Sobriety check points meet opposition

[joeroket]

Here is an excellent article in the Everett Herald about the sobriety checkpoint bill. It gives a promising outlook for the bill to be shot down.

http://heraldnet.com/article/20080118/NEWS01/658482833

[gregma]

We'll have to see.  I've always thought that those who are caught legally drunk should be charged with 1 count of attempted murder for each human they pass while driving.  100 counts of attempted murder might make them think twice before they say "But it was ONLY beer!" again.

[joeroket]

I agree 100% with you on that one Greg. My Uncle who is a retired WSP Sgt. has arrested so many drunks in his career, which even included a state senator back in the 70's. He pretty much played the part of the educator for the family when it cam to stuff like this. He is very much for 2 strikes and you're out with DUI offenders.

[gregma]

I remember a couple of years ago, the story of a woman who had killed someone while drunk driving (how they can call that an "ACCIDENT" is beyond me).  It was her 30th DUI!!
I think she got 2 years plus probation for "vehicular homicide".

The real bad thing is that even taking away their DL's doesn't do a thing.  When I listen to my scanner I hear countless Driver's checks come back as suspended for DUI.  They just don't care.

[joeroket]

That's the problem right there. The punishment is not nearly severe enough for DUI. 2 Strikes and your out is what I think. DUI offenders are just as dangerous to the community as sex offenders are as far as I am concerned.

[Euromutt]

I really don't like the idea of "sobriety checkpoints," and while I'm generally a Gregoire supporter (ducks for cover), I'm holding this one against her in a big way. It's not that I don't think DUI isn't a seriously bad thing to do, but the idea of stopping and checking motorists indiscriminately, without reasonable suspicion, strikes me as a blatant violation of the 4th Amendment. Yeah, maybe 39 states do use this method; that doesn't make it right.

[joeroket]

She thinks it is OK because other states do it and it is a public safety item. The problem is that the State Supreme court has determined that it is against the state constitution.