Zion DUI checkpoints Labor Day weekend & late October

[trackrunner]

I bet this will be like last time targeting Kolob Terrace Road.

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=12244007

[DSTRBD]

Don't drink and drive...Problem solved. :mrgreen:

[canyoncaver]

Don't drink and drive...Problem solved. :mrgreen:

Not true. Abstaining from drink does nothing to solve the problem of intrusive government inching ever closer to the police state. Checkpoints are an erosion of basic civil liberties.

[DSTRBD]

Not true. Abstaining from drink does nothing to solve the problem of intrusive government inching ever closer to the police state. Checkpoints are an erosion of basic civil liberties.

I'm pretty sure thats a separate issue. I for one like a beer or cocktail as much as anyone else BUT I have a very strict drinking and driving policy. Bottom line here is if you drink and drive and you are above the legal limit you get what you deserve IMHO. I have been through many checkpoints over the years and it takes seconds to clear them if you have done nothing wrong. I for one don't want to be in the park on those tiny twisty little roads with my family and have some jackass thats had to much to drink run into us. If this ever happened said offender better hope the cops get him before I do!

[canyoncaver]

I have been through many checkpoints over the years and it takes seconds to clear them if you have done nothing wrong.

You might want to open your mind to the fact that while this may be true for you, it is not true for others. Cops tend to pick on certain groups at these checkpoints, and for them it takes much more than seconds. If you are white, well-dressed, and in a nice vehicle, I'm sure they let you go pretty quickly.

If you have done nothing wrong, why should you have to explain to a law enforcement officer where you are going and where you are coming from? Detainment and questioning without cause is what I am protesting, not any implied right to drive drunk. You have a right to keep your family safe on the highway. I have a right to travel lawfully without being stopped and harrassed by police. The two rights do not have to come into conflict. We have allowed them to conflict by permitting this type of unconstitutional behavior in the name of safety.

As long as people who have "done no wrong" see no problem with this intrusive behavior, the status quo will not change, but will continue to slide further down the slippery slope towards the police state. Eventually they will take away a right that you do care about retaining, but by then it will be too late. I care about retaining my right of freedom of movement, right now. That is why I am speaking out about it. :flag:

[ibenick]

You might want to open your mind to the fact that while this may be true for you, it is not true for others. Cops tend to pick on certain groups at these checkpoints, and for them it takes much more than seconds. If you are white, well-dressed, and in a nice vehicle, I'm sure they let you go pretty quickly.

If you have done nothing wrong, why should you have to explain to a law enforcement officer where you are going and where you are coming from? Detainment and questioning without cause is what I am protesting, not any implied right to drive drunk. You have a right to keep your family safe on the highway. I have a right to travel lawfully without being stopped and harrassed by police. The two rights do not have to come into conflict. We have allowed them to conflict by permitting this type of unconstitutional behavior in the name of safety.

As long as people who have "done no wrong" see no problem with this intrusive behavior, the status quo will not change, but will continue to slide further down the slippery slope towards the police state. Eventually they will take away a right that you do care about retaining, but by then it will be too late. I care about retaining my right of freedom of movement, right now. That is why I am speaking out about it. :flag:

I'm all for stopping drunk driving too but you have an excellent point. Maybe they could start by actually locking up the 10-time offenders rather than just letting them go back out and do it again... and again...

[Iceaxe]

If you have done nothing wrong, why should you have to explain to a law enforcement officer where you are going and where you are coming from?

x2

[ratagonia]

You might want to open your mind to the fact that while this may be true for you, it is not true for others. Cops tend to pick on certain groups at these checkpoints, and for them it takes much more than seconds. If you are white, well-dressed, and in a nice vehicle, I'm sure they let you go pretty quickly.

If you have done nothing wrong, why should you have to explain to a law enforcement officer where you are going and where you are coming from? Detainment and questioning without cause is what I am protesting, not any implied right to drive drunk. You have a right to keep your family safe on the highway. I have a right to travel lawfully without being stopped and harrassed by police. The two rights do not have to come into conflict. We have allowed them to conflict by permitting this type of unconstitutional behavior in the name of safety.

As long as people who have "done no wrong" see no problem with this intrusive behavior, the status quo will not change, but will continue to slide further down the slippery slope towards the police state. Eventually they will take away a right that you do care about retaining, but by then it will be too late. I care about retaining my right of freedom of movement, right now. That is why I am speaking out about it. :flag:

:2thumbs:

Seems odd to target Zion Park, as the incidence of DUI In the Park seems small to negligible. They do have that nice speed trap location just above Wildcat Cyn Trailhead - good place to catch speeders since it is just after a long hill, hidden from view, and the inside-the-park speed limit is kinda low for the road conditions.

The windy KT Road - I think would be very difficult to drive successfully while UI. Big consequences for failure.

