connecticut, the AG is elected.  We've had the same pompous, self-worshipping publicity hound windbag for about 20 years

While I'd love our AG to be less than a hack political appointee, I shudder to think who the populace of New Jersey would actually elect to that office.

[dazzleman]

I know what you mean.

[MaxPower]

In Maine, I believe, the AG is elected by one of the representative bodies.  Works out pretty well because its not a straight political appointee or popular vote, but it is always someone from the party in charge.

[r0tor]

I can't wait to find out how many more fund-raier err "drunk driving safety" checkpoints there will be...

[bing_oh]

I can't wait to find out how many more fund-raier err "drunk driving safety" checkpoints there will be...

You can argue the question of profiting from traffic enforcement all day, but I don't see how you can argue that any kind of DUI enforcement effort is focused on anything but safety. DUI checkpoints, controversial as they may be, are effective in catching drunk drivers.

[r0tor]

If it was focused on safety only, a drunk driver would be pulled off the road and either left to sleep off his drunkeness or let a sober passenger drive the car home.  Instead, even borderline "drunk" people who exhibit no actual driving impairment and instead are trapped in a net like a tuna are made to pay through their ass.  Case in point would be my friend who got busted 2 blocks from his house and tested .01 over the legal limit or the douchebag that followed me out of the bar, pulled me over for a bullshit "speeding incident", accused me of having dilated eyes and smelling heavily of alcohol (i had 2 beers in 5 hours), and then made me walk a line and stand on one leg touching my nose on the side of a steep ass hill.  

"Safety" my ass...

DUI checkpoints are a completely unamerican, unconstitutional, public service fundraiser...

[Rupert]

Welp, here we go...

[bing_oh]

If it was focused on safety only, a drunk driver would be pulled off the road and either left to sleep off his drunkeness or let a sober passenger drive the car home.  Instead, even borderline "drunk" people who exhibit no actual driving impairment and instead are trapped in a net like a tuna are made to pay through their ass.  Case in point would be my friend who got busted 2 blocks from his house and tested .01 over the legal limit or the douchebag that followed me out of the bar, pulled me over for a bullshit "speeding incident", accused me of having dilated eyes and smelling heavily of alcohol (i had 2 beers in 5 hours), and then made me walk a line and stand on one leg touching my nose on the side of a steep ass hill.  

"Safety" my ass...

DUI checkpoints are a completely unamerican, unconstitutional, public service fundraiser...

Ah, so you would encourage LE to just have a sober driver take a drunk home or let him sleep it off on the side of the road...a person who already made a conscience decision to drive while impaired and put others at risk. Basically, you think it would be a good idea to let someone who clearly put others' lives at risk to get off with no consequences. What an excellent idea!

As for the legal limits set by law, I can tell you that I'm a drinker myself. I've also been part of certification classes for Standardize Field Sobriety Tests (SFST's), which means that I've been brought up to as close to the legal limit as possible and then students practice administering field tests on me. I can say with 100% certainty that I would absolutely, positively never drive at a .08 BAC. It's well beyond buzzed. It's drunk. So, you can argue the per se limits as much as you like, but I have alot of personal experience and you'll never convince me that it's too low.

As for your experience with the "douchbag" who pulled you over coming out of the bar, I can tell you that, if I have any indications of intoxication or an admission of drinking on a traffic stop, you're doing the SFST's for me. If I don't give them and let you go, and you drive away and kill a family because you're plastered, I'm going to lose everything I have in the civil suit and possibly get criminally prosecuted for misfeasance/malfeasance/nonfeasance. I think not, thank you very much. And, I won't apologize for the inconvenience of the 5 frickin' minutes it took you to do the tests...it's a small price to pay to make sure you're not impaired. As for pulling you over coming out of a bar, well, you don't go the middle of the desert to fish...you go where the fish are.

[r0tor]

Ah, so you would encourage LE to just have a sober driver take a drunk home or let him sleep it off on the side of the road...a person who already made a conscience decision to drive while impaired and put others at risk. Basically, you think it would be a good idea to let someone who clearly put others' lives at risk to get off with no consequences. What an excellent idea!

Just how many people are repeat DUI offenders?  Thats right... millions because pulling someone over and busting them doesn't fix anything!  If a person truely feels regret for driving drunk, they will correct the behavior with or without a ticket.  If they feel no regret for driving "drunk" then their behavior will not change.  Its no different then a speeding ticket and the millions of repeat speeding offenders.  Furthermore, many studies have shown that idiots using cellphones are much worse drivers then someone at .08 BAC - the limit is based more on politics and revenue then anything else.

