landlady
if it takes road side checks so be it
and also watch for bars closing in there driveway .

I will never stopped being amazed by people who are willing to throw away the rights granted to us in the Bill of Rights. Do you really want to live in a police state? I have never received a citation for driving under the influence (and I'm no spring chicken) but would NEVER agree to roadside check points where no probable cause is needed for an official to stop and possibly search me and my belongings. You want to throw your right to not be searched, (either your person/car/belongings) for no real reason, go ahead. Just don't mess with those of us who do value what this country's constitution was fought over for.

dub190
Oct 10, 2009 at 12:08 p.m.
Suggest removal They will be using these checkpoints for more than catching drunk drivers.
+
yes and drug users .

Checkpoints aren't really an issue for those who like to have a couple. Luckily, with the way everyone in connected with technology today they are really easy to avoid. A couple of us were partying out of state--word of a checkpoint spread like wildfire in the bar scene. People had texted the exact location and it takes about a minute to get on a Blackberry and find a alternate way around it. I know if I ever ran into one I would immediately send out a text to all of my friends to avoid that area to spare them the inconvenience and expense of a stop.......

I am absolutely against criminalizing a first offense DUI as well. As long as an accident or injury isn't involved, the punishment simply does not fit the crime.....

A lot of people are against getting stopped for no reason. Here's an idea- how about rewarding good behavior. Any moron knows that you get a lot farther by rewarding the good than you do by punishing the bad. So let's try this- you get stopped at a check-point and are found to be sober. As a reward for practicing good driving behavior, you get a free six-pack!

There is no "right" answer to this. A lot of armchair quarterbacks will say "get stricter with drunk drivers, but then when it happens they revolt. Honestly, I don't see where check points will help, but then again, in Florida I have seen how they can work. They inform the bar and restaurant owners of the checkpoints and in turn those people tell their customers who now have a choice to get a ride or risk it. Cabs are waiting and available for the smart ones. In our situation here, I don't see that it would work so well as there are many different routes to take between any given location and no reliable, alternative transportation choices. The only true way to fix this is with a change of attitude toward drinking.

Should start right away, and I think they should have a sticker for auto plates after your first ticket instead of check points. It's about time something like this takes place, waited far too long to tell you the truth.Strat it now, may save acouple lives.

The US Supreme Court has ruled that sobriety check points are legal. Citing the "emergency clause" of the constitution and bowing to much pressure from MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving).

Wisconsin, along with 10 other states, has always resisted the idea of cops stopping citizens, without reason to believe they violated a law. Huge amounts of federal highway safety funds going to states that do use sobriety check points, undoubtedly figures in into the equation.

The sad part is, sobriety check points are not really effective in catching drunk drivers. Look at Illinois experience. The check points may bag one or two drunk drivers while citing many for no drivers license, after revocation, wanted on warrants, no insurance etc. If we paid officers to do dedicated patrols, to locate drunk drivers, it would be much more successful and we wouldn't be stopping folks not violating any law. Because federal highway money is involved, Wisconsin, no doubt, will soon have sobriety check points. It's a step back wards for constitutional protections and a step closer to being stopped on the street and asked "Your papers please"

The checkpoints measure was put in to the bill for the benefit of the Tavern League. The legislators are *guaranteeing* the law will be challenged in court. The senators and assemblypersons can go on collecting campaign contributions from both sides of the arguement. "We passed the stronger law, too bad the court overthrew it (wink wink, nudge nudge)."
.
Here's a sobriety test for Wisconsin voters, which is more dangerous: a 2nd+ conviction drunk driver behind the wheel, or a 2nd+ term state representative in session in Madison?

TO Carlitosway

Just for reference, you can't drive under the influence of a controlled substance either, WI Stat 346.63(1)(am)

I got it, they can will set up checkpoints to tax us by the pound!

It is best to cull the mob, than for the few to settle.
That sounds like the thoughts of Judy Robson-Pierre, and her fellow leadership group.
22 people a year die when they fall asleep smoking cigarettes. Let's put a chemical that "Gives off toxic fumes when burned" into the cigarette paper. More people stop smoking because of the burning in their throats. Gotta raise the taxes on cigarettes, because we banked on that money. People don't buy as many cigarettes because of the burdon of the new taxes. We need to tax something else.
We're going to raise taxes on alcohol! People in Wisconsin will learn to live with that, they won't give up their beer. They won't notice it, because they will have to quit smoking in the bars. Look at Illinois, they only lost 10-20% of their bars with the smoking ban. Wait, let's make it so people are affraid to go to the bars, by putting up checkpoints. Why isn't anyone going to the bars? Why are there 5000 more people out of a job? They are not paying taxes anymore! We need to tax something else.
We can raise gas taxes again, everyone needs to drive......
What about Self Righteous Ex-medical people that can't regulate health insurance companies that operate in Wisconsin? Didn't they promise that 4 years ago? No, let's give out more free insurance, because we can tax the deadies more.
Smokers, drinkers, drivers, cell phone users, perfume users, meat eaters ..... OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximilien_...

