There is the matter of a ban on unreasonable searches, according to
Article Four in the Bill of Rights.
Stopping every car and
searching the car and passengers for no reason other than they are
driving at night is an unreasonable search.

In 1925, during Prohibition, the Supreme Court declared, "It would be
intolerable and unreasonable if a prohibition agent were authorized to
stop every automobile on the change of finding liquor, and thus
subject all personals lawfully using the highways to the inconvenience
and indignity of such a search.
"

I believe there is a great difference between vigorous
prosecution and penalizing of drunk drivers, and creating laws which
presume that every driver deserves to be treated as a drunk driving
suspect.
Random checkpoints greatly increase the police power to
harass everyone with very few arrests for drunk driving.

I urge voters to quiz candidates for the Assembly and Senate
on their view of the proposal to turn Wisconsin into a police state.

the diff billnewbie is that anytime one drinks and drives they have the potential to be a violent criminal. yer aware the non violent criminals im talking about DONT have that potential.
.
kesara: i didnt ask if it was your first owi. i asked if it was the FIRST time youve ever drove after drinking??

By the way, I have no problem at all paying higher taxes for more prisons/jails. In today's society, they are necessary. That is just a cop-out excuse that local sheriffs, judges, prosecutors, and politicians make for going soft on crime. Heck, more prisons equal more prison jobs, and we need every job we can get in this state with Doyle running most everything out. When it comes to taxes, I am most concerned with getting the illegal aliens out of this state. I'm tired of my tax money going to fund these people as they multiply.

The drivers causing the problems are at a BAC of way over .08% in fact most are double the legal limit of .08%. But MADD and the politics surrounding DUI laws won’t quit pushing for lower laws because the increased fine money goes straight into their pockets. Even though deaths and serious injuries remain high… they will push for the money rather than the safety of the roads.

kesara - You must have had a real idiot for an attorney or you are misinformed. The first offence OWI/DUI is NOT a criminal offense it is no more than a traffic offense, like speeding, etc. You do NOT have to put a YES on an application "Ever convicted of a crime?"
Because the 1st offense is not considered a crime. A "Crime" is something puishable by jail or prison.

Cry me a river about throwing these drunk drivers in jail where they belong. You whiners will be the same ones complaining when your taxes go up because we have to build bigger jails to house them. Reading these posts, most of you have no clue as to the current OWI/DUI laws. Jail is part of the punishment for 2nd offence OWI.

Yes,it was my 1st DUI and it only took 2 glasses of wine .08
I've never even had a speeding ticket and I'm 56 years old. I feel like I "SHOULD" get some type of plea. Because I'm not your typical offender. I abhor drunk drivers and I broke the golden rule. All I'm saying is that it all feels like the world is ending.
I hope some of you that are sooo self rightious "NEVER" make a slight mistake.

Kesara-I have to say after reading your post I found it selfish and pathetic.
I really don’t care if you could lose your job or have a problem finding another job in the future because of your “mistake”. I had a friend who lost his LIFE because of some ones “mistake”. People that drive drunk and get caught all feel like life is so tough and it’s so unfair, but it’s a lot more unfair if you spend your life trying to become a successful part of society only to be murdered by a drunk driver.
So what you’re saying is that you should be totally fine driving drunk until you actually hurt someone. That is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. I think that if you get caught drunk driving you should lose your license for 5 years and if you get caught driving before that time has lapsed OR if you have another dui you should spend 10 years in jail. 10 years in jail is a lot better than death.
There is absolutely no excuse for driving drunk. If you are going to go out drinking then you need to have a designated driver BEFORE you go out. If you can’t find one then stay the heck home and drink there.
I hope that there are more intense laws for drunk drivers, and I think that checkpoints are a great idea.

Hmmm. No mention of stronger penalties for repeat drunken drivers, and another way to harass innocent citizens. Sounds like Doyle is acting as MADD's mouthpiece again.

When will these people get it through their heads that he biggest danger on our roads is not Joe Sixpack blowing a .11, it is the clown with 5 previous DWI's who blows at .26 because he has nothing to live for and just doesn't care whether or not they break the law (most likely because of the slaps on the wrist that they have been receiving from our "justice" system). These people with multiple DWI's need to be placed where they belong, in prison - for a long time. Enough with this liberal "treatment" b.s.....Meanwhile, MADD moves closer to their ultimate goal of an absolute sobriety law for drivers- a form of neo-prohibition, and Doyle laps up everything they offer for press opps. A complete joke if you ask me.