How is it even remotely legal for you to perform a sobriety test on someone with no visible impairment?  So what, in court you just lie about how bad his breathe smelled or that his pupils dialated the size of quarters to give you the right to ask him to step out of his car?  Whats next, following someone out of a drug store and then pulling him over and searching the car for drugs?

"it's a small price to pay to make sure you're not impaired"? Are you kidding me?  Its not enough to drive safely coming out of a bar, but I have to prove to you I am legal to drive?  Since when the hell are you guilty of something until proven innocent in this damn country???  If I am driving with absolutely no signs of being impaired yet you pull me over and try your damndest to convict me of DUI and potential fuck up my life - I am suppose to feel good about it???  With this understanding, if I ever have the opportunity to screw over Officer Douchebag that tried to nab me for DUI or Officer Jackass who is trying to convict me of going through a redlight eventhough he was 5 cars behind me and couldn't even see my ass clearly, I will with no regrets.


If the police station needs more money, make like a Firefighter and stand on a damn street corner for the day and beg for handouts.

[r0tor]

Furthermore, DUI checkpoints are absolutely unconstitutional and prohibited in 11 states and basically only exist in the rest of the country because of a judge who admitted the checkpoints are unconstitutional but its OK to infringe on your legal rights if it makes you safer.  The only reason that blindingly horrible ruling has not been retested is its political suicide for any Justice because of groups like MADD...

[JWC]

You can argue the question of profiting from traffic enforcement all day, but I don't see how you can argue that any kind of DUI enforcement effort is focused on anything but safety. DUI checkpoints, controversial as they may be, are effective in catching drunk drivers.

You could catch a lot of drug dealers if you went door-to-door and searched people's homes. 

I told my daughter that if she gets pulled over, politely...very politely...refuse any request to search the car.  If she is asked to get out, remove the keys and lock the door.   If the officer wants to search a locked car, he can get a warrant....and she needs to call me.

[bing_oh]

Just how many people are repeat DUI offenders?  Thats right... millions because pulling someone over and busting them doesn't fix anything!  If a person truely feels regret for driving drunk, they will correct the behavior with or without a ticket.  If they feel no regret for driving "drunk" then their behavior will not change.  Its no different then a speeding ticket and the millions of repeat speeding offenders.

So, because people decide to repeat offend, we should just go ahead and give up and let them offend? Even if the offense puts the public at risk? Interesting idea.

Furthermore, many studies have shown that idiots using cellphones are much worse drivers then someone at .08 BAC - the limit is based more on politics and revenue then anything else.

So, convince your local lawmakers to pass laws the prohibit the use of cell phones while driving. Because there isn't a law against one doesn;t mean that you arbitrarily eliminate a law against another. And, as I've already said, I've got personal experience with knowing exactly what a .08 BAC feels like. You will never convince me it's ok to drive at that level.

How is it even remotely legal for you to perform a sobriety test on someone with no visible impairment?  So what, in court you just lie about how bad his breathe smelled or that his pupils dialated the size of quarters to give you the right to ask him to step out of his car?  Whats next, following someone out of a drug store and then pulling him over and searching the car for drugs?

It's called an investigative detention and I ask if he will step out of the car to perform SFST's. A driver has every right to refuse those tests...it's a rare month where I don't have a couple people do so and I really don't care if they do. I'll have to decide if I have probable cause to make an arrest from there. I'll be more than happy to put my 10 years of experience, observations, and training on the stand in front of a judge or jury against someone's word that they weren't intoxicated...no lying about it on the stand, thank you very much.

"it's a small price to pay to make sure you're not impaired"? Are you kidding me?  Its not enough to drive safely coming out of a bar, but I have to prove to you I am legal to drive?  Since when the hell are you guilty of something until proven innocent in this damn country???  If I am driving with absolutely no signs of being impaired yet you pull me over and try your damndest to convict me of DUI and potential fuck up my life - I am suppose to feel good about it???  With this understanding, if I ever have the opportunity to screw over Officer Douchebag that tried to nab me for DUI or Officer Jackass who is trying to convict me of going through a redlight eventhough he was 5 cars behind me and couldn't even see my ass clearly, I will with no regrets.

