DUI checkpoints: another example of how they can be abused

Ike666 said:
That aside, sobriety check points are one of the most successful LE operations going. In the 70s and 80s more than half of all traffic crashes were caused by impaired driving. The overall count (adjusted for population) is dramatically reduced and the proportion resulting from impaired drivers even more so. Check points work.
Click to expand...


Correlation does not equal causality. The presence of check points can not be definitively shown to be the reason for reduced drunk driving accidents/fatalities. There are any number of other, overlapping variables. Better education, less acceptability, tougher penalties, etc. None can be separated from the others to show definitive levels of causality.

Besides that, the first question is constitutionality. It doesn't matter if it "works" if it's unconstitutional.
 
Agencies that practice procedural justice
Click to expand...
I'm unfamiliar with this term. Since when do police agencies practice "justice" ? That isn't their role - it's the role of the judiciary (in combine with the advocates' attorneys, of course).
 
That aside, sobriety check points are one of the most successful LE operations going. In the 70s and 80s more than half of all traffic crashes were caused by impaired driving. The overall count (adjusted for population) is dramatically reduced and the proportion resulting from impaired drivers even more so. Check points work.
Click to expand...

Do you have data to support this assertion and conclusion of causation?

Seems to me that a 1-1.5% detection rate(as noted in the Michigan decision linked earlier) is hardly "working." Much less able to prove causation for something...
 
Peetza, I'm not talking about correlational studies. And yes, the reduction is a multi-determined phenomenon. However, the use of sobriety check points is consistently a significant predictor of reductions in crash fatalities involving impaired drivers.

And they are not unconstitutional.

I do believe that it is incumbent on officers running them to be polite and respectful. I also think an acknowledgement of the inconvenience is in order

I did not see anything approaching procedural justice by the officer/deputy in the OP's YouTube post. These egregious errors were compounded by the K9 "search". I think I even heard the K9 officer say it wasn't a "good hit" before the search. In that case, that search was unconstitutional.
 
@sig Yes, but if you are curious try a Google Scholar search with the keywords "sobriety checkpoint" and "traffic crashes". Use the quotation marks.
 
Procedural justice

The exercise of police authority fully within the constraints of constitutional limits. Or, colloquially, being a decent, law abiding cop.
 
I understand that. The actual literature runs to several dozen empirical studies. I'm being lazy, but I've provided the tools if you're really interested. And, if you do the search and cull through the evidence you will find studies with null findings. Then, if you want you can mount the counter argument.

I'm here for the discussion, not a scholarly debate.

I think there are more heinous abuses of police powers the checkpoints
 
Last edited:
It is, in fact, typically considered the burden of the one making the claim to prove or provide evidence for the claim and not to simply tell others to find it themselves.
 
Life is so hard! I've been shamed into it and had to come in from the pool.

This study is a comprehensive review (reviews the results of many prior studies):

Elder, R. W., Shults, R. A., Sleet, D. A., Nichols, J. L., Zaza, S., & Thompson, R. S. (2002).
Effectiveness of sobriety checkpoints for reducing alcohol-involved crashes. Traffic Injury
Prevention, 3(4), 266-274.



The goal of sobriety checkpoints is to deter drinking and driving by systematically stopping
drivers for assessment of alcohol impairment, thus increasing the perceived risk of arrest
for alcohol-impaired driving. This review examines the effectiveness of random breath
testing (RBT) checkpoints, at which all drivers stopped are given breath tests for blood
alcohol levels, and selective breath testing (SBT) checkpoints, at which police must have
reason to suspect the driver has been drinking before demanding a breath test. A systematic
review of the effectiveness of sobriety checkpoints in reducing alcohol-involved crashes
and associated injuries and fatalities was conducted using the methodology developed for
the Guide to Community Preventive Services (Community Guide) . Substantial reductions in
crashes were observed for both checkpoint types across various outcome measures and time
periods. Results suggest that both RBT and SBT checkpoints can play an important role
in preventing alcohol-related crashes and associated injuries.
 
Last edited:
And another

Levy, D., Shea, D. E. N. N. I. S., & Asch, P. E. T. E. R. (1989). Traffic safety effects of sobriety checkpoints and other local DWI programs in New Jersey. American Journal of Public Health, 79(3), 291-293.

We examined the efficacy of three Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) programs in New Jersey from 1980 through 1985, using covariance analysis of county data. Road blocks, the major component of the Strike Force program, were associated with a drop of 10-15 per cent in the single vehicle nighttime crash rate and showed a relatively stable effect over time. DWI Task Force, an education program, was associated with a 6-10 per cent total decline in the crash rate and declining impact over time. SOBER, another education program, was associated with a small effect in the first year and little or no effect thereafter.


