NJSP Troopers to get daily MADD propaganda before starting their shifts

[dsred]

Everyone who drinks knows what a .08 BAC feels like. It affects people differently. Some people are OK to drive at .08, others are not.

Tave, is this a typo? Because no, I would say most people have no idea vis a vis the number vs. their condition. They haven't ever had a breathalizer.

[JWC]

my other experience was at a DUI checkpoint.  i was at a late night movie.  Got stopped at the checkpoint.  The officer started questioning me and repeatedly did not believe I came from a movie theatre and got within a few inches of my face trying to smell my breathe.  Had the nerve to ask me what the hell i was chewing gum for!  He   then proceeded to rather pissily check my license, registration, insurance, plates, inspection, headlights, tailights, turnsignals, and mother frikkin tire tread depth

Next time don't roll the window down all the way...and when asked...politely decline to roll it down any further.   

My uncle was pulled over for speeding on I-580, by CHP.  He only rolled the window down three or four inches.  The LEO kept asking him to roll the window down further and my uncle kept saying he didn't see the need, he could hear him fine. The patrolman had to hand the ticket book through the small opening.  When my uncle handed back over, he purposely dropped the pen out the window.  It was quite a sight.  At one point the officer kept asking him to get out and Jim kept asking if there was a problem requiring him to step onto the freeway where his life would be endangered by traffic.

It was frickin' hilarious.   We had sense enough not to laugh in front of the officer though.

The most pissed I've ever seen an CHP was when my friend Bill received his speeding ticket. Bill owned a roofing business and still roofed with the guys when he was 70 years old.  The patrolman handed him the ticket and said something...that's going to cost you 120 dollars.  Bill laughed and said back, "Not me, the price of roofing just went up."

[bing_oh]

Raw numbers mean relatively little.

Neither does the victim card. As if my friends and family have never been hurt by drunk driving.



All I'm saying is that the .08 is artificially low owing to political furor. I'm not arguing that alcohol consumption and driving is dangerous. I'm arguing AT WHAT POINT IS THE DANGER.

Per the website you posted, 70% of the fatalities in question involve a driver with a BAC over .15

Ok, since you don't like numbers, then should I just stick with my professional opinion and experience on the subject? I've got both sides of that equation covered, Tave...which one do you want me to express for ya?

[Tave]

Tave, is this a typo? Because no, I would say most people have no idea vis a vis the number vs. their condition. They haven't ever had a breathalizer.

Do most people know? Probably not. Most of my friends have played with one.

Is Bing the sole authority on what it feels like? No he's not.

[bing_oh]

My understanding is that a search is legal, IF possible contraband is in plain sight.  Otherwise, you have to consent to the search.

Plain sight, plain smell, K9 hit, and inventory are all acceptable reasons to search a motor vehicle without consent. The court is much more liberal in giving LE leeway in searching a motor vehicle because of its mobile nature.

[Tave]

Ok, since you don't like numbers, then should I just stick with my professional opinion and experience on the subject? I've got both sides of that equation covered, Tave...which one do you want me to express for ya?

I said "raw numbers."

I.e. "There were X deaths this year."

[bing_oh]

Do most people know? Probably not. Most of my friends have played with one.

Is Bing the sole authority on what it feels like? No he's not.

Never claimed I was the sole authority. I can say with certainty that I have a very unique level of experience, given that I'm a trained and experienced LEO with extensive knowledge and understanding of DUI's and DUI enforcement, plus I'm a drinker who has achieved a .08 BAC in a controlled and tested environment. You'd be had pressed to find anyone on this board, besides maybe the other resident LEO's, with that level of experience and knowledge on the subject.

[bing_oh]

I said "raw numbers."

I.e. "There were X deaths this year."

I've given you pretty much everything there is out there, Tave. I've given you facts, scientific evidence, and professional experience. If you're unable to bring that all together, then it's really not my problem and there's little point in banging my head against the wall trying to prove anything to you on the subject. There's a difference between holding a personal opinion and hardheaded denial of the facts.