Tom (ACLU card-carrying) :moses:

[ratagonia]

You might want to open your mind to the fact that while this may be true for you, it is not true for others. Cops tend to pick on certain groups at these checkpoints, and for them it takes much more than seconds. If you are white, well-dressed, and in a nice vehicle, I'm sure they let you go pretty quickly.

If you have done nothing wrong, why should you have to explain to a law enforcement officer where you are going and where you are coming from? Detainment and questioning without cause is what I am protesting, not any implied right to drive drunk. You have a right to keep your family safe on the highway. I have a right to travel lawfully without being stopped and harrassed by police. The two rights do not have to come into conflict. We have allowed them to conflict by permitting this type of unconstitutional behavior in the name of safety.

As long as people who have "done no wrong" see no problem with this intrusive behavior, the status quo will not change, but will continue to slide further down the slippery slope towards the police state. Eventually they will take away a right that you do care about retaining, but by then it will be too late. I care about retaining my right of freedom of movement, right now. That is why I am speaking out about it. :flag:

I'm a white guy, but I drive a crap vehicle, and don't necessarily shave and bathe when working "in the field". I get stopped all the time. But I act nice, so I don't get tickets, but I get stopped, A LOT.

Zion Park already has a big police presence, because they have a WAY higher density of cops in Zion than elsewhere in Southern Utah. Oh, and the impractically low speed limits mean they always have probably cause to stop you, unless you drive like a granny. I don't.

Tom

[Iceaxe]

Seems odd to target Zion Park, as the incidence of DUI In the Park seems small to negligible.

The money for this was part of the government stimulus package. The money was set aside to curb DUI's.... and of course it's a use it or lose it with law enforcement so they are going to use it..... Like a lot of the different stimulus packages, it was not well thought out or executed... I'm sure most law enforcement agencies could have put the money to better use if they were given a little broader guidelines..... either that or just paid themselves a bonus like some of the bankers did.... which is why they have to put strict guidelines on the money to begin with.

[oldno7]

:2thumbs:

Seems odd to target Zion Park, as the incidence of DUI In the Park seems small to negligible. They do have that nice speed trap location just above Wildcat Cyn Trailhead - good place to catch speeders since it is just after a long hill, hidden from view, and the inside-the-park speed limit is kinda low for the road conditions.

The windy KT Road - I think would be very difficult to drive successfully while UI. Big consequences for failure.

Tom (ACLU card-carrying) :moses:

I think they are looking for the Southern Utah Redneck, beer drinkin', gun totin', fishermen.(damn profilers)
On KT road.

[ratagonia]

I think they are looking for the Southern Utah Redneck, beer drinkin', gun totin', fishermen.(damn profilers)
On KT road.

Well darn it, slap some sunscreen on your neck that weekend, Kurty. !!

T :moses:

[trackrunner]

Joe Braun, as a reply at another forum, begged for the check point to be stationed in the East Canyon between 8pm and 8am

:lol8: :2thumbs:

[oldno7]

Well darn it, slap some sunscreen on your neck that weekend, Kurty. !!

T :moses:
In the immortal words of David Allan Coe--"My long hair just can't cover up my redneck"

[elkshadow]

I drove drunk a lot when I was younger and I was nearly killed by a drunk driver 3 years ago so forgive me if my responses are emotional and not logical


You might want to open your mind to the fact that while this may be true for you, it is not true for others. Cops tend to pick on certain groups at these checkpoints, and for them it takes much more than seconds. If you are white, well-dressed, and in a nice vehicle, I'm sure they let you go pretty quickly.

I don't buy this. I have never seen any proof of this notion that cops harass hippie wagons and let Beemers slide on through. Tons of anecdotal evidence, no proof. If you have a source for this I'd love to see it. They are looking for drunk people, no matter what they are driving or wearing.


If you have done nothing wrong, why should you have to explain to a law enforcement officer where you are going and where you are coming from?

because if you're driving drunk, you may not have done anything wrong yet but you may be minutes away from doing something wrong...


Detainment and questioning without cause is what I am protesting, not any implied right to drive drunk. You have a right to keep your family safe on the highway. I have a right to travel lawfully without being stopped and harrassed by police. The two rights do not have to come into conflict. We have allowed them to conflict by permitting this type of unconstitutional behavior in the name of safety.

Obviously, You do not have this right. If these checkpoints were deemed unconstitutional they would be stopped. Besides, if you are driving drunk these rights do conflict. They conflict all the time. That's why there are DUI laws and checkpoints. The stopping and questioning of innocent people on the roads has been deemed an acceptable trade-off for saving the lives of people who are otherwise traveling lawfully. The Constitution does not address lawful safe travel by roads except between states and even then it's an "equal sovereignty" thing. It is up to modern society to decide what is acceptable. Spending 30 seconds once a year telling the cops you're not driving drunk is not harassment in my opinion.


