Saturday, October 25, 2008

Doyle Wants Random Sobriety Checkpoints

No.

Gov. Jim Doyle called Thursday for tougher laws to fight drunken driving — including legalizing roadside sobriety checkpoints in Wisconsin.

“Most of us are in much more danger from a drunk driver than we are from a person that is going to break into our house,” he said. “I don’t think we should have a ban (on checkpoints). . . . I think it can be a useful tool, used appropriately and in a limited way.”

Sheriff Clarke agrees.

Milwaukee County sheriff’s deputies have been hampered by the checkpoint ban, said Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr. Politicians should “stop dancing around the issue” and rescind the ban, he said.

A.G. Van Hollen opposes them.

Wisconsin is one of 12 states that do not allow sobriety checkpoints. Mothers Against Drunken Driving endorses the change, while Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen has said he opposes it.

One of the foundational elements of a free society is that the government is required to have probable cause that a person has committed a crime before detaining that person.  Yes, this means that law enforcement is a reactive force that only catches the crooks after a crime has been committed.  And yes, this means that more people die or are injured as a result.  But that’s one of the prices paid for being free. 

Now they want to randomly detain people to catch drunk drivers.  Next they might want to randomly detain and search people for drugs.  Maybe after that they will want just round up people in North Milwaukee and check them for guns.  After all, people are dying out there.  Or perhaps they will want to randomly detain parents and interview them to see if they think that they are abusing their kids.  There really isn’t any end to this. 

And don’t give me that whole “the roads are public space” argument.  The definition of what is “public” has been warped as an excuse for all sorts of oppressive government action. 

Furthermore, it’s not like there aren’t things that we can do about drunk driving without making our government more smothering.  The series run by the MJS did a great job of illustrating just how lousy Wisconsin’s judges are at sentencing convicted drunk drivers to meaningful sentences.  Mandatory minimum sentences would be a good place to start.  I’m a fan of judicial discretion, but that doesn’t mean that the legislature can’t set the floor of the discretion. 

Random sobriety checkpoints are an overreach by government and should be resisted.

(12) Comments
Posted by Owen at 2214 hrs
Politics + Politics - Wisconsin

  1. Actually cops only need reasonable suspicion to detain someone.  prob cause is to arrest and obtain a search warrant.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 25, 2008 at 2253 hrs


  2. But still, there is no reasonable suspicion in “random” detainments.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 25, 2008 at 2353 hrs


  3. When government is based on the capture and punishment of bad behavior, it is law and order.  When government is based on monitor and detain at will, it is a police state.  Apparently, many people believe a police state will keep them safe.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 26, 2008 at 0008 hrs


  4. Safety vs. Liberty.  You decide.

    Posted by Steve on October 26, 2008 at 0501 hrs


  5. I always love when Doyle brings up the “Wisconsin is one of only a handful of states that…” argument.

    It makes him look like a total @$$ when you reverse his logic on concealed carry.

    Posted by Kevin Binversie on October 26, 2008 at 0734 hrs


  6. I’m all for this. I’ve got nothing to hide nor be worried about.

    We wouldn’t have to consider any of this if our lawmakers weren’t in the pocket of the tavern league. 

    Owen, would you advocate on your blog support for Doyle and the legislature if they would make first time DWI a crime and also advocated license revocation for a second time offense?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 26, 2008 at 1015 hrs


  7. MADD is full of of it, I’m tired of their self perpetuating campaign against drunk driving that appears to intentionally offer no real solutions, just fake answers that never solve the problem, in an effort to simply keep MADD in business.

    There is a very simple way to drastically reduce drunk driving, you could nearly eliminate it in fact by the passage of one simple change to federal law.  Require all automobile manufacturers to install breathalizers in every vehicle that prevent anyone blowing over .08 (or the much more reasonable .10, but I doubt we’ll ever move back there) from being able to start their car.

    This is simple technology that already exists, that would not add significantly to the cost of any new automobile.  It would have two benefits, nearly eliminating drunk driving over a period of 10 years being one, and also eliminating the need for otherwise responsible citizens who made a stupid mistake from occupying our courts, endangering other people on the road, and jeopardizing their livelihood.

    Now, you can argue against this, and i would understand your opposition, even agree with some aspects of it, but I would support this kind of legislation compared to the current punitive, reactive and intrusive laws that currently exist.

    But if MADD is serious about their position this would be their number one objective.  Instead they offer lame band aids, that cost huge amounts of dollars, are counter productive and reactionary, and don’t solve a freaking thing.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 26, 2008 at 1204 hrs


  8. I’ve got nothing to hide nor be worried about.

    You’re not worried about your freedoms?

    If the police can set up a checkpoint charlie anywhere they feel like and stop everyone with no cause… If THAT isn’t a police state, what the hell is?

    The fact that other states allow this isn’t a testament to its constitutionality, but rather a stark reminder of just how far we’ve run away from freedom and presumption of innocence in this country.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 26, 2008 at 1253 hrs


  9. Lefty….do you really think it is MADD that is preventing the installation of breathalizers in the ignition of cars?

    I’d bet if you offered that option up to their membership they’d support it 100 to 0. 

    The problem is that the auto industry and tavern league would fight it tooth and nail as being far to expensive and intrusive. 

    The auto industry would claim it cost too much and would make US cars uncompetitive (as if they aren’t already).  The tavern league would fight it on the grounds it is too intrusive and would claim that the ignition locks would frequently malfunction when people would need to get someone to the hospital to deliver a baby for example.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 26, 2008 at 1301 hrs


  10. The key problem in the most notorious drunk/drug driving is that multiple offenders are always the perps.

    How hard is it to have a first offense scare the crap out of a relatively responsible person. A second offense is jail time and prison for a 3 or more offender.

    No checkpoints, no raising or lowering the blood alcohol level, just inforcement of a tough but reasonable law. Why is this so hard to do?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 26, 2008 at 1306 hrs


  11. A first reaction to checkpoints is “yep, make the roads safe” “i’ve nothing to worry about” but you also have to be able to display driver’ s license, insurance, registration in addition to “prove” sobriety. While we’re at checkpoint, incorporate a safety inspection with any “plain view” incriminating or reasonably suspicious material with identity checks of passengers and leading up to full search of all persons and vehicle. Seat belt and DWI checkpoints have been used in Illinois with mixed results indicating a good show to the public but little as far as increased enforcement. Crime and calls for police service might have to wait as manpower is concentrated to checkpoints especially as budgets and overtime are cut. And as far as “constitutional rights” go, heck with “reasonable person” belief as suspicion and probable cause for detention and/or arrest. We could then claim to have a “modern european socialist style” country, and we could start instituting pedestrian and bicycle checkpoints to address other issues.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 26, 2008 at 1709 hrs


  12. Hello police state!  Ja wohl, mein Führer

    Posted by MommaBlogger on October 27, 2008 at 0857 hrs


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.