[Tave]

I've given you pretty much everything there is out there, Tave. I've given you facts, scientific evidence, and professional experience. If you're unable to bring that all together, then it's really not my problem and there's little point in banging my head against the wall trying to prove anything to you on the subject. There's a difference between holding a personal opinion and hardheaded denial of the facts.

No, you've repeatedly ignored the most important fact relevant to my assertion.


70% of drunk driving fatalities involve a driver with a BAC over .15

Ergo, the drivers at .08 are not the problem.

[bing_oh]

Next time don't roll the window down all the way...and when asked...politely decline to roll it down any further.   

My uncle was pulled over for speeding on I-580, by CHP.  He only rolled the window down three or four inches.  The LEO kept asking him to roll the window down further and my uncle kept saying he didn't see the need, he could hear him fine. The patrolman had to hand the ticket book through the small opening.  When my uncle handed back over, he purposely dropped the pen out the window.  It was quite a sight.  At one point the officer kept asking him to get out and Jim kept asking if there was a problem requiring him to step onto the freeway where his life would be endangered by traffic.

That's an old tactic for drunks, and one that could easily get you in alot more trouble than just a traffic ticket. If you do something that impedes my ability to perform my duties, then you could get arrested for Obstructing Official Business.

[bing_oh]

No, you've repeatedly ignored the most important fact relevant to my assertion.

70% of drunk driving fatalities involve a driver with a BAC over .15

Ergo, the drivers at .08 are not the problem.

And 30% are under a .15 BAC. That's still a problem. Or do those 30% of deaths not matter?

[Tave]

Never claimed I was the sole authority.

You claimed that you knew what it felt like to be at .08 and drinkers don't.

In fact I know what it feels like, and I know other people who know what it feels like too.

[bing_oh]

You claimed that you knew what it felt like to be at .08 and drinkers don't.

In fact I know what it feels like, and I know other people who know what it feels like too.

The vast majority of drinkers don't.

Do most people know? Probably not. Most of my friends have played with one.

In your own words, you agreed with me! And, depending on how controlled the setting you "played with one" was, the degree of your and your friends' knowledge on the subject is rather suspect.

[Tave]

And 30% are under a .15 BAC. That's still a problem. Or do those 30% of deaths not matter?

I don't know, more information is required.


Of those 30%, how many involve drivers over .10?

Of those under .10, how many accidents were caused by the driver's impairment?

Of those under .10 and were caused by the impairment, how does that compare to accident statistics generally?


It seems obvious to me that people with BACs over .15 are causing the problem, but fine, let's accept your premise: why stop at .08? Why not just arrest anyone that has any alcohol in their bloodstream? After all, drivers with .01 BACs might be involved in 1% of fatal accidents...

[r0tor]

If you do something that impedes my ability to perform my duties, then you could get arrested for Obstructing Official Business.

i love the attitude... i only hope one day your on the wrong end to see what it feels like.  but of course like most cops, you'll just flash the badge and let it all slide under the table 

[bing_oh]

i love the attitude... i only hope one day your on the wrong end to see what it feels like.  but of course like most cops, you'll just flash the badge and let it all slide under the table 

In 10 years, I've never once flashed my badge during a stop. NEVER. I don't abuse my position, and I'm, quite franky, insulted by your implication that I do or would.

Have a nice evening, Rotor. I'm done with your pissy little attitude.

[r0tor]

have a good night

[bing_oh]

I don't know, more information is required.

Of those 30%, how many involve drivers over .10?

Of those under .10, how many accidents were caused by the driver's impairment?

Of those under .10 and were caused by the impairment, how does that compare to accident statistics generally?

And we both know that statistics that detailed aren't going to be readily available. And, if they were, it would be a mountain of data that you'd have to dig through and sort.

It seems obvious to me that people with BACs over .15 are causing the problem, but fine, let's accept your premise: why stop at .08? Why not just arrest anyone that has any alcohol in their bloodstream? After all, drivers with .01 BACs might be involved in 1% of fatal accidents...