In Missouri, when stopped for drunk driving, once the officer has enough evidence to arrest you your license plates are removed from car, drivers license is confiscated and you need at least $500.00 for a bail bondsman to get out. That is just the beginning. If you have a spouse, they can claim the plates next day, after car has been towed and stored. If all of the conditions are met to get out, do not violate the rules of release or now the bail bondsman comes after you and gives you a very unpleasant ride back to jail.

Unless someone gets hurt, kid, that's just how they classify drunk driving.

stop incarcerating non violent criminals and we'll have the room for drunk drivers.
.
kesara: people do make mistakes. do you mind if i ask if this owi you got was the first time you ever drove drunk??

Make all the laws tougher but it won't help. Catch more offenders but it won't stop. Why? Plea bargains for one and a lack of jail space for another. And it's true that some people insist on driving impaired as they believe they can control their cars anyway until they kill or hurt someone, and even then some won't accept their blame.
Plea bargains have become the favorite tool of our judicial system. Why have there been so many multiple offenders? Because plea bargains reduce incarcerations to little more than tokens. Fines are levied but many don’t pay. Why should they, no one throws the scofflaws in jail for non-payment, we don’t have room in our jails for such petty violations as that. Suspensions and revocations are as disrespected as DUI laws.
In short, the law has no teeth until someone actually dies, and even then the punishment never equals the crime.
So, Governor, set up all the dragnets you like, but until enforcement becomes a priority, your new plan will amount to nothing more than what fishermen call “catch and release”. It will sound good in a campaign commercial but it will do absolutely nothing about the frequency of drunk driving.

polert--damn straight.......

I feel it should be first offense you lose your driving privileges for one year. If caught driving with out permit two years prison with state selling your asset to cover cost of prison stay.
Second offense three years in prison with state selling asset to cover prison stay.
After that it turns into ten years prison with state selling all assets. This should curve the problem real quick.

greengina8
I am all for tougher drunk driving laws, but check points are legal in the same way sting operations are legal.
triple the check points triple the stings
greengina8 i like the way you think
nothing wrong with a Police State.
aiagtlwin hahahahaha

If you didn’t drink regularly before your DUI charge, you certainly will after. The stress, hopelessness, degradation, and embarrassment will certainly have you saddle up to the bar. A DUI charge looms over you for years and no one cares about the details of what happened. You truly are ‘damned if you do, and damned if you don’t’. So, what’s the difference?
Furthermore, this supposedly stays on his record forever, even though a first offense, and could impact future career choices, jobs, etc. Should someone pay for the rest of their life for a mistake?
It’s okay for people accused of a DUI to lose their constitutional rights because, to paraphrase the courts, “it’s in society’s best interest to stop people from driving drunk”.
My attorney was “very confident” that he could get me this “deal” until I handed over the money, at which point he started using phrases like “hopefully” to describe my chances. Add to all this the fact that I am in significant danger of losing my job. If my employer finds out that I have gotten a DUI I will be done, finito, fired, and it is highly unlikely that I will be able to find another job anytime in the near future, because I will have a criminal record for at least a year. And just in case you were wondering- yes this is my first offense.
Doesn’t it occur to them that destroying a person’s life and livelihood is likely to EXACERBATE substance abuse problems, rather than helping people conquer them, thereby TRULY reducing the problem of driving drunk? I think it’s time to start an organization called “Mad at MADD” and expose these life ruining laws for what they are: a cash cow for states and lawyers and a way for self-righteous prigs to make themselves feel superior to others.
A DUI should only be prosecuted if there is an accident, accident plus injury, or property damage, not based on what could or might happen…..

I'm against sobriety checkpoints because I've seen police abuse it. In Illinois after you give your ID the officer will throw it back into the car & you are ordered out. Then with the flashlight looks under the seats. No consent, no search warrant. We called in 2 drunk drivers with the cell phone in the past 9 years.

ljs id agree by saying that people who abuse alcohol/drugs dont care about the punishments. part of that is cuz the current punishments are a joke. 1st offense no jail. ANYONE CAN RISK THAT. throw the 1st offense in jail for a year and you WILL see less drunk driving. we who want stiffer sentences dont have our heads in the sand. neither prevention nor prosecution is THE answer...but togethor...

one year in jail and two years license suspension for EVERY offense. no more 'its ok to get one'. make the first one a kick in the soccer balls and people WILL think twice before driving 'ok'....

