Checkstop Warnings

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

Let's take the following example:

You were at a hockey game with a friend and there were lots of witnesses to substantiate you and your friend were severely intoxicated. You leave the game separately, and on the way home you tweet your friend, using his name, that there was a checkstop at a certain location. He then avoids the checkstop by taking another route home and ends up killing someone. Do you feel confident you will not be charged?

But now you're moving the goalposts. Twitter guy doesn't tweet people's names and say "Hey Doug Brown, if you've been drinking tonight avoid this location". He just tweets where teh checkstops are.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Rerun

I have the feeling that all the people who think that making the publication of check stop locations acceptable probably also think that check stops should be illegal also... after all the police are detaining you for no reason whatsoever when they pull you over ... they're just fishing for drunks and other offenders.. which is an infringement of our constitutional rights. ... ie. police have to have "cause".

Yes, a lot of people do believe that, and they have a point.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by geos

5 drivers out of 5,000. Is that reasonable grounds to stop, detain and require a breath sample of someone?

Hardly IMO.

Is that number so low now because we have police stepping up their efforts? (I don't know- just asking.)

Also, I don't know how there are this many people who have been delayed at a checkstop. I've gone through a couple over the years, and most times I have had something to drink. I tell the officer the truth; and often he tries to twist the words to see if I will slip up the second time around. I am always in and out within a couple of minutes.

[geos]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Is that number so low now because we have police stepping up their efforts? (I don't know- just asking.)

Probably not. The same article says this is the worst year on record.

So many more are caught for DUI by the May long speed traps. And thats reasonable cause to stop a vehicle IMO. I'd prefer more heavy enforcement on speeding as it appears to result in more DUI convictions than the current system.

[Red Potato Standing By]

Originally Posted by geos

I got the bus treatment for 45 minutes because I read 0.02 on the roadside after saying I had one drink. Copper says, we'll have to check that on the big machine. Fine. Oh ya, there is a 45 minute lineup.

Great.

Cops aren't nabbing drunk drivers though. I posted a link to a Herald article earlier in this thread. Out of 5,000+ people stopped in 2011, 5 were charged with impaired driving (who knows how many convicted? 2 or 3 probably?).

That's absurd. I'd have some sympathy for the enforcement method if it actually did, as you say, catch impaired drivers. But it doesn't. Instead, it violates my rights by subjecting me to an unreasonable search and detainment. Like I said before, if you want to bust criminal impaired drivers, get them in their cars patrolling and they'll find a few every night. We've all seen the weavers and light runners late on a Friday or Saturday night.

5 drivers out of 5,000. Is that reasonable grounds to stop, detain and require a breath sample of someone?

Hardly IMO. I'm a bit of libertarian so I'm skeptical of such things to begin with, but I don't believe we should so easily give up our rights for security, unless it can be proven there is a real benefit to our security. Which I don't think exists with this enforcement method.

Now knave never been thru a checkstop so I have a question. Do they search your vehicle and detain you?

[geos]

Originally Posted by Zethrynn

Now knave never been thru a checkstop so I have a question. Do they search your vehicle and detain you?

Yes. I was detained for 45 minutes, I did not have the freedom to leave. I'm sure if I attempted to go on my merry way, it wouldn't have been pretty.

Search the vehicle? Somewhat, they stick their head in with their light and look around. Probably looking for empties or whatever.

Either way, they don't have any business stopping me and looking around IMO. If 5 in 5,000 are impaired, that's way too low of a chance I'm breaking the law to stop people. That's my opinion. I don't like the idea of a 'checkstop.' It's pretty draconian.

I respect it as a consequence of living in this fine land, but I certainly do not agree with it. If it was effective, I could be convinced. But it's not. Not at all. It's a show of force, nothing more.

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by geos

Yes. I was detained for 45 minutes, I did not have the freedom to leave. I'm sure if I attempted to go on my merry way, it wouldn't have been pretty.

Search the vehicle? Somewhat, they stick their head in with their light and look around. Probably looking for empties or whatever.

Either way, they don't have any business stopping me and looking around IMO. If 5 in 5,000 are impaired, that's way too low of a chance I'm breaking the law to stop people. That's my opinion. I don't like the idea of a 'checkstop.' It's pretty draconian.

I respect it as a consequence of living in this fine land, but I certainly do not agree with it. If it was effective, I could be convinced. But it's not. Not at all. It's a show of force, nothing more.

