Sobriety Checkpoint Scheduled for Saturday in Sully Police District

Drivers should be alert in the Sully Police District for a sobriety checkpoint by Fairfax County Police.
http://chantilly.patch.com/groups/police-and-fire/p/sobriety-checkpoint-scheduled-for-saturday-in-sully-police-district

Fairfax County Police plan a sobriety checkpoint in the Sully Police District in Fairfax County this weekend.

The checkpoint will take place on Saturday night, according to police.

To see a map of the Sully Police District, check this PDF. Fairfax County Police do not release information on the exact time or location of sobriety checkpoints. http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/police/contact/maps/map-sullystation.pdf

Sobriety Checkpoint Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sobriety Checkpoint Scheduled for Saturday in
> Sully Police District
>
> Drivers should be alert in the Sully Police
> District for a sobriety checkpoint by Fairfax
> County Police.
> http://chantilly.patch.com/groups/police-and-fire/
> p/sobriety-checkpoint-scheduled-for-saturday-in-su
> lly-police-district
>
> Fairfax County Police plan a sobriety checkpoint
> in the Sully Police District in Fairfax County
> this weekend.
>
> The checkpoint will take place on Saturday night,
> according to police.
>
> To see a map of the Sully Police District, check
> this PDF. Fairfax County Police do not release
> information on the exact time or location of
> sobriety checkpoints.
> http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/police/contact/maps/m
> ap-sullystation.pdf

Aren't they supposed to give us the spot of the checkpoint? Isn't that part of the legal notification they are required to give the public before they setup a naziesque check point?

Safety first Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Aren't they supposed to give us the spot of the
> checkpoint? Isn't that part of the legal
> notification they are required to give the public
> before they setup a naziesque check point?

Fear not. Out of the 800 motorists they'll stop, they won't nab any drunks.

And, as much as I hate drunk driving, I hate oppressive government even more.

The only people who like these checkpoints are the higher ups in PDs. The cops that staff these things hate them. How they are constitutional is beyond me. And to answer an earlier question; yes, by law they are supposed to give the location.

Milf Fan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The only people who like these checkpoints are the
> higher ups in PDs. The cops that staff these
> things hate them. How they are constitutional is
> beyond me. And to answer an earlier question;
> yes, by law they are supposed to give the
> location.

Oh really? How about you show me the law (VA Statute) that states FCPD needs to give notice of the exact location.

GH7pd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And, as much as I hate drunk driving, I hate
> oppressive government even more.

If they can get one drunken asshole off the road before he or she has the chance to kill someone, I dont mind the minor inconvenience being stopped at a check point.

FCPD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Milf Fan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The only people who like these checkpoints are
> the
> > higher ups in PDs. The cops that staff these
> > things hate them. How they are constitutional
> is
> > beyond me. And to answer an earlier question;
> > yes, by law they are supposed to give the
> > location.
>
> Oh really? How about you show me the law (VA
> Statute) that states FCPD needs to give notice of
> the exact location.

You might want to head back to the academy, bud, or at the very least get ahold of your chain of command for clarification. There is no VA Statute that guidelines checkpoints. The guidelines come from the higher courts, i.e. case law. A checkpoint needs to be publicized with a written plan of execution in order to be valid. The publicizing is how the fourth Ammendment is skirted. The courts have essentially ruled that if the general public is notified of the location of the checkpoint then they can avoid said location if they dont want to be searched. By going towards the location that is "known" to have a checkpoint you are giving implied consent to be stopped. Not publicizing the location is outside the scope of what the higher courts have upheld here in Virginia and, as a result, any DUI or violations found would be tossed out as "fruit of the poisonous tree" because the department essentially searched you without giving you an option. Generally departments will also have a message board advertising the checkpoint as well. Be mindful that chaser cars are employed and when a cop sees someone jump off the main road they go after them. The rules of probable cause apply and they can't stop you simply for making a turn.

FCPD if you're actually a cop you might want to be 100% sure on the laws you're enforcing and knowing what's behind them.

Not nitpicking, but doesn't the fact that the area of Fairfax the checkpoint will be in (Sully) is broadcast constitute a disclosure of location?