And another:

Fell, J. C., LACEY, J. H., & Voas, R. B. (2004). Sobriety checkpoints: Evidence of effectiveness is strong, but use is limited. Traffic Injury Prevention, 5(3), 220-227.

There is substantial and consistent evidence from research that highly publicized, highly visible, and frequent sobriety checkpoints in the United States reduce impaired driving fatal crashes by 18% to 24%. Although checkpoints are not conducted in 13 states for legal or policy reasons, there is strong evidence that if conducted appropriately, checkpoints would save lives in the other states. However, a recent survey of checkpoint use has demonstrated that despite the efforts of the U.S. Department of Transportation to encourage checkpoint use through publications, providing funds for equipment, and for officer overtime expenses, only about a dozen of the 37 states that conduct checkpoints do so on a weekly basis. The survey found that lack of local police resources and funding, lack of support by task forces and citizen activists, and the perception that checkpoints are not productive or cost effective are the main reasons for their infrequent use. This article discusses each of these problems and suggests a method for local communities to implement checkpoints without depending on state or federal funds.

Low-staffing sobriety checkpoints conducted by as few as three to five officers have been shown to be just as effective as checkpoints conducted by 15 or more officers. A modified sobriety checkpoint program using passive alcohol sensors (“PASpoints”) can be implemented by small- to moderate-sized communities in the United States to deter impaired driving. If implemented in a majority of communities, this strategy has a potential level of effectiveness similar to the high level achieved by several Australian states in their random breath-test (RBT) programs. The PASpoint system calls for a small group of three to five officers on traffic patrol duty to converge on a preset site and conduct a mini-checkpoint, returning to their standard patrol duties within two hours. Within this framework, the PASpoint operation would become a standard driving under the influence (DUI) enforcement technique regularly used within the community's jurisdiction. As a standard traffic enforcement activity, the cost would be covered by the normal enforcement budget.
 
And one more and I'll quit (this one is a true cost-benefit analysis):

Miller, T. R., Galbraith, M. S., & Lawrence, B. A. (1998). Costs and benefits of a community sobriety checkpoint program. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 59(4), 462.

Objective: Alcohol-involved crashes cost society more than $100 billion a year. Sobriety checkpoints are effective in apprehending drunk drivers. This article compares the costs and the estimated monetary benefits from a hypothetical community sobriety checkpoint program. Method: The analysis is constructed around a hypothetical community with 100,000 licensed drivers. A literature review suggests that a generously funded intensive checkpoint program (156 checkpoints per year) can be expected to reduce alcohol-attributable crashes by about 15%. The benefits (cost savings) of the checkpoint program are calculated using 1993 alcohol-involved crash incidence from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Costs per alcohol-involved crash and the percentage of alcohol-involved crashes attributable to alcohol are updated from published studies. Results: Estimated annual savings to the hypothetical community total $7.9 million. This includes $3.1 million for averted fatalities, $4.5 million for averted nonfatal injuries, and $0.3 million for averted property damage. Every $1 spent on a sobriety checkpoint program can be expected to save the community more than $6, including $1.30 of insurer costs. Conclusions: An intensive sobriety checkpoint program can save a community more in automobile crash costs than the program costs. (J. Stud. Alcohol 59: 462-468, 1998)
 
On the other hand

In this study of "Checkpoint Tennessee" of the 144,299 drivers that passed through a checkpoint there were 1058 arrests for impaired driving, for a nominal yield of 0.7%. Apparently, at least in this case, the effectiveness may be more tied to the related publicity than the actual checkpoint.

Lacey, J. H., Jones, R. K., & Smith, R. G. (1999). Evaluation of Checkpoint Tennessee: Tennessee’s statewide sobriety checkpoint program. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
 
Well those certainly support a correlation, but not causation and certainly not your assertion that in the 70's/80's over half of crashes were due to intoxication.

However, based on the NJ one(the only one I found a copy of not behind a paywall), the correlation is pretty tenuous. First they select a factor which isn't actually DUI crashes(seems like it would be easy enough to actually use those numbers...), but only believed(no evidence offered as to why) a valid indicator, and then attempt to parse a result from a general trend based on that factor(single car nighttime crashes). While they attempt to compensate for the the educational program factors, they ignore a number of other factors, like changes in law etc that also occurred within a relevant timeframe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top