Serious question, since I don't know, but isn't it possible Checkstops (among other deterrents/enforcement) are somewhat cause and effect? Like just because people know there's a checkstop out there, that may be why they're not driving drunk and out on the roads? I know its impossible to quantify but surely there is some impact there.

Also worth noting is Calgary is one of the only (if not the only) city in Canada that runs Checkstops 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Checkstops can change locations multiple times in a single night and can have multiple locations at once.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by jar_e

Serious question, since I don't know, but isn't it possible Checkstops (among other deterrents/enforcement) are somewhat cause and effect? Like just because people know there's a checkstop out there, that may be why they're not driving drunk and out on the roads? I know its impossible to quantify but surely there is some impact there.

Also worth noting is Calgary is one of the only (if not the only) city in Canada that runs Checkstops 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Checkstops can change locations multiple times in a single night and can have multiple locations at once.

Okay, playing a little DA here. But....while thats all swell and everything, how much does that cost? How much manpower does that consume?

To catch 5 guys?

There has to be a more cost-effective way. No wonder the Cops cant balance their budget.

[Brotato]

Originally Posted by geos

I got the bus treatment for 45 minutes because I read 0.02 on the roadside after saying I had one drink. Copper says, we'll have to check that on the big machine. Fine. Oh ya, there is a 45 minute lineup.

Great.

Cops aren't nabbing drunk drivers though. I posted a link to a Herald article earlier in this thread. Out of 5,000+ people stopped in 2011, 5 were charged with impaired driving (who knows how many convicted? 2 or 3 probably?).

That's absurd. I'd have some sympathy for the enforcement method if it actually did, as you say, catch impaired drivers. But it doesn't. Instead, it violates my rights by subjecting me to an unreasonable search and detainment. Like I said before, if you want to bust criminal impaired drivers, get them in their cars patrolling and they'll find a few every night. We've all seen the weavers and light runners late on a Friday or Saturday night.

5 drivers out of 5,000. Is that reasonable grounds to stop, detain and require a breath sample of someone?

Hardly IMO. I'm a bit of libertarian so I'm skeptical of such things to begin with, but I don't believe we should so easily give up our rights for security, unless it can be proven there is a real benefit to our security. Which I don't think exists with this enforcement method.

Reading your post I found myself in general agreeance. If the effectiveness rate is as abysmal as you say then I too am anti checkpoint on the basis of an infringement of rights for very little (no?) increase in public safety.

However I would ask that you post the study showing 5 people charged in 5,000 stops as that is the backbone to your claim and what I am hinging my support on.

Thanks bro.

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by Locke

Okay, playing a little DA here. But....while thats all swell and everything, how much does that cost? How much manpower does that consume?

To catch 5 guys?

There has to be a more cost-effective way. No wonder the Cops cant balance their budget.

Is there a most cost-effective way? I don't know TBQH. It's kind of a cyclical argument though...those officers would be working regardless of whether they're doing checkstop or not. Its not like they can stop the checkstop program and cut 20 cops.

[geos]

Originally Posted by jar_e

Serious question, since I don't know, but isn't it possible Checkstops (among other deterrents/enforcement) are somewhat cause and effect? Like just because people know there's a checkstop out there, that may be why they're not driving drunk and out on the roads? I know its impossible to quantify but surely there is some impact there.

Also worth noting is Calgary is one of the only (if not the only) city in Canada that runs Checkstops 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Checkstops can change locations multiple times in a single night and can have multiple locations at once.

Noting both paragraphs, Alberta has the highest impaired driving fatality rate in the country other than the far North (Yukon, NWT). So I'd argue that 24/365 policy hasn't done a thing. Instead of having cops out roaming, tracking down sketchy drivers, they have them all in one easily evaded spot.

[geos]

Originally Posted by Brotato

However I would ask that you post the study showing 5 people charged in 5,000 stops as that is the backbone to your claim and what I am hinging my support on.

Thanks bro.

I posted it earlier in the thread but I'll post again for clarity. You can read the CPS statement in this Herald article!

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/ca...049/story.html

A bit of a correction to my previous statement... it was 5 charges in December, but that was with 5,000 people stopped so the offense rate is the same. If it was equal throughout the year it would be 60 people charged but 60,000 people checked.

[jar_e]

Furthermore, I think people are #######izing that Calgary Herald article about only 5 people being charged.....

