DUI
Ohio Highway Patrol Changes Drunk Driving Checkpoint Strategy
The result of the new checkpoints has been an increase in drunk driving arrests, technically known as Operating a Vehicle Impaired (OVI) or Driving Under the Influence (DUI). In fact, there have been more drunk driving arrests in the first five months of 2006 (235 arrests) than in all of 2005 (139 arrests).
The checkpoints are coordinated with saturation patrols in an aggressive effort to stem alcohol-related automobile injuries and fatalities. "Ohio traffic crash statistics show that there were over 17,000 alcohol-related crashes in 2005 and 477 of those crashes ended in death," Colonel Paul D. McClellan, superintendent of the Ohio State Highway Patrol in Columbus, Ohio, said. "These checkpoints are designed to not only deter impaired driving, but to proactively remove these dangerous drivers from our roadways."
Previously OVI or DUI checkpoints called for as many as thirty officers who stopped traffic in both directions. The amended procedure establishes checkpoints with about ten law enforcement personnel and traffic is slowed in just one direction. Unless the presence of alcohol is suspected, typically motorists are delayed for only a few seconds. When a checkpoint is scheduled in a county that information is announced a day in advance, and the specific location is disclosed the morning of the checkpoint.
The Ohio State Highway Patrol troopers staffing the checkpoints are assisted by local law enforcement deputies and city police. The policy of smaller checkpoints supported by other law enforcement agencies allows the Highway Patrol to set up more checkpoints on Ohio’s highways and help deter drunk driving in the state.
Tags:
Posted
Friday, July 28, 2006
Filed in DUI News | Ohio DUI | Permalink | Comments (5)
Filed in DUI News | Ohio DUI | Permalink | Comments (5)
trackback URL: http://www.dui.com/dui-library/ohio/news/ohio-dui-checkpoint-strategy/sbtrackback
Posted by
GT
at
2008-12-27 11:58
Posse Comitatus was repealed by Executive Order. Aroud Fort Hood, soldiers are being used to search and seize from civilian vehicles.
Posted by
Dave Crisp
at
2008-12-27 13:12
Yes this is true; there were changes made regarding The Posse Comitatus Act but DUI's are not "Publlc emergencies" The vagueness of the Act allows for potential corrupted interpretations. See below for further explanation.
From Wikipedia and the new Warner Bill:
"These changes were included in the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (H.R. 5122), which was signed into law on Oct 17, 2006, subsequently repealed in their entirety.[2]
Section 1076 is titled "Use of the Armed Forces in major public emergencies". It provided that:
'The President may employ the armed forces... to... restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition... the President determines that... domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order... or [to] suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such... a condition... so hinders the execution of the laws... that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law... or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.[3]'
From Wikipedia and the new Warner Bill:
"These changes were included in the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (H.R. 5122), which was signed into law on Oct 17, 2006, subsequently repealed in their entirety.[2]
Section 1076 is titled "Use of the Armed Forces in major public emergencies". It provided that:
'The President may employ the armed forces... to... restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition... the President determines that... domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order... or [to] suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such... a condition... so hinders the execution of the laws... that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law... or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.[3]'
Posted by
GT
at
2008-12-30 00:10
It appears that we are in agreement, the use of military personnel is indeed an abuse of of our rights, and shouldn't be allowed. Big Surprise coming from a president who called the Constition a ' god damn piece of paper'
Posted by
Agreed
at
2009-01-06 15:03
But I think National Guard may be used legally, go figure.
Source: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4658869