As long as people who have "done no wrong" see no problem with this intrusive behavior, the status quo will not change, but will continue to slide further down the slippery slope towards the police state.

ZOMG!!! SLIPPERY SLOPE!!!!! POLICE STATE!!!!! I'M NOT DRIVING DRUNK!!!!:lol8: We would have been good Nazis right?


Eventually they will take away a right that you do care about retaining, but by then it will be too late. I care about retaining my right of freedom of movement, right now. That is why I am speaking out about it. :flag:

The only freedom of movement in the Constitution is the freedom to move between states without molestation. No one is restricting your "right to freedom of movement." They are restricting your right to freedom of movement WHILE INTOXICATED, which I am 100% in favor of...

I thank the LEOs every time I go though one of these things. If they had one set up on Feb. 9, 2007, in my hometown in Ohio, I wouldn't have had a hit and run sitting duck head-on collision, a totaled brand new car, a year of chiropractic work, a permanent neck injury, recurring nightmares about head on collisions that I can't avoid and a total derailment of my otherwise awesome life. I can handle 2 minutes on the holiday weekends telling the fuzz I'm not drunk.

[Bo_Beck]

I thank the LEOs every time I go though one of these things. If they had one set up on Feb. 9, 2007, in my hometown in Ohio, I wouldn't have had a hit and run sitting duck head-on collision, a totaled brand new car, a year of chiropractic work, a permanent neck injury, recurring nightmares about head on collisions that I can't avoid and a total derailment of my otherwise awesome life. I can handle 2 minutes on the holiday weekends telling the fuzz I'm not drunk.

JFYI: I do hear of DUI instances that are generally unknown in ZNP (because I spend a lot of time with LE's who are involved with SAR), and most notably of the instance 2 seasons ago when a fellow and friend LE on duty coming down the KT road was head-on'd by a drunk driver. Thanks to this drunk driver now, one LE Officer of Zion is accomodating the "stimulus" monies in a manner that wasn't meant to be......re-habilitation!

[canyoncaver]

Elkshadow,

Since I don't want to spend any more time in a pissing match than I have to, I will reply quickly. After that, you and I may just have to agree to disagree. To you, the so-called safety benefit that you get from checkpoints is worth risking the erosion of your privacy rights and your protection from unlawful search. To me it is not. We may just have to leave it there.

Here we go:

I don't know what you would consider proof. I do not have it. I have what you would consider anecdotal evidence.

Your post assumes I am driving drunk. I already said I do not pretend to have the right to do that or anything else illegal while driving. So, your example of the drunk who has done nothing wrong but is about to do something is moot. He has already "done something wrong" he is driving drunk. He has already forfeited any rights he had on the road at that point. I have not.

In the next example you make the same mistake in logic. You say that when driving drunk the rights do conflict. If you actually read what I wrote, I said I had a right to "travel lawfully" without harrassment. That by definition excludes driving drunk. Also, many experts have deemed checkpoints unconstitutional. Unfortunately our court system is not among them. Courts have however placed limitations on this activity, admitting that it is legal grey area.

I don't even understand your comment about ZOMG? and Nazis, so cannot respond.

We may disagree on the meaning of freedom of movement, but there are other rights at play here such as privacy, and protection from unlawful search.

I am very sorry that you were hit by a drunk driver. However, for the hypothetical checkpoint that would have saved you to work, it would have had to have been at the right time, on the right street, and the cops would have had to figure out that that particular guy was drunk, or it still would have happened. It's not like a checkpoint is going to weed out every dangerous driver in the area.

There are many dangers on the road, and in life. A drunk driver is only one of them. Our fundamental difference is that I would prefer to protect myself and my family from these dangers, while you appreciate the government trying to do it for you. To each his own, and thanks for the spirited debate.

[canyoncaver]

Bo,

Like you, I am also good friends with the LEO that was hit head-on on the KT road. It is true that he has had a long and painful recovery. He will probably deal with pain and discomfort from this accident for the rest of his life. But I don't think the guy that hit him was drunk. I know at least that he was not charged with DUI. I think it was more like DWS (driving while stupid) I heard he only got a $100 fine for injuring our friend and destroying that patrol car. So that sounds more like a reckless driving ticket than any sort of alcohol related fine.

I will check with K.B. on this and report back.

[mmac]

Simple solution:

Ignition interlocks for all! :haha:


No checkpoints, makes it harder for drunks to turn on their cars.

