Do DUI Roadblocks Work? (Part II)
Posted by Lawrence Taylor on April 20th, 2005As I discussed in yesterday’s post, the fatalities statistics used by MADD and government agencies to justify DUI checkpoints are flawed. In fact, the statistics can be viewed as indicating quite the opposite.
Well, all right, so checkpoints may not reduce fatalities — but, according to MADD, they certainly result in more DUI arrests.
Wrong again. The simple fact is that checkpoints are largely wastes of police resources and taxpayer money — not to mention unjustified invasions of privacy. In fact, in the United States Supreme Court decision (Michigan v. Sitz) upholding their constitutionality, a dissenting justice pointed out the “the findings of the trial court, based on an extensive record and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals, indicate that the net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative”. (Emphasis added)
This is confirmed by National Highway Traffic Safety Administration studies, which conclude that “the number of DWI arrests made by the roving patrol program was nearly three times the average number of DWI arrests made by the checkpoint programs”.
Then why do we have DUI roadblocks? Consider a local news story from last week:
PENNDOT GRANTS TOTALLING $1 MILLION FUND SOBRIETY CHECKPOINTS STATEWIDEChester County officials said recent recommendations from the national headquarters of Mothers Against Drunk Driving have been implemented by area police departments for years. Among the recommendations are an increased focus on prevention tactics such as sobriety checkpoints.
“We work with MADD and will continue to work with them to reduce the incidents of drunken driving in Pennsylvania,” (DOT spokesperson Jenny) Robinson said….
“I’ve read that police are less than enthusiastic about DUI checkpoints because they don’t make as many arrests,” (MADD official Bryce) Templeton said….
Richard Harkness, superintendent of the Tredyffrin Police Department, said checkpoints keep drivers aware that police are on the lookout for drunken drivers. He said there usually aren’t many DUI arrests at checkpoints, but they help educate the public.
“There should be as many DUI roadblocks as economically feasible,” Harkness said.
So…Roadblocks are invasive, don’t reduce fatalities and don’t produce more arrests — but we should have lots more of them. Why? To educate us.
Sadly, DUI Checkpoints are not used in the best way. Large police departments have to be mindful of “profiling†certain ethnic groups in the areas they serve. The higher percentages of DUI arrests stem from checkpoint locations in lower economic areas (i.e. ghettos and barrios). However, the community screams “racism†and “you’re picking on us.†Then, when the checkpoint is moved to a nice area of the city, only one or even zero arrests are made. I’ve participated in many of these checkpoints, and can honestly say they are a huge waste of time and money and resources. The same twenty officers and two sergeants could arrest four to five times more for DUI if they were split up in pairs, and drove around in police cars in the same amount of time. These checkpoints are dog-and-pony shows ONLY. But, the State and Fed fund these programs, and the police make time-and-a-half working them. And life goes on.
Comment by Rondelle — February 18, 2009 @ 2:21 am