I'm curious- did it change your parents' views about DUI inspection stops? If they found them innocuous (or at least constitutional) before the incident, do they still feel the same way?
I am pretty sure my dad didn't like them to begin with but the question at the time was 'do I give the cops a hard time and spend even more time out here or let them take a look and get on my way'.
Drunk driving is a serious problem, no doubt about it, but stopping everyone on an interstate to talk with them is insane overreach.
I am surprised no one's figured out the problem of analyzing traffic camera data to flag people who are driving erratically so enforcement can be both more comprehensive and targeted. I'd be wary of that solution, too, but it is far better than stopping everyone.
>but stopping everyone on an interstate to talk with them is insane overreach.
Especially when they aren't really looking for drunks, but people like your father to victimize as police fundraiser.
Anything that monetizes police action will lead to massive abuse. It blows my mind people won't accept that. The cops and the unions aren't stupid. They want that money for salary, pensions, and toys. The politicians want that funding without having to raise taxes.
So now the electorate is literally being bullied and mugged by the police. I'm really starting to like the lame-duck version of Obama. His recent moves are very much needed: encouraging municipal fiber, workers leave rights, sanctioning Russia, immigration amnesty, etc.
Unfortunately as executive orders, rather than laws, they can easily be undone by the next executive.
I think it's overly diplomatic to call this action a police fundraiser. These were highwaymen. Note they aren't doing this to their locals, they know better and that's why they're on the interstate, they're doing it on behalf of the locals. The rot is with the town itself.
Last time I went through a DUI checkpoint, they wrote more than 100 tickets for lack of proof of insurance—the most frequent citation from that event. DUI arrests? 2.
Either the insane overreach isn't effective, or DUI is a miraculously solved problem here.
Of course, it might've hurt that this was at a sane hour on an unremarkable Wednesday night.
Clearly this particular instance wasn't about catching drunk drivers or apprehending drug dealers. This is blatant arrogant thievery, while also accusing both transient travelers and their local constituents of being morons for falling for this veneer of an excuse: oh it's for drunks N drugs, OK! At the very least the police could have restricted this to race and class as subterfuge, but no this was absolutely brazen: give us your fucking money grandpa! That's what really happened.
I will bet they had a lot more resources for doing searches than they did sobriety checks for those who refused the search. The search would therefore seem fast, while you probably had an insane line waiting for a sobriety test. This is a town with significant corruption and nepotism problems, and is operating like a cartel itself.
Drunk driving is a serious problem, no doubt about it, but stopping everyone on an interstate to talk with them is insane overreach.
I am surprised no one's figured out the problem of analyzing traffic camera data to flag people who are driving erratically so enforcement can be both more comprehensive and targeted. I'd be wary of that solution, too, but it is far better than stopping everyone.