Pure extortion from an agency allegedly in place to regulate GAMING! GAMING! Not the conduct of non-gaming employees in non-gaming areas of a casino. I call BS. Please do an in-depth investigative piece about the coercive powers of the Control Board to bully casinos, bars, etc. into some sort of moralist nirvana. There's not a single gaming operator who's not petrified of these (not so secret) police. If the something illegal is happening and the casino is somehow responsible charge them criminally, otherwise leave the casinos alone.

"Nobody said no to this when I asked them," says Shore. Of course, viewing that stellar line-up he didn't actually ask anyone who would be in the position to say no to any gig.... just saying.

Its very simple. Post giant signs along Fremont street that say "PROSTITUTION IS ILLEGAL AND IF YOU SOLICIT IT BY CALLING A GIRL ON A CARD AND EXPECT SEX FOR CASH YOU WILL BE ARRESTED." All of this is true, and should make a hostile environment in which to hand out these cards for "legal" escorts.

Of course the real issue is why in the world is prostitution illegal in Clark County. Imagine all those cards, all those calls, and the State suffering from revenue shortages doesn't get a penny! That's the real crime.

Good comments, mred.

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.

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.

Oh look, an Elvis impersonator. That's unique and interesting.

Waiting for Sandy Haverly (I'm not MADD, I'm in a private business) and Metro to take credit when in actuality its more about education and caution in an ever growing (and growing up) community. Granted, there's probably a deterrent effect in the Draconian and junk science zero tolerance laws for those who have the requisite levels of alcohol or pot in their systems -- but ultimately, more people are arrested and have to incur ridiculous expense when in reality they haven't done ANYTHING morally wrong (I'm talking about no accident pull-overs, but mostly checkpoints). DUI should be about being under the influence is all I'm saying, not about an arbitrary number/percentage.

Not to belabor the point, but it's clear both you and the RJ reported off the same Metro press release (as most of the "facts" are worded identically and it seems unless you had something in the can that there wasn't enough time for independent sources, research, etc.)

Where the RJ "wins" however, is how they reworded the last sentence of the press release. Where you apparently reprinted -- verbatim-- the bragging Metro Cold Case team with its propagandist agenda of their own infallibility (not to mention a taint of the jury pools)... the RJ did the responsible thing and went with the actual, indisputable fact, to wit: "Shannon's arrest was the ninth investigation to result in a cold case arrest." See the key word there is "arrest." The man has been arrested. The case has not been "solved." The man is not yet guilty under American law.

Solved is a Metro word. Arrested is a journalist word. If you're going to do spot reporting versus enterprise, please follow the Style book unless there's some other reason for your word choice. If so, I'd be interested to know what it is.

In the last sentence -- "solved" or alleged to be solved. Please don't confuse the two. This man deserves a day in court.