Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
StumbleMetro stops 3,021 vehicles at DUI checkpoint, arrests 14
Tuesday, Jan. 18, 2011 | 10:17 a.m.
Map
A weekend sobriety checkpoint netted 14 arrests for suspected drunken driving in the eastern Las Vegas Valley, Metro Police said.
Police operated the checkpoint near Boulder Highway and Flamingo Road from 7 p.m. Friday to 3 a.m. Saturday.
Of the 3,021 vehicles that passed through the checkpoint, police tested 24 drivers and arrested 14 people on suspicion of drunken driving, police said.
The checkpoint is part of Metro's efforts to reduce drunken driving and traffic collisions, police said, given that 7 percent of all accidents involve alcohol.
Discussion: 6 comments so far…
Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.
Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.
Post a comment
Most Popular
- Viewed
- Discussed
- E-mailed
- Photos: Olivia Culpo, 20, of Rhode Island is crowned 2012 Miss USA at Planet Hollywood
- US Navy hopes stealth ship answers a rising China
- Photos: Derek Hough celebrates 27th birthday at Tabu Ultra Lounge
- Learning about fans of the Electric Daisy Carnival will help Las Vegas court them long-term
- On the horizon: A quick look at projects poised to shape downtown
Everything Under the Sun
Blogs
The Kats Report
Las Vegas Philharmonic says search for new music director to begin 'immediately' (1 Comment)
With Shenandoah project stalled, Wayne Newton hits back legally (7 Comments)
Where does a Playmate play when she turns 21? Vegas! (3 Comments)
Ice Ice Billy
The road to six-toed cats and Mayor Bubba
The Kats Report
David Itkin tells L.V. Philharmonic officials he's on his way out (14 Comments)
Diamond Dave sells it well as Van Halen pours out the power at MGM Grand (2 Comments)
Entering debut at Tryst, Nick Hissom is a model for a rapid rise to prominence (3 Comments)
- Locally owned and independent since 1950; Winner of the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service, best news website in the nation & DuPont Award for broadcast journalism
Good. Hopefully they also impounded the vehicles with no insurance, no license, no registration. Get them off the road.
Checkpoints are unlawful. What else would you expect with the biggest, badest gang in the city.
14 out of 3,021 on a Friday night? I think they missed a few.
Sorry M4A3 the courts have ruled that they ARE LEGAL so your personal opinion is meaningless
"7 percent of all accidents involve alcohol?"
That seems kinda' low. If true, the cops need to focus on more serious things, like B&E and killings. At least they didn't kill anyone at the checkpoint. Must have been a slow night.
They post the checkpoints in the paper. If you don't want to get stopped, don't drive there. If you live there and have to drive through.... Oh yeah....plus they are legal, so.....whatch gonna do? Driving is not a RIGHT. They can regulate it.
"14 out of 3,021 on a Friday night? I think they missed a few."
That's what I was thinking. The must be arresting only the falling-over drunks.
Post a checkpoint at every locals casino and I guarantee a higher arrest level.
These checkpoints continue to prove social impairment while operating a motor vehicle is virtually non-existent -- 99.54% suspected compliance suggests that continued employment of such law enforcement tactics isn't necessary.
: {
It would be nice to know "when" those 14 were arrested. My guess would be somewhere between 12am and 3 am.
Only 7% of accidents involve alcohol? I wonder what percentage involve cell phones....
Is it that Metro can't find other locations than to always target the poorest areas of town. Less than one half of one percent in violations seems to be looking in the wrong locations.
How about the exits of the Casino parking garages on the Strip.
Have you driven down Boulder Highway lately? I did Friday night, and from Desert Inn to Tropicana were at least 15 prostitutes. Guess they figure with all the traffic from checkpoint might as well try to make some money. Did you arrest any hookers METRO?
It has been upheld as "legal" but does that make it right? Legal theory evolves. One of the reasons for upholding a warrantless stop where there is no probable cause that the person is engaged in illegal behavior is because of the counterbalanced "social good" that comes from these "administrative stops." True driving is a "privilege" - but the intrusion is one of a state actor.. i.e. the police. If truly just an administrative stop there should be an option to not engage with the police on any level and merely forfeit one's license. Just try that next time you're stopped for no reason. And does the intrusion justify the process? 14/24 out of 3,000+ is an insignificant percentage to suggest that they are "making a difference." How impaired were these people versus how much alcohol/marijuana metabolite/etc. was allegedly in their blood stream? We don't have that info - only the press release that the police issue and the SUN dutifully reprints without asking any hard questions. And of those 14 arrests - how many are solid? Again, we don't know any of the facts and circumstances surrounding the arrests, only Metro's (lately suspect word/implication) about their validity.
Driving while impaired is bad. If no one took a sip of alcohol before getting in a car - lives would be saved. But society is not a vacuum, nor is this issue more important than any other. It also doesn't justify the intrusion of the police into our otherwise quiet lives. One can argue that having a job is not a right. In many incidences in our community you need a health card or a sheriffs card to do your job. Now say that the government feels that a certain percentage of workers are under the influence of drugs. Does that give them the right to randomly go to work places and test you for drugs, or make you submit to sobriety tests? Of course not.
The Fourth Amendment says we are to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures. Perhaps there was a time when DUI checkpoints were reasonable. Given the time, expense and clear inefficiency of this method - it's reasonability should be revisited. The police do not have a DIRECTIVE or REQUIREMENT under the law to do DUI checkpoints. The can voluntarily choose to not do it and thereby show the country that Nevada truly believes in the rights of the individual. Good luck getting the police the opportunity to substitute good police work for the lazy persons investigation - a random stop of innocent citizens with no probable cause. This is not a principle that Nevada was founded upon.
Once it is legal, then "right or wrong" just becomes opinion. My opinion is that if checkpoints were discontinued there is a certain part of the population that might think it's ok to get in their car because the fear of getting stopped is non existent...virtually. You want a police state...go to some of the former Soviet Union states. This country, the USA is freer than any country on this planet.
"The Fourth Amendment says we are to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures"
Vegasfan you are entirely correct....However, an "administrative stop" is not a seizure, and there search unless there is reasonable suspicion developed from the stop.
State and Federal law has upheld the DUI checkpoint as an administrative stop, and State law requires a driver to produce, a license, regisration and proof of insurance at the request of a peace officer.
The only legal "opinion" that matters is the judges that found an administrative checkpoint lawfull.
Sure the cops could decide not to have checkpoints, and forego the grants they get from the feds as well as Stop DUI, and other groups that provide funds for the equipment for these checkpoints.
Just like police can NOT have checkpoints, you as a citizen have the same right, you can choose NOT to drive.
If you don't like the checkpoints, read the papers, watch the news, and avoid them, very simple.
In my opinion, a drunk driver is infringing upon my right to drive on a roadway that is free of drunkdrivers.
Look on the bright side.. at least they didn't shoot anyone.. this time.
If I would have gotten pulled over at a checkpoint I would have made sure I would have had the label from a Bud Light bottle stuck to my forehead and if asked if I had been drinking I would have replied " No Sir Officer, I'm on the patch"!!!
Metro should be looking for seatbelt violations, but then again, because very few Metro officers know how to wear their own seatbelts, they would have little credibility enforcing seatbelt laws.
Devil Dog - Of course, the stop is just the beginning of the fun. They get to shine that nice light in your car and ask you to get out of the car so they can look around to. That's a search. Also if there is no probable cause to stop you, why should you have to interact with the police? I have a right to be free from this harassment whether I'm driving, walking, or riding my bicycle. And I do consider this unwarranted intrusion into my life a harassment. I'm a law abiding citizen. I pay for the streets that somehow it's not my right to travel upon? This whole right vs. privilege argument is flawed. I have a right to pursue my happiness in life so long as Im not breaking the law. Everything else is a technicality that changes over the decades.
But you did hit the nail on the head with being held hostage by the Feds with their grant money. We need to ween ourselves off of that stuff and make Nevada the true bastion of liberty that was the promise of the pioneers. These checkpoints do not make you safer one iota...and as far as your suggestion to scour the papers to find out where the police are and avoid them - well, i dont think the burden should be on me to figure out how to avoid the police. I generally like the police, but there needs to be some checks on their seemingly unlimited powers. Taking away these ridiculous, ineffectual check points is one small start.
One thing is for sure, at least 14 people didn't read the article a few days ago, stating where and when the checkpoint was to be set up.
Here in California, the papers will report "a check point will be set up somewhere in town" and give the date. They don't report the actual location ahead of time. Usually catch 6-12 drunks, and 80-100 unlicensed drivers, who'se vehicles are also impounded. Once in awhile they even catch a wanted felon or 2 who come through!
The last couple times I came upon one (both times, same location in downtown Bakersfield), I was waved on by without even being stopped. I guess they can tell when you approach, the sober ones with proper license, current registration, etc. don't have that worried look on their face!
I haven't been through one in Las Vegas yet.
I appreciate Metro's (and other Police departments) efforts keeping the streets safe for the rest of us out there.
If you drink, don't drive.
The Supreme Court said checkpoints are legal in 1990. They also said Slavery was legal in 1857. They make mistakes.
The relevant Supreme Court case was one in which a checkpoint was erected for less than one hour and only 124 vehicles were stopped. Metro ran their checkpoint for EIGHT STRAIGHT HOURS and stopped over 3,000 cars. That hardly qualifies as the "minimal intrusion" the Supreme Court cited as their reason for allowing checkpoints. The Supreme Court case had an arrest rate of 1.61%. Metro's checkpoint had a dismal 0.46% arrest rate.
I'm not pro-drunk driving. I'm anti-checkpoint. The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration has concluded saturation patrols are three times more effective than checkpoints. Why, then, does Metro continue to run ineffective checkpoint campaigns? Wouldn't it have been a much better Friday night if those same officers had caught 42 drunk drivers? Those 28 that got away thankfully didn't hurt anyone, but statistics will catch up with us one day. Metro will be running a checkpoint, and a mile away some drunk driver will kill an innocent. Will you start opposing the less effective checkpoints then?
And isn't the spirit of the checkpoint law to IMPROVE public safety? If so, why did Metro run this checkpoint hidden deep inside a major construction area? Thousands of cones line Boulder Highway with flashing lights, orange signs, lane closures, you name it. What was safe about adding even more cones & signs to that mess?
Not only that, the checkpoint was illegal. NRS 484B.570 requires very specific things be done at the checkpoint. Metro missed one.
If you were charged at this checkpoint, I will provide you with a copy of my private video as well as the relevant NRS code section. You should be able to get your charges dismissed pretty easily.
Again, I'm not pro-drunk driving. I'm not trying to help people get away with this crime. I'm trying to get Metro to stop running checkpoints and start doing something more effective, in which innocent people are not detained and guilty until proven innocent. And if that means every one of those 14 DUI arrests gets dismissed because Metro just can't get it right, then so be it.
wine,wine,wine .....er, whine,whine,whine.
Well Tim, instead of bashing Metro, why not write to the Sheriff and give him your thoughts and advice.
I am sure that with your vast experience and knowledge he would be sure to listen.
Even better, since you know more than the police, run for Sheriff, and change the way the police operate.
Why havent you gone thru a checkpoint after you posted the one on youtube? (google is a wonderful thing)
Are you not willing to wait in line to "exercise your rights?"
Drunk Drivers not in las vegas,You got to be lying...Tim, like DevilDog said you shood contact the (Sheriff).Make sure you tell him that your a (GOODDDD)mormon then he WILL listen...
Devil Dog, Would you care to copy paste what you consider "bashing" in Tim's post? I read it three times he sounds centered and educated.
I also would respond to Devil Dog's post. "Checkpoints are Legal" first off they are "Roadblocks" and like anything else that is legal, It is only "legal" if it is done properly... Since METRO continues to violate the law, these checkpoints are not Legal, and cannot be prosecuted if challenged. Come meet me out at the next Roadblock, to protest Metro breaking the law and letting drunks go free.
Probable cause is the way to catch criminals.
Oh yeah 1 more thing. NRS 484B.570 Roadblocks cannot be used to identify vehicle occupants.
Weezy
Oh yeah 1 more thing. NRS 484B.570 Roadblocks cannot be used to identify vehicle occupants.
That is not what NRS 484B.570 states.
A roadblock can not be ESTABLISHED to identify vehicle occupants. It can be established as a DUI checkpoint and as a matter of officer safety they can ask the passengers to identify themselves.
If the driver is arrested for DUI the police have a right to see the driver's license of a passenger who will now be driving and to also check to see if they are drunk. Otherwise tow it.
timf343 -- with you on this one.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" -- Benjamin Franklin
Devil Dog wrote:
Vegasfan you are entirely correct....However, an "administrative stop" is not a seizure, and there search unless there is reasonable suspicion developed from the stop.
The United States Supreme Court in Michigan v. Sitz wrote:
Petitioners concede, correctly in our view, that a Fourth Amendment "seizure" occurs when a vehicle is stopped at a checkpoint. Tr. of Oral Arg. 11;
You are seized as a person when directed to stop.