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/ca...049/story.html

Between Dec. 8 and 23, five suspected impaired drivers were charged in checkstops running between noon and 8 p.m. No charges were laid during the same hours and time period last year

Over 1,000 fewer vehicles were stopped in enhanced checkstops this December. In 2011, 5,029 motorists were pulled over compared to 6,425 the previous year.
Full-year statistics including check stops occurring after 8 p.m. have not yet been released.

That 5000 statistic is total for all of December...including night time Checkstops.

Its not 5 out of 5000. It was 5 impaireds during noon and 8 pm and 5000 people total were checkstopped in December.

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by geos

Noting both paragraphs, Alberta has the highest impaired driving fatality rate in the country other than the far North (Yukon, NWT). So I'd argue that 24/365 policy hasn't done a thing. Instead of having cops out roaming, tracking down sketchy drivers, they have them all in one easily evaded spot.

Its not one or the other. As a checkstop is going on, there's still cops patrolling and responding to other impaired driving calls. Its more of a targeted enforcement for a short period of time.

[Boblobla]

They also really ramp up the checkstops in December.

[geos]

Originally Posted by jar_e

Its not one or the other. As a checkstop is going on, there's still cops patrolling and responding to other impaired driving calls. Its more of a targeted enforcement for a short period of time.

There is less of them though.

I found one article on an Airdrie checkstop that kind of enforces my point of these perhaps not being about DUIs and more about finding a reason to randomly search people. Of all the charges, only one was a 24 hour suspension (towed three vehicles... not sure what the other two were for, terrible article writer). Everything else was not related.

If we want a society where police shut down a road and search everyone on the way home, that's fine, but that's not a society I want to be part of. And I'm a completely law abiding guy.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Ai...425/story.html

Working on Calgary stats.

[geos]

CTV on all of December 2010 (2011 not available yet):

http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/an/plo...ub=CalgaryHome

Enhanced Check Stop numbers from 2010

• Over 6,425 vehicles went through the enhanced Check Stops December of 2010
• Of those, 88 drivers required a roadside test, 3 people were charged with refusal, 31 received a 24-hour suspension for drugs and alcohol.
• There were no charges for impaired driving.

There were over 2000 impaired charges from regular traffic stops in 2010, but ZERO (ZERO!) from checkstops in December of 2010. That is stopping 6,425 vehicles.

Useless. Put the cops on the streets to drive around and find the guys.

I wish I had 2011 stats but for whatever reason, CPS doesn't seem to have released them.

[Bobblehead]

Maybe people will see that twitter feed and know there is a checkstop in an area and decide not to chance it and catch a cab home instead. Isn't that a good thing?

I don't see why this hypothetical situation is any less valid than the others that have been proposed. The only difference is this one actually proposes a case where people who were considering driving drunk now stay off the road. The "using it to get away with driving impaired" already acknowledges that the driver is going to drive regardless.

Unless they are proposing that people are actually swayed to try and drive drive. But counting on a twitter account to be up to date at all times and betting your license on it - well I can't see it being much of an enticement.

The propsal to make a law to ban this type of thing would seem to create a law of questionable legality (you know there would be a Charter challenge), that is difficult to enforce (good luck policing twitter/Facebook/The whole internet and then try to get real names) and questionable benefit at the expense of a civil liberty which, once gone, will be very difficult to ever get back.

I'm still looking for the upside.

[CaramonLS]

I probably drive home late between 50-100x per year (after 9pm) on major routes such as hwy 8, Macleod trail, crowchild trail and 4th / 6th ave out of downtown.

Done it for the last 10 years.

Been stopped at a total of 2 checkstop, haven't been breathalized even once.

CPS, you're doing it wrong.

I want to be going through a checkstop when I drive home late. At least I would know you guys are trying to catch drunk drivers. Starting at noon on Dec 23rd to catch a guy blowing .4? Thanks for wasting my damned $.

[geos]

Originally Posted by jar_e

Its not one or the other. As a checkstop is going on, there's still cops patrolling and responding to other impaired driving calls. Its more of a targeted enforcement for a short period of time.

It is one or the other. If you're a cop at a checkstop, you're not a cop on the street. Of course there are still cops responding to other calls. But the ones at the Checkstop (in Dec 2010 catching no one at all), aren't out patrolling for the weavers that we all see but so few report every night.

It seems that the other 2,400+ charges came from cops on patrol so perhaps thats a better use of time (2,400 versus 0).