Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site mecc.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!ihnp4!mgnetp!dicomed!mecc!sewilco From: sewilco@mecc.UUCP (Scot E. Wilcoxon) Newsgroups: net.legal Subject: Re: DWI Roadblocks Message-ID: <328@mecc.UUCP> Date: Fri, 12-Jul-85 13:41:29 EDT Article-I.D.: mecc.328 Posted: Fri Jul 12 13:41:29 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 15-Jul-85 01:27:36 EDT References: <8933@ucbvax.ARPA> Reply-To: sewilco@.UUCP (Scot E. Wilcoxon) Organization: MN Ed Comp Corp, St.Paul, MN Lines: 61 Keywords: DWI survey roadblock Summary: Survey and drunk? Free ride home. No survey and drunk? DWI if try to drive. In article <8933@ucbvax.ARPA> harry@ucbarpa writes: >From: harry@ucbarpa (Harry I. Rubin) > >To: net-legal@ucbvax >Subject: Re: DWI Roadblocks >Newsgroups: net.legal,net.auto >References: <979@homxa.UUCP> <3893@alice.UUCP> <3108@drutx.UUCP> <11358@brl-tgr.ARPA> <628@terak.UUCP> >Organization: U.C. Berkeley > >While visiting in Minneapolis last December and January, Surveys were scheduled to start in January. They just started recently after delaying for court action (see below). >I saw several TV news spots about the police setting up roadblocks >to screen for drunk drivers. As I recall, there were two points >which made this acceptably legal: >(1) people were not forced to go through the checkpoints. The locations >and times of the roadblocks were announced in advance (a day or two); >drivers who did not want to go through the roadblocks were free to take >alternate routes or not to drive at those times. Locations are not announced. The TV crews easily found the location of the first roadblock and only announced which county it was in (although also being visible in the background). The unusual part of these roadblocks is that they are only for a survey. It seems nobody has accurate figures of number of drunk drivers on the road. The roadblocks are for getting a random sample of drivers: >(2) to avoid discrimination, cars were stopped and drivers checked in a >very regular pattern, as every car or every fifth car. This was to avoid >any possibility of personal bias, discrimination, or harassment by the >officers conducting the roadblock. >... There was a delay of several months in starting the survey while the courts decided if they were constitutional. The survey is being done in a way to get a random sample, but another question was what to do about people who were found to be drunk. Cars were randomly chosen. Those not chosen simply kept driving. Of course, the police were free to pay attention to every car driving past, as they do that in normal patrolling. Drivers of chosen vehicles had to agree to be part of the survey. If they were part of the survey and were found to be drunk, they were offered a free ride home if a sober passenger couldn't drive (no penalty for survey takers). If they declined to be part of the survey, seemed DWI, and insisted on trying to drive then officers could arrest them as usual for DWI. I'm not sure whether those arrested for DWI will be reported in the survey. The Minnesota State Legislature provided funds for the survey and results will be reported back to them. The purpose is to find out just how large is the DWI problem so the Legislature can try to figure out the scale of lawmaking efforts against it. Scot E. Wilcoxon Minn. Ed. Comp. Corp. circadia!mecc!sewilco 45N03',93W15' (612)481-3507 {ihnp4,mgnetp,uwvax}!dicomed!mecc!sewilco