It's only the bad drunks making the news. Thousands of drunks get home every night just fine without killing anybody.

You all talk about the weight and gender of a person. It also depends on if they have eaten.

I'm sure most everyone making comments here have driven with, at least, a bit of alcohol in their system, maybe not the "legal" drunk number, but I'm fairly sure.

If I was going to drink then drive, I would learn the patterns of WHERE the checkpoints are and AVOID that area. This philosophy? The checkpoints WOULD NOT create a hazard. I'm sure the talk at the bars, etc. would be "where are the checkpoints tonight? What's the best way to take to avoid them?" Even someone that's been drinking and crazy enough to drive finds that stuff out.

Hannah, just another toll is right, but we're in WI where we have no tollways! Otherwise, I wouldn't mind.

So, how is it justified that the cops get your piece of mind when it is the legislators that are proposing these laws? Isn't it just as much our fault for keeping these guys in office? I mean, I don't mind a checkpoint until it makes me late for my job or an interview when I'm stopped for longer than it should take to give a breathalizer.

Let's not put the cart before the horse here, folks. It's still just a proposal. It's not set in stone at this point.
Even if roadside checkpoints were included under this proposal, you can be sure that few departments would be able to finance the overtime hours it takes to man one.
In saying that, I would also speculate that this proposal will be met with plenty of resistance from organizations that represent tavern/supper club/licensed restaurants/etc.
I believe we would see another push to raise the legal B.A.C. limit, coupled with a movement to lower the legal drinking age back to eighteen if this proposal were ever to make it to the floor as written.
Let them double the fine, and order a full five hundred hours of mandatory community service on any first conviction, regardless of how far they have to travel to perform it.
This "If you're not guilty, what have you to worry about" mentality just doesn't hold water if your stuck in a line of traffic waiting to be waved through some goofy checkpoint, causing you to lose an hour or more of wages from the job you hope will still be there.
And besides... Checkpoints are often worthless as some departments feel a need to leak the information to local news agencies as to where the roadblocks will be in place.

I am for getting drunks off the road, but gotta go with mespl..1 stiff drink can put a 130 person over a .08. So saying that, if it gets passed they should up the taxi services and give the "free ride home' program more funds to help out many people who may have a drink, whether it be 1 or 12. who are u to judge if they drink or not.

no matter what passes and becomes law, if you don't want to have problems, don't drive after you have had anything to drink. for the folks that think one or two is o.k. would you be relaxed if you were on an aircraft and the pilot only had one or two before getting behind the wheel of a 747? i bet it would make you uncomfortable and you might decide to walk!

So if you weigh 100 lbs you better not even have a lite beer then.

Actually one stiff drink can put a 130 lb woman over that limit depending on how soon she drives home.

18 Intoxicated driving arrests listed in this week’s public record section of the Gazette and you are telling me that the police are not catching these people?

I agree that drunk driving should be criminilized IF YOU ARE IMPAIRED. In my opinion though .08 is just too low of a BAC for people to be impaired. I mean what is that like 2 drinks for a 130 pound woman? So the main thing that checkpoints are going to do is make criminals out of people who went out to dinner & had a couple of drinks & who would have made it safely home if not for the checkpoint. JMO.

We can all thank Madd for pushing checkpoints so we can be like Illinois. Next will be no refusal weekends & vehicle impounding & confiscation. Not for upholding the law, but revenue. Like the assistant DA in Rock Island County Illinois said. "It's free money for your department". Checkpoints are not about Drunk Driving.

In other states they have found checkpoints unconstitutional!

The Constitution of the United States pretty clearly says that police can’t just stop someone and conduct an investigation unless there are "articulable facts" indicating possible criminal activity. So how can they do exactly that with DUI roadblocks?

Good question. And it was raised in the case of Michigan v. Sitz (496 U.S. 444), in which the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed a decision of the Michigan Supreme Court striking down drunk driving roadblocks as unconstitutional.

There is no need to criminalize the 1st-timer, and no checkpoints are warranted. The key is to enforce current laws that are already harsh for the 1st-timer (cases of injury, death, or property damgage excepted). The answer is to encourage bars to have the capability to provide or secure decent home shuttles for their patrons. Bars that wish to survive will have to do something or they'll in aggregate continue to lose customers to DUI.

