petcat You have Rights? No you don't have Rights if you are drinking we need to get some of you Drunks off the street.(simple as that)

Rex,
I agree completely. Although I do think these checkpoints are a great idea. Let's remember, these checkpoints would not be on every corner or intersection in town. And if you are not drunk or have not been drinking, perhaps not traveling near bars, would be a good idea. There is no way that every citizen is going to be pleased with every decision our lawmakers make.....but, we have got to figure out a way to stop the senseless accidents and deaths that occur due to drunk driving. But it is going to mean not just stopping them...but charging and convicting them.

As usual the powers that be don't concentrate their efforts where they need to be. It all sounds great and makes for great news copy when the Gov and law enforcement officials stump for changes in the law to allow for random sobriety checkpoints to curb drunk driving. Only problem is there's still no "mandatory sentencing" or "mandatory prosecution" provisions. Sure, you might get a guy on his 3rd or 4th conviction but until we start making DA's actually prosecute instead of make deals and force judges to actually hand down sentences instead of giving people the bracelet or work-ender programs, nothing will change because the folks that are the real problem, the chronic repeat drunk drivers, don't perceive any consequences to their actions. Don't worry though, you won't see the Gov or the Sheriff stumping for such measures cause the would actually require action and accountablity and why do that when you can just make a nice news splash advocating sobriety check points.

They can do a checkpoint to check for licenses and such. If they smell alcohol, then go from there.

No, the officer does not need to meet his "quota", as they are illegal, and having the familiarity I do with law enforcement agencies, trust me when I tell you that there ARE NO QUOTAS. In fact, I wish our police would be more assertive in their enforcement. However, current administration fears the accusation of quotas, and therefore, enforcement is not as aggressive as it should be. What officers do need to meet are the demands and responsibilities placed upon them by the communities they serve to "protect" us from intoxicated drivers on the road. If you were stone cold sober, and still requested to submit to field sobriety testing (which by the way, I don't believe)be thankful the officer was doing his part to keep you, and other motorists safe, and get over your irritation with such a minor intrusion into you life.

kesara-------sounds like someone has been convicted before..eh ?

I think that getting stopped for a suspected DUI in this country is out of control and something needs to be done about it. It is an outrage and a complete disrespected for anotherhuman being to subjected them to a DUI stop even when the officer knows good and well that the individual is not drunk.
What has our country come to when an officer can stop an individual for various reasons that have nothing to do with drunk driving and proceed to subject that individual to the field sobriety tests just because the officer thinks the individual might have been drinking.
Does the officer need to meet his DUI quota for the month or something? For an individual to be subjected to the field sobriety tests when they haven’t even been drinking is humiliating. I wish I had known before hand that I could refuse those tests.

This was in Friday Beloit Daily News . what do you think this guy should get for a sentence ?

Robin G. Bauman, 51, of the 1300 block of Dewey Avenue, for operating a motor vehicle after revocation and for operating while intoxicated, his seventh offense

now lets see if some do gooder gets this pulled .

I have lived in a few states in my life, and it seems like Wisconsin is by far the most understanding of DRUNKS. In one state, they would notify the public of checkpoints being present in the area. Throughout the night, they had teams who would set up a check point, and then move it after 1 hour. This way people could not contact their friends and tell them where they were at. They notified the public they would be out, just not where they were going to be exactly. As in another post, they set them up so that once you see them, you do not have an alternate route around them. Once an officer has a brief discussion with you, if they have probable cause to check you further they would. Wisconsin needs to wake up and get with the times. It is not acceptable to allow people to continue to get DUI's. Something has to happen to change it, and until reading this atricle I had no idea they could not set up checkpoints. Seems like a great idea to decrease drunk driving, while getting the fines to pay for the process, and maybe, just maybe, a little extra to help the tax burden.

I think that WI should have checkpoints. There are way too many drunk drivers that should not be allowed on the roads. We don't really have a good track record for it. Does anybody ever wonder why there are people that get like 6 or more DUI's? I lived in IL for a few years and they have checkpoints, they are also much stricter on getting a DUI than WI is and more often than not these people do not get many more if any more. I knew a person personally that only got 1 DUI in IL and 2 years after the fact he was still trying to get his DL back. He also had to pay almost 2500 in fines. I also knew someone in WI that has had 2 DUI's and they did lose their DL but only had to pay about 1000 in fines and it doesn't really matter how many more you get here, they don't charge you much more. Driving drunk is pretty stupid, sorry for all of you who feel it's not. We lose alot of innocent people because there are idiots out there that just don't care.