Milf Fan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FCPD Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Milf Fan Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > The only people who like these checkpoints
> are
> > the
> > > higher ups in PDs. The cops that staff these
> > > things hate them. How they are
> constitutional
> > is
> > > beyond me. And to answer an earlier
> question;
> > > yes, by law they are supposed to give the
> > > location.
> >
> > Oh really? How about you show me the law (VA
> > Statute) that states FCPD needs to give notice
> of
> > the exact location.
>
> You might want to head back to the academy, bud,
> or at the very least get ahold of your chain of
> command for clarification. There is no VA Statute
> that guidelines checkpoints. The guidelines come
> from the higher courts, i.e. case law. A
> checkpoint needs to be publicized with a written
> plan of execution in order to be valid. The
> publicizing is how the fourth Ammendment is
> skirted. The courts have essentially ruled that
> if the general public is notified of the location
> of the checkpoint then they can avoid said
> location if they dont want to be searched. By
> going towards the location that is "known" to have
> a checkpoint you are giving implied consent to be
> stopped. Not publicizing the location is outside
> the scope of what the higher courts have upheld
> here in Virginia and, as a result, any DUI or
> violations found would be tossed out as "fruit of
> the poisonous tree" because the department
> essentially searched you without giving you an
> option. Generally departments will also have a
> message board advertising the checkpoint as well.
> Be mindful that chaser cars are employed and when
> a cop sees someone jump off the main road they go
> after them. The rules of probable cause apply and
> they can't stop you simply for making a turn.
>
> FCPD if you're actually a cop you might want to be
> 100% sure on the laws you're enforcing and knowing
> what's behind them.



>"A checkpoint needs to be publicized with a written
> plan of execution in order to be valid. The
> publicizing is how the fourth Ammendment is
> skirted".

So here we are! If this Nazi is to be believed, he tells you how they skirt the Constitution. But he doesn't tell you the Constitution cannot be "skirted" by any law abiding jurisdiction, these are illegal stop and search points and you do not have to subject yourself to these Gestapo tactics. This is America! Where you have to have probable cause to stop and search anyone. You cannot stop people arbitrarily on your hunch that they may be doing something wrong. These "sobriety checkpoints" are the latest attempt to fuck the Constitution in behalf of the common good. You give in to these, and next is the cops stopping you in the street and asking for your papers! Laugh now, regret it later!

Careful there young internet lawyer. Before you equate the USA to Nazi Germany, I ready Terry V. Ohio on what is necessary to stop someone; here is a hint, its not probable cause. Then you can read Delaware v. Prouse on checkpoints, after that Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz. Lastly, I would suggest you go out and vote if you disagree.

Your papers pleaze I need to see your paperz. Why are you traveling tonight so far from home?

WTFAYTA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Milf Fan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > FCPD Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Milf Fan Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > The only people who like these checkpoints
> > are
> > > the
> > > > higher ups in PDs. The cops that staff
> these
> > > > things hate them. How they are
> > constitutional
> > > is
> > > > beyond me. And to answer an earlier
> > question;
> > > > yes, by law they are supposed to give the
> > > > location.
> > >
> > > Oh really? How about you show me the law (VA
> > > Statute) that states FCPD needs to give
> notice
> > of
> > > the exact location.
> >
> > You might want to head back to the academy,
> bud,
> > or at the very least get ahold of your chain of
> > command for clarification. There is no VA
> Statute
> > that guidelines checkpoints. The guidelines
> come
> > from the higher courts, i.e. case law. A
> > checkpoint needs to be publicized with a
> written
> > plan of execution in order to be valid. The
> > publicizing is how the fourth Ammendment is
> > skirted. The courts have essentially ruled
> that
> > if the general public is notified of the
> location
> > of the checkpoint then they can avoid said
> > location if they dont want to be searched. By
> > going towards the location that is "known" to
> have
> > a checkpoint you are giving implied consent to
> be
> > stopped. Not publicizing the location is
> outside
> > the scope of what the higher courts have upheld
> > here in Virginia and, as a result, any DUI or
> > violations found would be tossed out as "fruit
> of
> > the poisonous tree" because the department
> > essentially searched you without giving you an
> > option. Generally departments will also have a
> > message board advertising the checkpoint as
> well.
> > Be mindful that chaser cars are employed and
> when
> > a cop sees someone jump off the main road they
> go
> > after them. The rules of probable cause apply
> and
> > they can't stop you simply for making a turn.
> >
> > FCPD if you're actually a cop you might want to
> be
> > 100% sure on the laws you're enforcing and
> knowing
> > what's behind them.
>
>
>
> >"A checkpoint needs to be publicized with a
> written
> > plan of execution in order to be valid. The
> > publicizing is how the fourth Ammendment is
> > skirted".
>
> So here we are! If this Nazi is to be believed,
> he tells you how they skirt the Constitution. But
> he doesn't tell you the Constitution cannot be
> "skirted" by any law abiding jurisdiction, these
> are illegal stop and search points and you do not
> have to subject yourself to these Gestapo tactics.
> This is America! Where you have to have probable
> cause to stop and search anyone. You cannot stop
> people arbitrarily on your hunch that they may be
> doing something wrong. These "sobriety
> checkpoints" are the latest attempt to fuck the
> Constitution in behalf of the common good. You
> give in to these, and next is the cops stopping
> you in the street and asking for your papers!
> Laugh now, regret it later!