That's not my decision to make. That's the decision of our elected representatives. There's obviously data that supports an even lower per se level (as I quoted eariler), but you have to obviously measure the benefit of a further lowering of the BAC vs. the freedoms of the individual. Personally, I think that the .08 is an excellent compromise between safety and freedom.

[Tave]

There's obviously data that supports an even lower per se level (as I quoted eariler), but you have to obviously measure the benefit of a further lowering of the BAC vs. the freedoms of the individual. Personally, I think that the .08 is an excellent compromise between safety and freedom.

And that's exactly what people said when the limit was higher. It used to be .15 in some places and people thought that was an excellent compromise. Then it was .10 and people thought that was an excellent compromise. Now it's .08 and people think this is an excellent compromise.

What changed? The science didn't, at least not that much. Drunk drivers with high BACs still cause the most accidents. People are still impaired at the same rate.

The political atmosphere surrounding drunk driving changed, hence my statement, "[BAC has] been systematically eviscerated due to political pressure."


So as the political juggernaut of MADD and similar groups continue to roll forward, and the topic becomes even more of a pariah and honest discussion is stifled, where does it stop?

[TurboDan]

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.

Around here, they'll usually bust MAYBE one drunk driver and something like 50 others for burnt out headlights, expired reg., all that stuff. Not that you should be driving around with burnt out lights and expired reg., but it seems like these checkpoints seem to catch everything BUT drunk people. When I worked for the paper we got all of the stats on this stuff and it seemed like it was rare that anyone was actually caught drunk in these things. Nonmoving violations, of course, go to the local municipality in New Jersey, so they make out pretty well on fines from checkpoints. Departments in this area only do checkpoints if they're given a state/fed grant, so it's pretty much just OT for off-duty guys paid from the grant money.

I've always argued that the grant money/manpower used for checkpoints should simply be put into extra patrols. Bing, maybe you can comment on this, but it would seem to me that having a marked or unmarked unit actually patrolling could detect impaired drivers to a better extent than taking a random sampling on one lane of one roadway.

[TurboDan]

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio

Bing's right.

[TurboDan]

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.

I had one officer once tell me they usually catch more drunk drivers on nearby streets than at the checkpoint itself because everyone who's impaired tries to avoid the checkpoints and gets lost on some of the other local streets. 

[TurboDan]

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

Shouldn't your problem be with the courts that have allowed checkpoints in the first place? And FWIW, even if you're .09 but "driving just fine" and you get into an accident (even if YOU didn't cause it!) you're going to be sued up the azz and you'll be fined and arrested anyway. Why take the chance in the first place?

[TurboDan]

My recent infraction was due to a grant the department received to improve "traffic safety" on a stretch of road and as I'm told by an officer on the force had a quota attached to it

Grants require a record of contact, not a ticket. I think you once said you live in NJ. Either you misunderstood the officer or he was wrong himself. There is absolutely NO grant in the state of New Jersey that requires a ticket on a stop. There are some that require a record of contact, so a written warning would suffice.

[MaxPower]

I'm sure that I show "significant impairment" when I only got 6 hours of sleep the night before. I'm sure I show "significant impairment" after a fight with my girlfriend. That doesn't mean it should be illegal for me to drive to work, and it doesn't mean I'm going to cause an accident.

?We do not realize how large a part of our law is open to reconsideration upon a slight change in the habit of the public mind.?
Oliver Wendell Holmes, The Path of the Law (1897).

If some interested group wanted to make an issue out of it, I'm sure tired driving could become just as illegal as drunk driving.

[bing_oh]

Around here, they'll usually bust MAYBE one drunk driver and something like 50 others for burnt out headlights, expired reg., all that stuff. Not that you should be driving around with burnt out lights and expired reg., but it seems like these checkpoints seem to catch everything BUT drunk people. When I worked for the paper we got all of the stats on this stuff and it seemed like it was rare that anyone was actually caught drunk in these things. Nonmoving violations, of course, go to the local municipality in New Jersey, so they make out pretty well on fines from checkpoints. Departments in this area only do checkpoints if they're given a state/fed grant, so it's pretty much just OT for off-duty guys paid from the grant money.

