|
Edited on Tue Aug-31-10 09:24 PM by NorthCarolinaLiberty
Well, I guess I should post some of my evidence. This is a just a sample of the research I've gathered over the last couple of years.
1.The FBI compared saturation patrols vs. checkpoints in Ohio, Missouri, and Tennessee. The study showed that, “Overall, measured in arrests per hour, a dedicated saturation patrol is the most effective method of apprehending offenders.” (Source: FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, January 2003)
2. "I'm no big fan of them," Chief Deputy Pat Butler said about checkpoints. "They're OK for informational purposes, but I think DUI saturation patrols are much more effective." (Source: Kansas City Star, July 8, 200 cool
3. "States with infrequent checkpoints claimed a lack of funding and police resources for not conducting more checkpoints, preferred saturation patrols over checkpoints because they were more "productive," and used large number of police officers at checkpoints." (Source: Accident Analysis and Prevention, November 2003)
4. “If you look at statistics, statistics will probably tell you a saturation patrol is more successful…” said Lt. David Kloos, barrack commander for the Maryland State Police Hagerstown barrack. A typical checkpoint uses about 10 troopers for five hours and costs about $2,000, he said. During the last State Police checkpoint in Hagerstown, held Oct. 31, troopers stopped 880 cars and made three DUI arrests, Kloos said. Saturation patrols watching alternate routes around the checkpoint made one additional DUI arrest, he said. A saturation patrol without a checkpoint requires only three or four troopers and costs a fraction of what a checkpoint costs. (Source: Hagerstown Herald Mail December 28 2008)
5. I personally corresponded with Boone North Carolina Police Chief Bill Post regarding a November 20 2008 checkpoint in Boone. Chief Post told me that 10% of drivers are impaired after 10pm. This would mean (he said) that 10% of drivers are arrested per checkpoint. In fact, the arrest rate at the November 20 checkpoint was 1-2%. (Source: Correspondence with Chief Post November 28 2008)
6. A checkpoint in Tucson Arizona yielded a less than one percent arrest rate. A total of 571 vehicles passed the checkpoint, with 4 DUI arrests, a rate of 7/10 of one percent. (Source: Pima County Sheriff’s Document October 5 2005)
7. A Sept. 28 2007 Summit County, Ohio checkpoint failed to make one drunk driving arrest. Officers stopped 1,242 vehicles on Canton Road in Lakemore and didn't find a single drunken driver. (Source: Akron Beacon Journal October 2 2007)
8. People do not support checkpoints when they know the facts. This survey is from Washington State:
From trafficsafetyinfo.net, 2008:
Gov. Chris Gergoire’s plan to institute checkpoints to catch drunk drivers has stalled in Olympia. Judging by the results of an online poll by the Whatcom County Traffic Safety Task Force, local residents wouldn’t have taken too kindly to it either. From Traffic Safety Coordinator Doug Dahl: Two weeks ago our online poll asked Whatcom County drivers if they wanted sobriety checkpoints in our state. Visitors to our site overwhelmingly voted “NO” to DUI checkpoints. The final results were as follows: yes: 20% (30 votes) no: 80% (117 votes)
9. Checkpoints are also not the deterrent that law enforcement and others claim: "To date, there is no evidence to indicate that this campaign, which involves a number of sobriety checkpoints and media activities to promote these efforts, has had any impact on public perceptions, driver behaviors, or alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes and injuries. This conclusion is drawn after examining statistics for alcohol-related crashes, police citations for impaired driving, and public perceptions of alcohol-impaired driving risk. (Source: Health Promotion Reports, July 1 2009)
|