Yes because everyone should be happy when some asshole drunk driver kills innocent people, get real ARE YOU EVEN FROM AROUND HERE?

So did anyone else see/drive through it? Left a friends house around midnight and saw them setting up near the intersection of 28 South and Green Trails Blvd.

Traveler Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So did anyone else see/drive through it? Left a
> friends house around midnight and saw them setting
> up near the intersection of 28 South and Green
> Trails Blvd.


I'm posting from the ADC right now. Blow a 0.18 on Saturday night and forgot about the checkpoint. Shit. This is going to cost me. And the old lady's going to be pissed.

have one every night Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes because everyone should be happy when some
> asshole drunk driver kills innocent people, get
> real ARE YOU EVEN FROM AROUND HERE?

The old quote about those who give up freedom for safety recieve neither comes to mind here: sobriety checkpoints are the least effective way of catching drunk drivers. Even as evidenced by our own daily police blotter, we nab more drunks doing saturation patrols than they do staying at a static checkpoint. In fact, most jurisdictions don't do checkpoints solely to get drunk drivers anymore because saturation patrols are that much more effective.

That being said, if you're truly interested in getting drunk drivers off the street then you need you stop supporting these un-Constitutional and ineffective checkpoints.

cNdGG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Even as evidenced by our own daily police blotter,
> we nab more drunks doing saturation patrols than
> they do staying at a static checkpoint.

They both net the same amount really, usually one or two. The difference is hundreds of innocent motorists aren't hassled and they tie up less resources (i.e. cops). The county really only does checkpoints as sort of a public awareness thing. But if you can nab the same amount of drunks with less cops doing directed patrols, then we probably shouldn't even be wasting our time with checkpoints at all. Rather, we should have the rest of them sent out for more directed patrols. But the law abiding public doesn't seem to quite understand either concept and so they pressure authorities to continue with the checkpoints.

Checkpoints make for good press. Period.

Results, one of the higher numbers in a while:

CHECKPOINT, Rt. 28/Old Mill Road, 6/14/14. Officers conducted a DWI checkpoint searching for drunk drivers. Five-hundred-thirty-six vehicles passed through. Eight drivers were charged with DWI.

DWI results Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Results, one of the higher numbers in a while:
>
> CHECKPOINT, Rt. 28/Old Mill Road, 6/14/14.
> Officers conducted a DWI checkpoint searching for
> drunk drivers. Five-hundred-thirty-six vehicles
> passed through. Eight drivers were charged with
> DWI.

Roughly 1.5% of the drivers... pretty low if you ask me.

JustCurious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> DWI results Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Results, one of the higher numbers in a while:
> >
> > CHECKPOINT, Rt. 28/Old Mill Road, 6/14/14.
> > Officers conducted a DWI checkpoint searching
> for
> > drunk drivers. Five-hundred-thirty-six vehicles
> > passed through. Eight drivers were charged with
> > DWI.
>
> Roughly 1.5% of the drivers... pretty low if you
> ask me.

Most of the time it's more like 0.20%

How about we focus on illegal hispanics? They are breaking the law daily.

Too Eazy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How about we focus on illegal hispanics? They are
> breaking the law daily.


They are more likely to register as a Democrat and vote, unlike the functional drunk. Therefore the Board of Supervisors frown on any immigration enforcement.

Why pick on people who are sober? Why don't we have Inebriation Checkpoints?

think about re-election Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Too Eazy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > How about we focus on illegal hispanics? They
> are
> > breaking the law daily.
>
>
> They are more likely to register as a Democrat and
> vote, unlike the functional drunk. Therefore the
> Board of Supervisors frown on any immigration
> enforcement.


Correct.

Too Eazy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How about we focus on illegal hispanics? They are
> breaking the law daily.


The 8 DWI's were illegal hispanics.

And the results are in:

CHECKPOINT, Richmond Highway/Dawn Drive, 6/20/14. Officers conducted a DWI checkpoint searching for drunk drivers. Seven-hundred-eleven vehicles passed through. Three drivers were charged with DWI. Six summonses were issued and two criminal arrests were made.

Well, at least they've stopped sitting in bars undercover trying to count customer's drinks like they are known to do.