The Libertarian in me is of course against these checkpoints but... Driving is not a right. In practice in other states these checkpoints have been very successful as a deterrant. The police do not have the resources to deprive people of their search and seizure rights at these checkpoints. They let cars pass through slowly, ask questions to some, and the drunks are always obvious to them. The best point I want to make about them is, at the bar where I drink most patrons think twice before having another drink and hitting the road because the checkpoints are out there and are well known. The police can't catch everyone and never will but prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Why would you be paranoid Grey? You were doing nothing wrong. I tell my 18 year old son to drive like there is a police car behind him, and so far he has had no tickets or accidents. The only problem with stiffer sentences or higher fines is that they take place after the fact. Wisconsin's culture is focused on alcohol to a large extent. I.E. Miller Park, and all sports. The constant advertising on TV for Beer. You can't watch a sporting game without alcohol being shoved in your face..too bad they don't advertise the negative effects as well...not sure what the answer is here, but I do know what we are doing right now is not working.

I notice that most of the DUI's are after dark. I have on occasion driven home late at night and found a police car following me for blocks. I was completely sober but it sure made me paranoid.

curlysue, you obviously are very ignorant. Your comments reflect nothing that I posted. Do the states with the death penalty have fewer homicides? NO they do not! Why? Because people that choose to commit a crime do not think of the punishment for committing said crime. Period! People that learn their lesson as you said, are not the issue because they do not reoffend. Try spell check genius you obviously are not one.

ljs64 so what your basicly saying is the people of WI that drink and drive are all hopeless drunks and are not like people of other states who learn there lessons while they sit in jail for a couple of years and get treatment. You sound like a hopeless drunk yourself who just doesn't want to see the laws changing because you like the fact while being busted for DUI in WI you don't have to do jail time. Or maybe your a hopless enableler of a drunk and don't want them to be thrown in jail for years.

Fear of jail, monetary fines, incarceration, loss of license is not a deterent to someone that abuses alcohol and gets behind the wheel and drives when intoxicated. PERIOD. You people that think stiffer fines, more jail time or longer loss of license is going to make a large impact have your heads in the sand. People that abuse alcohol and or drugs are not concerned one bit about the current "Laws" and penalties for breaking those laws.

Alright, my last comment. Yes stiffer laws are necessary. But people calling checkpoints a police state are not entirely accurate. I worked law enforcement for 8 years in Maine and yes they were cost effective and in this day of budget cuts it is a good idea in that respect. It also takes the police off of the profiling hook as all people are checked. Also the checkpoints were held at early am hours when most people are home sleeping. The rate of DUI were much lower there than here. Sure impounding cars and mandatory jail sentences work. But do we have the funds or the space to put these criminals up? Checkpoints were also used to check for insurance proof and outstanding warrants, we caught many other people than just drunks and the majority of the people who lived and drove the roads were very cooperative and did not mind the minor inconvenience. The good outweighed the bad. just my observation. Can our courts handle the increase in cases? Can we fit more into our jails? Just asking. By the way, it did save lives and generate money for the county. Many of our checkpoints were on state roads in conjunction with the state patrol. Nothing better than someone pulling up to our checkpoint, parking their car and getting out and saying, "you got me, I'm intoxicated"....:)

You can set up all the checkpoints that you want and watch the bar parking lots all night. Make all the arrests that you can possibly make. It isn't going to make a difference until the DA's and the judges start handing out real sentences instead of plea bargains and slaps on the wrists.

No check points, this isn't a fascist state. Stakeout the bars all you want, that is where many drunks come from.I think maybe multiple DUIs should be considered a felony. There is no excuse for getting a third DWI.

We have citizens with cell phones that gives police more eyes on the street. We need a three strikes and tough enforcement. As for insurance, drunks don't have any, and that won't stop them from driving. The city & county should impound the vehicle. Car owners responsibility act or CORA is effective. Example: Young Johnny borrows Grampa's car for a date, picks up little Suzie and a 6 pack. Later that night Grampa gets a call, Jvl police has his car and needs $700.00 if he wants it, plus proof of insurance is required. $$ to get Johnny out is extra.