I don't stop people because they come out of a bar. I stop people for violations of the law. If I see indications of intoxication or they admit to drinking, you're damn right I'm gonna request SFST's. And, again, go right ahead and refuse if you like. I'll make my decision from there. As for "guilty until proven innocent," police officers don't decide guilt or innocence, the court does. We work on the legal standards or reasonable suspicion and probable cause. If you're going to argue the law, you should have a firm grasp of the concepts that govern us.

[bing_oh]

You could catch a lot of drug dealers if you went door-to-door and searched people's homes. 

I told my daughter that if she gets pulled over, politely...very politely...refuse any request to search the car.  If she is asked to get out, remove the keys and lock the door.   If the officer wants to search a locked car, he can get a warrant....and she needs to call me.

This isn't about searching house-to-house for drug dealers, it's about checkpoints and DUI enforcement. The courts have ruled that checkpoints are a minimal intrusion, very different from searching your house, and are illegal if the intrusion is not minimal. That's why time limits on stops and contacts are strictly enforced at DUI checkpoints and there is a required "escape path" if someone doesn't want to go through the checkpoint.

As for a search of a vehice, you have every right to refuse a consentual search. But, understand that different rules apply to vehicle searches and there are established exceptions because of their mobile nature. An officer doesn't necessarily need a warrant to search a vehicle.

[r0tor]

So, because people decide to repeat offend, we should just go ahead and give up and let them offend? Even if the offense puts the public at risk? Interesting idea

So as my example goes, a person with a .09BAC is driving fine, obeying all laws, is paying attention, and driving better then some of the morons who are sober.  Your making the world a "safer" place by busting him huh?  Great strategy on promoting safety... And actually, before DUI became a political and financial topic, cops did let drivers sleep off their drunkness or give someone a warning.

I don't stop people because they come out of a bar. I stop people for violations of the law. If I see indications of intoxication or they admit to drinking, you're damn right I'm gonna request SFST's. And, again, go right ahead and refuse if you like. I'll make my decision from there. As for "guilty until proven innocent," police officers don't decide guilt or innocence, the court does. We work on the legal standards or reasonable suspicion and probable cause. If you're going to argue the law, you should have a firm grasp of the concepts that govern us.

Holy shit... so if you pull me over and I say yes I had 1 beer you are going to make me perform a sobriety test no matter if I act/drive intoxicated or not.  If I refuse you are going to place me under arrest.  WTF...

I am going to call the cops on the next cop I see because he is carrying a gun and I'm going to make the assumption that he murdered someone with it.

[r0tor]

This thread has fueled so much anti-cop rage inside me that I never had before...

[Eye of the Tiger]

This thread has fueled so much anti-cop rage inside me that I never had before...

See if you can get a one-day ban out of it!

[GoCougs]

The problem with DUI is not enforcement or detection but with consequences. MADD should devote its resources for lobbying to actually make DUI a serious crime.

[bing_oh]

So as my example goes, a person with a .09BAC is driving fine, obeying all laws, is paying attention, and driving better then some of the morons who are sober.  Your making the world a "safer" place by busting him huh?  Great strategy on promoting safety...

Do you know what it feels like to have a .08 BAC? Not "I think" or "somewhere around there," but a .08 BAC? As I've said, I do, and it's not a safe condition to drive in. So, talk about "driving fine" and "paying attention," it's not gonna fly with me. He's a risk and I'm making the roads safer by removing him from them.

Holy shit... so if you pull me over and I say yes I had 1 beer you are going to make me perform a sobriety test no matter if I act/drive intoxicated or not.  If I refuse you are going to place me under arrest.  WTF...

I am going to call the cops on the next cop I see because he is carrying a gun and I'm going to make the assumption that he murdered someone with it.

Why would I ask if you've been drinking unless I had some indication of it while speaking to you? And, if I did have some indication, don't you think it'd maybe be that you'd had more that one beer? And, do you think that maybe a DUI driver might lie about the number of drinks he/she has consumed? Hmmm...

Did I say that I'd arrest you if you refused? No. You made an assumption. I said I'd decide if I had probable cause to make an arrest at that point.

[GoCougs]

So as my example goes, a person with a .09BAC is driving fine, obeying all laws, is paying attention, and driving better then some of the morons who are sober.  Your making the world a "safer" place by busting him huh?  Great strategy on promoting safety...

Holy shit... so if you pull me over and I say yes I had 1 beer you are going to make me perform a sobriety test no matter if I act/drive intoxicated or not.  If I refuse you are going to place me under arrest.  WTF...

I am going to call the cops on the next cop I see because he is carrying a gun and I'm going to make the assumption that he murdered someone with it.

Is this a serious post?