"Sobriety Checkpoints"

"Brent P" > wrote in message
news
> In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:
>
>> I would consider it unusual for someone to be driving 35 in a 45 zone
>> late
>> at night/early AM. Most people drive at or over the limit,especially when
>> the roads are empty. Unusual behavior late at night/early AM would be
>> sufficient grounds for a traffic stop,IMO.
>
> The only reason it is unusual behavior is because the roads are so
> underposted. The other problem is that late at night is also prime
> speeding ticket issuing time. So you're damned if you do, damned if you
> don't.

This is exactly what happened--it was a 4 lane street, 2 lanes in each
direction, and I saw no speed sign so I decided to err on the side of
safety.

(Brent P) wrote in
news
> In article >, Jim Yanik
> wrote:
>
>> I would consider it unusual for someone to be driving 35 in a 45 zone
>> late at night/early AM. Most people drive at or over the
>> limit,especially when the roads are empty. Unusual behavior late at
>> night/early AM would be sufficient grounds for a traffic stop,IMO.
>
> The only reason it is unusual behavior is because the roads are so
> underposted.

This does not compute;one drives 10 MPH -under- the underposted limit,as
ordinary behavior?(with no or minimal impairment)

It makes more sense to drive OVER the UNDERposted limit.


> The other problem is that late at night is also prime
> speeding ticket issuing time. So you're damned if you do, damned if
> you don't.
>
Then why not drive AT or close to the posted limit?(as reasonable behavior
for those times of the dark.)
IMO,10 or more MPH under at night with little traffic IS suspicious
behavior justifying a traffic stop.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

(Brent P) wrote in
news
> In article >, Jim Yanik
> wrote:
>
>> I would consider it unusual for someone to be driving 35 in a 45 zone
>> late at night/early AM. Most people drive at or over the
>> limit,especially when the roads are empty. Unusual behavior late at
>> night/early AM would be sufficient grounds for a traffic stop,IMO.
>
> The only reason it is unusual behavior is because the roads are so
> underposted.

This does not compute;one drives 10 MPH -under- the underposted limit,as
ordinary behavior?(with no or minimal impairment)

It makes more sense to drive OVER the UNDERposted limit.


> The other problem is that late at night is also prime
> speeding ticket issuing time. So you're damned if you do, damned if
> you don't.
>
Then why not drive AT or close to the posted limit?(as reasonable behavior
for those times of the dark.)
IMO,10 or more MPH under at night with little traffic IS suspicious
behavior justifying a traffic stop.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:

>>> I would consider it unusual for someone to be driving 35 in a 45 zone
>>> late at night/early AM. Most people drive at or over the
>>> limit,especially when the roads are empty. Unusual behavior late at
>>> night/early AM would be sufficient grounds for a traffic stop,IMO.

>> The only reason it is unusual behavior is because the roads are so
>> underposted.

> This does not compute;one drives 10 MPH -under- the underposted limit,as
> ordinary behavior?(with no or minimal impairment)
>
> It makes more sense to drive OVER the UNDERposted limit.

The only reason it is unusual to driver UNDER the limit is because the
speed limit is so LOW to begin with.

>> The other problem is that late at night is also prime
>> speeding ticket issuing time. So you're damned if you do, damned if
>> you don't.

> Then why not drive AT or close to the posted limit?(as reasonable behavior
> for those times of the dark.)
> IMO,10 or more MPH under at night with little traffic IS suspicious
> behavior justifying a traffic stop.

Because we all know radar guns are perfectly accurate......

I've driven 5-8mph under in heavily patrolled speed limit zones.

I've often been in unfamiliar areas where I had to guess at the limit because
it looked like a revenue zone and I thought I may have missed a sign. So
if it looked like a 45mph traffic speed road, I would drive 30mph.
Figuring that the real speed limit couldn't be higher than 40 and could
be as low as 25mph.

In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:

>>> I would consider it unusual for someone to be driving 35 in a 45 zone
>>> late at night/early AM. Most people drive at or over the
>>> limit,especially when the roads are empty. Unusual behavior late at
>>> night/early AM would be sufficient grounds for a traffic stop,IMO.