Mandatory insurance and DUI checkpoints? YES & YES

All I know is the current Drunk Driving Laws do not work. When I lived in Maine, if you got pulled over for anything you had to show your drivers license and proof of insurance. I agree, Wisconsin makes alot of tax revenue off of alcohol sales. Follow the money. Checkpoints do work, and I am not opposed to stopping for a couple of minutes. Police can not watch every bar and every driver. The roads are public roads and the safety of the public should be paramount. Driving is a privilege not a right, otherwise you would not have to get a license. Just like a hunting is a privilege not a right, ie license. How many more innocent people will have to die at the hands of a drunk driver or be seriously injured. Also Checkpoints are the most cost effective way to use the law enforcement resources..jmo

Can you say "POLICE STATE"?
I am all for tougher drunk driving laws, but check points are illegal in the same way sting operations are illegal.

I'm not opposed to check points and I agree we should all have insurance to drive. No one should drive drunk, that is a given. It is every person's responsibility to stay away from the wheel if they have been drinking. But the problem with drinking and driving in Wisconsin goes way beyond DUI laws and police check points. There seems to be a deep rooted culture of drinking and driving in this state. There is a bar on every corner. People go to bars after work, on weekends. They tailgate. And when it's time to go home from the bar or from the party - how do you get there if you don't drive? Designated driver? Great! That is probably your only option. Because there is no other way to get home! No bus. No taxi. In the city of Janesville, we have what - two taxis? If you are lucky, you can get a cab ride two hours after you called for it, and you most likely have to share with several other passengers and drop each one off before you eventually get home. If the cab driver even shows up - sometimes they'll just tell you they are too busy or just can't/won't come. My point is - we need better access to transportation in this city. How is it possible that a city of Janesville's size does not have decent taxi service? Why not set up a taxi stand downtown for Fri/Sat night? Someone could make good money if people would stop driving drunk and take a cab instead. I do not understand why we do not have taxi services in this city. Anyone?

I don't have a problem with check points, but STRICT consequences would be a much better solution to the problem. It is insane to see people getting 7+ DUI's! Obviously, the consequences are not working. For the 1st offense, they need immediate license revocation and mandated alcohol assessment and treatment if the assessment recommends it. If they don't comply or drive without a license lock them up.

Requiring insurance in the 48 states that have that law has done nothing to reduce the number of uninsured drivers in those states, and it's costly to enforce. A better remedy, and one which I have is uninsured motorist insurance. Some states have also enacted laws that limit lawsuits filed by uninsured motorists. They call it "no pay, no play". Those two things are better than mandatory insurance. Drunk driving laws should be to protect citizens against drunk driving. People who drive drunk after losing their license for drunk driving need to be removed from society until society concludes the danger is over. Something similar to a mental institution might work. Maybe it could be called the Wisconsin State Alcohol Detention Facility. Too harsh?

Check points NO! Why should I be stopped and checked when I am doing nothing wrong? Some people think that is fine because they have nothing to hide. How about this, how would that same person feel if they were pulled over driving down the road for the heck of it just so a police officer could check on them?
FYI - I lost a good friend 17 years ago to drunk driver outside Rapid City, South Dakota. I got an idea, how about busting people hard instead of waiting for their fifth offense? It works in Europe. Enforce current laws for a change, don't make new ones!

I agree 100%. Insurance should absolutely be mandatory. You don't have it, you don't drive. Instead of trying to make these other laws, maybe Doyle and the state should concentrate on some of the other issues that are causing problems. Like insurance, the penalty for drunk driving and the penalties for multiple offenses.

Checkpoints are a great tool to catch all types of criminals, outstanding warrants and drunk drivers as well. Of course the Liberal people will call it a violation of their 4th Amendment rights. Driving is a right not a privilege. I have no problem getting checked out by police. I have nothing to hide. jmo

Everyone should be required to have insurance coverage to validate their driver's license. If they lose their insurance, their license is automatically revoked. Insurance on vehicles could be a separate policy and also be required for registration. Driving without insurance is the moral equivalent of theft because you are engaging in an activity without accepting the financial responsibility.

THE STATE SHOULD ALSO MAKE A VEHICAL INSURANCE LAW