[Bo_Beck]

Bo,

Like you, I am also good friends with the LEO that was hit head-on on the KT road. It is true that he has had a long and painful recovery. He will probably deal with pain and discomfort from this accident for the rest of his life. But I don't think the guy that hit him was drunk. I know at least that he was not charged with DUI. I think it was more like DWS (driving while stupid) I heard he only got a $100 fine for injuring our friend and destroying that patrol car. So that sounds more like a reckless driving ticket than any sort of alcohol related fine.

I will check with K.B. on this and report back.

Oops! There I go trying to spread untrue rumors:oops: I had always just assumed that it was a DUI! Thanks for clearing the air.:nod:

[Jaxx]

I'm all for stopping drunk driving too but you have an excellent point. Maybe they could start by actually locking up the 10-time offenders rather than just letting them go back out and do it again... and again...

Seems like a logical solution.

[trackrunner]

well my intent was to inform and plan ahead that you may be stopped. not to stir the pot or advocated driking and driving or open containers.
:cool2:

[jman]

well my intent was to inform and plan ahead that you may be stopped. not to stir the pot or advocated driking and driving or open containers.
:cool2:

That's what you get for informing.......hope you learned your lesson.

[tanya]

I know a few police, and all they want to do is stop those that do drive and drink. They could care less what other group you belong to..... as long as you are in the group that chooses to drive while or after you have been drinking.

[EvergreenDean]

They let you drink in Utah now?

[Bo_Beck]

They let you drink in Utah now?

:lol8:

[ratagonia]

They let you drink in Utah now?

Yes they do, Dean. And just as a reminder, for next time you drive out this way: 1554!

Tom :moses:

[EvergreenDean]

A fine year indeed. The Belgian Black has been added to the supply list.

[canyoncaver]

Bo,

For what it's worth, I checked with K.B. and he said the driver that hit him on the KT road amazingly had no alcohol in his system. He was charged with "Failure to maintain control of vehicle" and fined $100! K.B. argued that he should also be charged with reckless driving, but to no avail. Meanwhile, an NPS patrol vehicle was totaled, and our friend has to deal with rehab, thousands of dollars of med bills, and a lifetime of pain and discomfort. Bogus.

This DUI discussion seems to have run its natural course, but I guess it goes to show that you don't have to be drunk to be an a$$hole.

[ratagonia]

Bo,

For what it's worth, I checked with K.B. and he said the driver that hit him on the KT road amazingly had no alcohol in his system. He was charged with "Failure to maintain control of vehicle" and fined $100! K.B. argued that he should also be charged with reckless driving, but to no avail. Meanwhile, an NPS patrol vehicle was totaled, and our friend has to deal with rehab, thousands of dollars of med bills, and a lifetime of pain and discomfort. Bogus.

This DUI discussion seems to have run its natural course, but I guess it goes to show that you don't have to be drunk to be an a$$hole.

And you also don't have to be a hole to be involved or even responsible for a motor vehicle accident. I drive that road a lot and it is a scary road. It is very narrow by today's standards and has ditches on both sides. BIG SUVs and trucks, especially those towing a trailer up to Kolob Reservoir take up more than 50% of the road, leaving me about 3" to spare on each side. I have put tires in the ditch on the right hand side thankfully without consequences. Stimulus money could be put to good use on that road!

Just because your friend got seriously hurt does not mean that the person in the other car was an evil a-hole.

(I am, of course, blessed in this dicussion by a lack of information beyond what has been presented in this thread).

Tom :moses:

[Brian in SLC]

A fine year indeed. The Belgian Black has been added to the supply list.

Big fan of the Abbey Belgian Style Ale... The 1554 is just a tad too dark for me.

Proost!

[canyoncaver]

Sorry, didn't mean to imply that everyone that causes an accident is an a-hole. Not my intent at all.

This particular character was traveling above 60mph on the aforementioned scary, narrow road. He was witnessed earlier that day drag-racing on the same road. Since I have been blessed with slightly more information than what is on this thread, I can say that he showed no remorse, made things difficult for my friend in terms of restitution, and was by all accounts, an a-hole.

[Scott Card]

Bo,

For what it's worth, I checked with K.B. and he said the driver that hit him on the KT road amazingly had no alcohol in his system. He was charged with "Failure to maintain control of vehicle" and fined $100! K.B. argued that he should also be charged with reckless driving, but to no avail. Meanwhile, an NPS patrol vehicle was totaled, and our friend has to deal with rehab, thousands of dollars of med bills, and a lifetime of pain and discomfort. Bogus.

This DUI discussion seems to have run its natural course, but I guess it goes to show that you don't have to be drunk to be an a$$hole. I hope you understand that KB has a third party liability claim against the lousy driver as well as as a workers comp type claim if he was on the job.

[canyoncaver]

I hope you understand that KB has a third party liability claim against the lousy driver as well as as a workers comp type claim if he was on the job.

Yes, besides the physical pain, it is dealing with exactly these two things that have caused him the most discomfort!