I have the right to do what ever i want but if i am being pulled over for something and have been drinking fine but if they have no reason to pull me over then they are taking my rights away. As far as i care MADD can go some where else get them out of Wisconsin

(sp) probable cause.....not probably

You are not giving consent to be checked for alcohol "whenever". The implied consent law allows an officer to administer a BAC test under the implied consent law, after they have reason to suspect you are operating while intoxicated. While I strongly agree with checkpoints, there needs to be a clear understanding of what the implied consent law means. In addition to that, if you REFUSE testing, you CAN and WILL BE compelled to take a blood test, under certain circumstances, i.e. injury involved or multiple offenses.

When you sign for your driver's license, you are implying your consent in the future to submit to chemical testing of your breath,blood, urine when an officer determines he has REASONABLE SUSPICION that you are under the influence. There is also a legal distinction between probably cause and reasonable suspicion.

Plus, in Wisconsin, when you sign your DL you ARE giving implied consent to be checked for alcohol anytime you are driving on our roads. Don't like it, move.

Florida uses check points a lot but, only idiots and fools ever have a problem. The "enforcement area's" are mentioned on the TV news several times a day for at least 2 days prior. All establishments are notified the evening of checkpoint and they are asked to inform patrons of the exact location and to take a cab or let someone else drive. They set them up so there is no way out of that area except through checkpoint. They are basically giving you a very easy way to not get a ticket while adding safety. They really do go out of their way to notify you. You have two choices, drive drunk and pay or listen to notices and get a ride. They WANT people to know so they don't drive. Sounds pretty fair with me.

I can see both sides of the argument here but the bottom line is if it saves even 1 life then its worth it.
.
let me ask all the people against it, Would you trade probable cause and your right not to be pulled over for a reason for someones life? I would. If you dont drive drunk you have no reason not to. If you do drive drunk you deserve to lose that right.

Checkpoints are not a violation of anyone's rights Ford. Driving a car is a privilege not a right. Other wise we would not need a license and anyone could drive whenever they want. If the citizens ok checkpoints by enacting laws than it is lawful. I have worked checkpoints as a law enforcement officer in Maine. They catch all types of criminals, not just drunks. The fines collected pay for the cost of setting them up. It's not like they will set them up at rush hour. They are used primarily around bar time and usually on state roads. MADD is psyco? Ignorant statement. If you are obeying the laws what is the problem with showing your drivers license to a police officer. Like I said they are set up at early morning hours and I'm sure if the law is ever passed here it would have plenty of restrictions. In Maine we even put out early warnings that they would be held and when they would be held. You would be surprised how many intoxicated drivers still didn't get the message. It's not about whether alcoholism is a disease or any thing like that...simply keeping our roads safer for those of us who do not drink. Much less drink and drive. Whatever...I am all for them, what do we have to lose? The current laws are definitely not working. Nor are the police able to follow the hundreds of drunk drivers that leave the bars every Friday and Saturday night. People are demanding results and this is just ONE tool that should be used...just my opinion.

I believe checkpoints are a most, and the cost can be offset by big fines, and drunk driving awareness classes. In Illinois those classes cost $1500 allow, and are only given in a continues day forum. Friday you set in class for 6 hours, and then on Saturday/Sunday it is 10 hours each day. If you are late for class, or even late returning from break you have to start back over again with another $1500 class fee

I'd like sobriety checks on the judges that let repeat DUI offenders off so easy. Let's have stronger sentences for 3rd time (or higher) offenders, and more seizures of the vehicles used by drunks. Offer a "how-to-sue-a-drunk" legal kit to anyone who loses their loaned vehicle when a drunk driver borrows it.
.
Anyone with 5 DUI convictions needs to be permanently banned from driving and liable for automatic arrest for reckless endangerment if found behind the wheel of a vehicle - even if stone cold sober. Let MADD staff the appeals board for anyone who wants to contest their permanent loss of license for multiple DUIs.
.
MADD should consider an annual "Hall of Shame" for the 3 most lenient DUI judges in Wisconsin, and take out a half-page ad in their hometown newspaper with their photo and a list of the multiple DUI conviction people they've gone easy on. A similar one for District Attorneys who plea-bargain DUI charges down would be useful as well.

people like u should always be checked. This check point sounds like a great idea. for drunks like u FORDCARS32. what kind of person are u calling women somthing like that. u must be a guy that has no life or wife/kids