>> The only reason it is unusual behavior is because the roads are so
>> underposted.

> This does not compute;one drives 10 MPH -under- the underposted limit,as
> ordinary behavior?(with no or minimal impairment)
>
> It makes more sense to drive OVER the UNDERposted limit.

The only reason it is unusual to driver UNDER the limit is because the
speed limit is so LOW to begin with.

>> The other problem is that late at night is also prime
>> speeding ticket issuing time. So you're damned if you do, damned if
>> you don't.

> Then why not drive AT or close to the posted limit?(as reasonable behavior
> for those times of the dark.)
> IMO,10 or more MPH under at night with little traffic IS suspicious
> behavior justifying a traffic stop.

Because we all know radar guns are perfectly accurate......

I've driven 5-8mph under in heavily patrolled speed limit zones.

I've often been in unfamiliar areas where I had to guess at the limit because
it looked like a revenue zone and I thought I may have missed a sign. So
if it looked like a 45mph traffic speed road, I would drive 30mph.
Figuring that the real speed limit couldn't be higher than 40 and could
be as low as 25mph.

In article >,
Arif Khokar > wrote:
>Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:
>
>>>>In the first case they stop and check anyone they want.
>
>>>But they have SOME amount of probable cause.Do they really stop people just
>>>for driving the speed limit? I'm doubtful about that.
>
>> Driving that slow _IS_ the probable cause, or at least part of it.
>
>Actually, it's one of several factors (at least that's what claimed)
>forming "reasonable suspicion." A drug dog "alerting" then changes it
>to "probable cause."

Yep. The Fourth Amendment has meaning only if cops can't get a dog to
bark on surreptitious command.

In article >,
Arif Khokar > wrote:
>Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:
>
>>>>In the first case they stop and check anyone they want.
>
>>>But they have SOME amount of probable cause.Do they really stop people just
>>>for driving the speed limit? I'm doubtful about that.
>
>> Driving that slow _IS_ the probable cause, or at least part of it.
>
>Actually, it's one of several factors (at least that's what claimed)
>forming "reasonable suspicion." A drug dog "alerting" then changes it
>to "probable cause."

Yep. The Fourth Amendment has meaning only if cops can't get a dog to
bark on surreptitious command.

In article <pan.2005.01.07.01.55.12.626542@blutz>,
says...

>As my fellow Coloradoans are aware, they just wrapped up their holiday
>weekend "The Heat is On" campaign.
>This may have been answered elsewhere, if so, point me in the right
>direction.
>How exactly does the state get away with stopping motorists at a
>'checkpoint'? Seems to me they have to have 'probable cause', and I'm not
>sure the mere act of driving late at night constitutes that.

Ask your local politician. It is stupid that these are allowed. Evidence
shows they are no better at getting the drunks off the road than having
the same number of cops patrolling the roads.
-------------
Alex

In article <pan.2005.01.07.01.55.12.626542@blutz>,
says...

>As my fellow Coloradoans are aware, they just wrapped up their holiday
>weekend "The Heat is On" campaign.
>This may have been answered elsewhere, if so, point me in the right
>direction.
>How exactly does the state get away with stopping motorists at a
>'checkpoint'? Seems to me they have to have 'probable cause', and I'm not
>sure the mere act of driving late at night constitutes that.

Ask your local politician. It is stupid that these are allowed. Evidence
shows they are no better at getting the drunks off the road than having
the same number of cops patrolling the roads.
-------------
Alex

In article . com>,
says...
>Don't blame the cops for this. Blame the legislators for making the
>penalty for DUI a fine instead of the madatory prison sentence it
>should be. As long as DUI penalties are so light, the criminals will
>keep on driving drunk and the rest of us will have to suffer thru these
>checkpoints.

It figures you would show your ignorance again by posting. I blame the
legislators for allowing this stupidity that harrasses law abiding citizens
while proving to be no better than other enforcements methods. Jail time
is not necessarily the answer. Those same drunks will still drink and drive
when they get out.
------------
Alex