Okay, this story stunned me.

[JazzManJim]

Police in Fairfax City, VA have decided to take a rather interesting proactive approach to preventing drunk driving.

Officers from the department are going into bars, both in uniform and undercover, and identifying patrons they believe may be drunk. They then escort said patrons outside (or leave them inside in some cases) and administer a field sobriety test. They then either issue the person a citation or arrest them for public drunkenness.

Bar owners are, to say the least, the slightest bit miffed with this new enforcement strategy.

To my eyes, police are taking advantage of both an old law (public drunkenness) and a broad interpretation of what is considered "public" to take this kind of action. On one hand, the civic-minded part of me applauds the police for trying somethign that gets out ahead of drunk drivers before they can get behind the wheel of a car. The rather cynical part of me sees this as just another ploy to generate money for the municipality. The Libertarian part of me screams bloody murder about it every time I think of what they're doing. The legal part of me is questioning the actual legality of the move and wonders if it won't stop the very first time one of these cases hit a courtroom.

In any case, I don't know that it'll go away very soon.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Well, I've always wondered why they don't just post 5 police cars 50 feet from the bars and stop everyone.

 

[His_kitty]

It will once the town bigwigs get caught drunk at a bar. Then they'll rethink this stupid decision they've made.

 

[Spinaroonie]

Honestly...

Why isn't it that they don't have a key check like the old hat check days?

 

[JazzManJim]

Well, I've always wondered why they don't just post 5 police cars 50 feet from the bars and stop everyone.

Well, they'd like to, actually. It's called a "Sobriety Checkpoint" and most courts have ruled that it's legal only in specific circumstances, to address specifically-targeted problems. Broadly setting them up just isn't legal.

I have, however, gone on ride-alongs where the officer did something called "drunkhawking". Basically they park within eyeshot of a bar and wait until a group of three or so cars come out. They then follow the cars down the road and pull over the one that weaves (or weaves the most).

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Well, ok, so...we know people leaving a bar are drunk, and we allow most of them to drive home...does anyone else see the problem here?

 

[Lancecastor]

Drunkhawking and yanking people from bars are two examples of selective prosecution/profiling in my view.

A patrol officer is just that, on patrol. The idea is to cruise around, maintain the appropriate level of day/nite "presence" and respond to calls as well as to infractions/crimes they actually observe, yes?

Once they start going to places where they think they will find crime...they've crossed the line. "Anticipatory crime" isn't their job.

Next step? Hang out near the doors of black welfare homes...hell, just barge in....after all, black men commit most of the crimes anyway, right?

Might as well nip it in the bud!

I think drunkhawking is way past the thin edge of the wedge and that yanking people from bars is just shy of brownshirts and jackboots.



Lance

 

[70/30]

Exactly Lance...I also oppose not-so-random roadblocks---even on holidays. Although, I hear England reserves the right to stop people in motor vehicles to check the tread on their tires---I'd be really pissed about that one.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

I think drunkhawking is way past the thin edge of the wedge and that yanking people from bars is just shy of brownshirts and jackboots.



Lance

Nabbing people who are driving drunk is a good thing. I do agree that convincing people to do something illegal is WAY past the line. Shouldn't you at least give them a chance to call a cab before arresting them? How do you know that drunk guy doesn't have a designated driver? Last time I checked, the reason that bars serve alcohol is for people to drink it...

 

[Lancecastor]

Exactly Lance...I also oppose not-so-random roadblocks---even on holidays. Although, I hear England reserves the right to stop people in motor vehicles to check the tread on their tires---I'd be really pissed about that one.

Even Venezuela took down it's armed checkpoints twenty years ago.

In Geneva the only time you see a cop car is if something happens...then they just appear.

Maybe they have cameras everywhere, I dunno. But it sure doesn't "feel" like a police state the way some places do.

 

[Worm]

Sounds fucked up to me. Where I grew up they used to go to the bars and mark in chalk on car tires 4 hours before closing and then the cops would would circle around the parking lot before closing to see wich cars are still there then pull them over when they leave.

 

[cutie pie]

Oh. Oh. Oh. We were just talking about this tonight! How can you walk into a bar a prove that the person, even if at the legal blood alcohol limit, is going to drive? What about those of us who are responsible enough not to drink and drive? What about a night like tonight, where I had two beers and then drank soda for the next four hours while listening to the band play at the local bar?

Yeah, it's a fine line on a serious issue, but this isn't the way to deal with it.

 

[TheDR4KE]

Honestly...

Why isn't it that they don't have a key check like the old hat check days?

You're thinking swingers parties I think, Spin.

Quack

the D

 

[perks]

You're thinking swingers parties I think, Spin.

Quack

the D

<grin> that's my duck.

 

[kotori]

You're thinking swingers parties I think, Spin.

Quack

the D

That's so '70s, dude. Should we bring along a video of Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice?