You're "Safe"
Saturation:
And it's my opinion that you're a fascist douchebag.
Yes, some might say that -- including me. Playing semantical games so you can do a hat-dance around the Fourth Amendment is not a valid law enforcement technique.
My question is this: How many of these angels of public safety pull over every car with a broken taillight or a child not in a car seat whenever they see it, and not just on St. Patrick's Day during their "saturation" period? I suspect it is much more likely that, often as not, they overlook such minor violations -- because they're on their way to their favorite speed trap location, or because it's too near shift change, or because it's about time for lunch.
I realize that policemen like my uncle, or Davis here on the blog, may disagree with me here, so I wish to be be perfectly clear: if someone is swerving all over the road and endangering people because they've got a snootful, (or for any other reason), then by all means pull them over and arrest them for drunken driving, or reckless endangerment, or whatever it turns out to be. But legalistic sophistry like "saturation tactics" are beyond the pale and a make a mockery of the principles of civil liberty. It's the proverbial "slippery slope" that leads in directions we really don't want to go.
A district attorney cannot call a witness to the stand under false pretenses, and pulling drivers over for minor violations in the self-admitted hope that you'll find one who is drunk is just as ethically bankrupt a tactic, even if it can be justified through legal technicalities. It also flies in the face of the principle of presumption of innocence, legal contortionism aside.
In the end, it boils down to one issue: This is the sort of shenanigans that give the police a bad name.
Dozens of motorists looked to their rearview mirrors Monday night to see the flashing, blue lights of local police. After being pulled over, most understood why and some were even pleased to have been stopped.
A total of 74 vehicles were stopped Monday night in Bennington and North Bennington, Doucette said. Not a single person was found to be driving while impaired, though, which Doucette said was a credit to the efforts of law enforcement officials. He said the proportion of crashes involving alcohol has declined in Bennington County, according to Doucette. "It is my opinion that our highway safety efforts are working. To encounter 74 vehicles and not find a single impaired operator is outstanding," he said.
And it's my opinion that you're a fascist douchebag.
During the saturation patrols officers look for motor vehicle violations or other problems that would allow for a traffic stop such as broken headlights or taillights or uninspected vehicles.
Some might say having police look for a reason to stop a vehicle is wrong.
Yes, some might say that -- including me. Playing semantical games so you can do a hat-dance around the Fourth Amendment is not a valid law enforcement technique.
My question is this: How many of these angels of public safety pull over every car with a broken taillight or a child not in a car seat whenever they see it, and not just on St. Patrick's Day during their "saturation" period? I suspect it is much more likely that, often as not, they overlook such minor violations -- because they're on their way to their favorite speed trap location, or because it's too near shift change, or because it's about time for lunch.
I realize that policemen like my uncle, or Davis here on the blog, may disagree with me here, so I wish to be be perfectly clear: if someone is swerving all over the road and endangering people because they've got a snootful, (or for any other reason), then by all means pull them over and arrest them for drunken driving, or reckless endangerment, or whatever it turns out to be. But legalistic sophistry like "saturation tactics" are beyond the pale and a make a mockery of the principles of civil liberty. It's the proverbial "slippery slope" that leads in directions we really don't want to go.
A district attorney cannot call a witness to the stand under false pretenses, and pulling drivers over for minor violations in the self-admitted hope that you'll find one who is drunk is just as ethically bankrupt a tactic, even if it can be justified through legal technicalities. It also flies in the face of the principle of presumption of innocence, legal contortionism aside.
In the end, it boils down to one issue: This is the sort of shenanigans that give the police a bad name.
Labels: hysteria
posted by Jar(egg)head at 16:01
2 Comments:
Hey Jar, I will take a little issue with you on this, but not what you think. What I can't believe is you took a reporters words as gospel for the actual thing the police were trying to accomplish with this activity.
This activity is used as a derrent and NOT as an enforcement tool.NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safty Admin) estimates that 1 in 9 cars on the road are being driven by a drunk driver after 10 p.m. on any given night.
The average department has 1 officer on duty for every 5000 people in its given jurisdiction. To curb people from DWI you create a "presence" by stopping alot of cars preferably around bars and clubs near closing time. The purpose of it is so that drunks will see the cops out in force and will take a cab or use a designated driver instead of driving themselves. The main thing is that you must be seen stopping cars, not arresting people, that takes you off the street and changes the number of officers available for fights and such when the bars close, and trust me if a bar is closing someone is gonna fight, maybe not at the one your at, but at some bar in town.
After about 3 a.m. you can go back to enforcement and start looking for drunks. Sometimes in this situation you have to arrest someone ( of course they had to drive, they are too drunk to walk) or they have outstanding warrants, or they are just a dumbass and have dope laying out in the car, but the main purpose is to deter DWI.
Now yes, you will have officers that are using this time to get a drunk, but you learn that stopping someone for a taillight and arresting for DWI is hard to win in court, and more than likely will go to trial. Plus the other officers will get pisseed at you because you are down at the jail while they are wrestling with the jerkwads fighting. You learn quickly you want a slam dunk, no trial, pled guilty kinda cases in court. I had 267 DWI arrests in my 8 years as a police officer, and only one not guilty (my 3rd DWI). The smart officer follows the rule: Don't make it hard for yourself. Pick the low hanging fruit and you will be out of court before lunch.
So in conclusion, the officer was pointing out they were deterring crime, but the reporter saw it as a draconian action, and I think you did to. Just remember the press always gets the last word and you will always be misquoted.
Okay, I can see your point. It does depend to some degree on your perspective in reading the article.
I am gratified to hear that pulling somebody over under what to me is false pretenses makes it difficult to make the charge stick in court. Maybe our court system isn't totally crapped out yet. And that's my real beef here: intent.
When trying to convict someone, showing intent is very important. It should always work in the other way as well: if a policeman pulls over a series of people for minor infractions that are often overlooked for lack of time or other reasons, but his real intent is to find out if that person is drunk, I have a real problem with that. As I stated previously, it's dancing around the edges of the Fourth Amendment, and that bothers me. A lot.
So while I can see your perspective, I still disagree with the tactic. There's too much room for abuse, and that should be avoided whenever possible.
Post a Comment
<< Home