I've always argued that the grant money/manpower used for checkpoints should simply be put into extra patrols. Bing, maybe you can comment on this, but it would seem to me that having a marked or unmarked unit actually patrolling could detect impaired drivers to a better extent than taking a random sampling on one lane of one roadway.

I had one officer once tell me they usually catch more drunk drivers on nearby streets than at the checkpoint itself because everyone who's impaired tries to avoid the checkpoints and gets lost on some of the other local streets. 

It's true that, usually, the saturation patrol officers (those assigned to streets surrounding the checkpoint who stop for various violations looking for drunks avoiding the checkpoint) are usually the ones with the most DUI arrests. Realistically, they're actually part of the checkpoint...their arrests are usually compiled into the general stats for the checkpoint. The checkpoints themselves get relatively few DUI's. They are, however, a very visible way to make a public statement about proactive DUI enforcement. And, in the end, most of us in LE would rather deter a drunk from driving rather than catch one after the get behind the wheel.

As for the most effective use of grant money, DUI checkpoints are rather effective. As I said, it's rarely the checkpoint that gets the drunks but the officers working the surrounding streets, but the checkpoint does have something to do with catching those drunks who are intentionally avoiding the cehckpoint. We also use grant money for general DUI/traffic patrol, frequently around the big holidays. Which is more effective? That's really tough to say. I think that both do the job and do it well, though the logistics of the checkpoint make them much more difficult to do...which also makes them very popular with the media, meaning that we're succeeding more in the deterrence area.

[bing_oh]

“We do not realize how large a part of our law is open to reconsideration upon a slight change in the habit of the public mind.”
Oliver Wendell Holmes, The Path of the Law (1897).

If some interested group wanted to make an issue out of it, I'm sure tired driving could become just as illegal as drunk driving.

For certain groups, it is. Commerical drivers have very strict limits on how long they're allowed to drive between mandatory rest breaks. Realistically, I suppose laws already on the books could be used to punish tired drivers. I'd suspect the Willful and Wanton Disregard of Safety (aka, Reckless Op) could be applied to a tired driver if he/she showed clear signs that being tired was impairing their ability to safely operate a motor vehicle.

[bing_oh]

Grants require a record of contact, not a ticket. I think you once said you live in NJ. Either you misunderstood the officer or he was wrong himself. There is absolutely NO grant in the state of New Jersey that requires a ticket on a stop. There are some that require a record of contact, so a written warning would suffice.

All grants would require a proof of contact, since any funding to a government agency is subject to an audit. A PD has to be able to show where the grant money was spent or risk having to pay the money back or even face a criminal investigation if there's an indication that the money was misapproprated.

[MaxPower]

For certain groups, it is. Commerical drivers have very strict limits on how long they're allowed to drive between mandatory rest breaks. Realistically, I suppose laws already on the books could be used to punish tired drivers. I'd suspect the Willful and Wanton Disregard of Safety (aka, Reckless Op) could be applied to a tired driver if he/she showed clear signs that being tired was impairing their ability to safely operate a motor vehicle.

Yeah, you could definitely fit it into existing laws.  The point was that drunk driving .08 and above is illegal because we wanted it to be illegal, and anything can become illegal if we so desire.  Funny you bring up commercial drivers though - I did some commercial enforcement work this summer and learned a lot.  Different jurisdictions vary greatly in punishments; a log book violation is a $50 civil in MA and a $500 criminal offense in ME!

Somewhat on subject, bing, what's the highest suspect BAC you've ever had?

[TurboDan]

Perhaps some of your folks might consider investing in one of these bad boys, pretty cheap too:

http://www.amazon.com/Alc-Nose-AT126-Digital-Alcohol/dp/B00101LWXW/ref=sr_1_26?ie=UTF8&s=hpc&qid=1260325155&sr=1-26

http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=210663719&listingid=37031678