How's this for effectiveness? You decide... Maybe there really isn't a problem there. From www.shreveporttimes.com:
"The Caddo Parish (Louisiana) Sheriff's Office headed a multi-agency sobriety checkpoint Friday on Bert Kouns Industrial Loop in Southeast Shreveport.
"Authorities stopped 441 vehicles between 11 p.m. and 2:30 a.m.
"Caddo deputies charged two people with DWI, including a felony drug arrest. Deputies also issued 16 motor vehicle inspection violations, three open container violations, four seat belt violations and one expired registration violation.
"State troopers made two DWI arrests at the checkpoint and one DWI arrest on the saturation patrol."
Let's look at 441 vehicles stopped. Assuming that all different drivers were involved in the violations (not likely),
five people with DWI, including a felony drug arrest: 5/441 = 1.13%
16 motor vehicle inspection violations: 16/441 = 3.63%
three open container violations: 3/441 = 0.68%
four seat belt violation: 4/441= 0.91%
one expired registration violation: 1/441 = 0.23%.
That saturation effort was next to worthless. I suspect that the deputies and troopers would have had higher results on regular patrol! Were they using up a Federal grant?
Initial source: www.dwihitparade.com
You never know who is interested…
3 months ago
7 comments:
It is kinda strange that there were 3 open containers and only 2 dwi.
A passenger can be charged with open liquor, not just the driver. One stop may have resulted in two violations. One to the passenger and one to the driver as he is ALSO responsible. Just because they have open liquor does not mean the driver is drunk.
OR since liars figure and figures lie...they had 29 violations which means 6.57% of vehicles had a violation. 6 of every 100 cars that went through the checkpoint.
You're so negative.
As you say, Snidely, "one stop may have resulted in two violations."
What if one stop resulted in
* 1 DWI
* 1 open container violation
* 1 seat belt violation
* 1 expired registration violation
4 violations in one stop. What does that do to your percentage?
Troopers in Virginia set up a checkpoint one night at an exit and even posted a sign at the exit before that one. Of course, all the drunks took the immediate exit, when they ran into a second checkpoint, just around the curve and out of sight.
wonder what the little "safety check" yielded that was held on route 47 in woodstock on saturday night?
Again if you knew the law....in the South Carolina case cited, they set a precedent. The courts ruled that checkpoints must be published and clearly posted a checkpoint. There can be no surprise roadblocks. An officer may follow a car that exited, but must obtain PC for a stop. If they publish that BOTH exits are checked they are OK.
Drivers do not have a RIGHT to drive, it is a privilege. The only rights are those granted by the US Constitution regarding evidence.
Also your statistics would be skewed by your situation also.
Quit being such as troll.
snidely; i don't think the proper definition of "troll" includes the blog or forum owner... it is usually in reference to an individual who is a forum member or blog commentator that will visit a site with the express intent to incite a what is commonly referred to as a "flame war". Gus, like any another blog owner, is entitled to his/her OPINION, if you do not like the opinion posted; it is "netiquette" to respond with respect. if you can't respond with respect, then you are a "troll". in which case maybe it is a good idea not to read the blog/forum if it upsets you so much.
Post a Comment