They need to make driving under the influence of any mind altering substance against the law and criminalize it all!!!!!!Alcohol, Weed, Crack, Coke,Heroin, Rytlin,EX, Narcotics (pain meds)and any I may of missed! As they all affect your ability to drive...........

You realize Wisconsin is the ONLY state that doesn't do this? Criminalize first offenders that is, I'm not sure about stats on states that do or do not use check points.

Your argument about the possibility that drunks will rear-end people is based on pure speculation. They might try a U-turn and cross into oncoming traffic too, right? Maybe they'll just pass people on the right and blow through the checkpoint. How about we give it shot and see how it goes?

This will keep more people safe. What is wrong with that? Sometimes we need to pay a price (inconvenience in this case) in order to make the world a better place.

Yes, I want stricter punishments for the drunks, and leave the rest of us alone. Why is that too much to ask of the government, when they are catching someone for the 7th or 8th time apparently they are catching the drunks, but there just isn’t enough deterrent to prevent the crime from happening.

Complain when they don't do anything and then turn around and complain when they do something. So, do you or do you not want anything done about drunken drivers? The answer is simple; yes or no.

And we know drunks are great in traffic!

It is about time Wisconsin gets with the program. Has anyone ever been stopped at one of these in another state? It doesn't take very long and it makes the roads safer. I'm not sure how many instances there have been of drunks rear ending people at these stops. They don't jump out in front of you while you're driving or anything. It is just like a traffic backup.

If all this money that will now be spent on prosecution and incarceration were spent on the roads, we'd save more people's lives. I say all the people who want to criminalize first-time offenses pay the higher taxes.

Drunk driving SHOULD be a criminal offense. Crazy that it isn't now!
Checkpoints seem over-the-top. The only upside I see is that drunks MIGHT be deterred knowing there might be a checkpoint, but even that is kind of weak. In this day and age, cell phones are everywhere and people driving erratically can be called in quickly. So I see no good reason for checkpoints, they punish all the innocent people who have to wait and the drunks will all turn around and take another route when they see the checkpoint!

It's about time!

hannah:If you look at wccap at the drunk drivers their first is dismissed a lot anyway.

Since when??Everyone I know including myself who has ONE OWI has NOT been dismissed!! I was even right at the .08 and I got the whole 9 yards thrown at me!

Increased penalty most likely will not change the outcome. People almost always think "I'll never get caught". It's human nature to push the limits and this is where all crime comes from. Even death penalty has little to no effect on murder rates. Roadside checks will catch more drug related offenses than drunk drivers.

hannah: With your rational of if you have done nothing wrong then why not be stopped. Why stop there I do nothing wrong in my home why don’t the cops start searching every citizens home for something illegal? After all if you have nothing to hide that should be ok right? No! It is not ok and never would be!

hannah: Sorry but when the drunks are going to hit you is when you are stopped in the road and they are come up behind you. How do you not understand that that is a hazard (both to the drivers and to the cops)? On top of that, it is harassment as far as I am concerned. They cannot pull you over unless they suspect something so why should they be allowed to force me to stop at a checkpoint? What do they suspect of me for driving down the road? Nothing. They are trying to legalize stopping people for doing nothing wrong besides using the roads that we paid for in our taxes. Sorry but there is a line, I believe in stricter punishment for people that actually do something wrong, they catch plenty of drunk drivers already, they just need to be harder on the ones that they catch. And I believe in leaving the law abiding citizens alone. If I have done nothing wrong I do not deserve to be stopped!

Such a joke. Why does it have to wait two years to go into effect? The last "joke" of legislation to make 4th offense OWI a felony got pushed through in a heartbeat. At least they're making strides in the right direction criminalizing first offense.

However, I believe sobriety checkpoints are prohibited by WI state statute and are unconstitutional in several states. I don't see the logic of purposefully putting some idiotic clause into an otherwise good idea

NO ROADSIDE CHECKPOINTS!
Senator Judy Robson Sen.robson@legis.wisconsin.gov
(608) 266-2253 Capitol 122 South
District Number 45

Representative Chuck Benedict Rep.benedict@legis.wisconsin.gov
(608) 266-9967 Capitol 306 West

NO ROADSIDE CHECKPOINTS!

I agree with making it a crime it should be classified a crime, however to legalize roadside checkpoints is too much. The first time I get stopped at a roadside checkpoint where they are checking for drunks that cop will get a piece of my mind. Don’t they realize that they are just inviting a drunk to slam into the back of my car with me stopped there or even better to slam into whatever squads are directing traffic to the side of the road? Drunks aren’t the best drivers and can have a hard time slowing down especially if it is at a spot where they are not used to slowing down like at a roadside checkpoint.

Would we need this new law if the existing laws were actually enforced? I wonder when I see reports of individuals being arrested for thier 5th, 6th , or 7th time drunk driving.