I know that Cary posted some info about checkpoints for St. Patricks weekend.. does FFX do press releases or anything of where they will be having checkpoints each weekend?

I ran into not one but TWO checkpoints doing the bar/party circuit tonight. Not that there was a problem, but cresting a hill and seeing police cars blocking both directions of Rt. 29 with cruisers and a PADDYWAGON kinda freaks one out..

Of course their stupid about it and they put the checkpoints in such a place that you can easily take a turn and avoid them..

Yeah I hear there was on rt 29 and ANOTHER on Stringfellow tonight.
Legally, they have to give 24 hours notice in a newspaper or on their daily incident report website at http://www.co.fairfax.va.us/ps/police/reports/news.htm
They do not have to report which street the checkpoint is being performed on, merely the general location (usually precinct).

I saw no such notification tonight in any form. Possible loophole for anyone stopped and arrested tonight to get out off their charge in court?

I will research more and reply to this thread.

Yeah, one was on 29 in Centreville right after the Centreville Farms / Union Mill intersection. I was going into Centreville Farms.

The second was on Stringfellow right at Melville lane.

Not a big deal, but a huge PITA. I've also heard they do the one on Stringfellow regularly.

The Fairfax county police department violated the National Highway Transportation Safety Administartion policy guidelines by conducting an unannounced sobreity checkpoint. See http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/alcohol/Checkpt.html

Under Section IV. PROCEDURES
C. ADVANCE NOTIFICATION
1. For the purpose of public information and education, this agency will announce to the media that checkpoints will be conducted.
2. This agency will encourage media interest in the sobriety checkpoint program to enhance public perception of aggressive enforcement, to heighten the deterrent effect and to assure protection of constitutional rights.
3. This agency will provide advance notification of the checkpoint to public safety agencies expected to be impacted.

I am sending an email to the Internal Affairs Bureau of the Fairfax County police for clarification of why these checkpoints were not announced. I will post any response.

More reading material:
SUBER v. ARKANSAS: http://www.seark.net/~wrd/webdoc4.htm
DELAWARE v. PROUSE: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=440&invol=648

Keep in mind, these are the same fuckers that arrested people for DIP when they were drinking in Reston/Herndon bars a couple years ago...

I got a BS equipment ticket at a checkpoint in Prince William and brought this up with my attorney. Turns out there is no law requiring advance notice, FFX is apparently just doing it as some sort of publicity campaign.

When is the next one?

I did not see anything posted on www.fairfaxcounty.gov/police/newsreleases this week.

There must of been some big event going on. They seem to put these road blocks up around parties or events.

I was wondering where all the cops were last night. I didn't see any on the roads when I drove home last night. That was nice for change.

Budget cuts my friends, blame it on the economy. There are less cops on the streets, and they're doing everything. Fairfax is short of 100 officers for what it's authorized to have.

Qwerty Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Budget cuts my friends, blame it on the economy.
> There are less cops on the streets, and they're
> doing everything. Fairfax is short of 100
> officers for what it's authorized to have.

They just got rid of the ones that hang out in parking lots talking to others hanging out in parking lots.

Qwerty Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Budget cuts my friends, blame it on the economy.
> There are less cops on the streets, and they're
> doing everything. Fairfax is short of 100
> officers for what it's authorized to have.


This could really hurt donut economy

somebody think of the donuts! wont somebody think of the donuts!!!

So Cary...because YOU couldn't find where the PD announced it was having a road block means the department is in violation? I'm glad to see you've been given that authority. I feel safer now that some stupid bitch is in charge of trying to get around checkpoints.

Ever driven drunk? Ever had a loved one killed by a drunk driver just to watch them walk away? Fuck you and anyone that looks like you. Who cares if they announce road blocks? They're conducted in a manner that is safe for the pubic AND if it only takes one DWI violator off the road it's worth it.

Have your 4 year old daughter murdered by a DWI fuck head and tell me your rights are being violated because you're 5 minutes late coming home from the bar.

Also...I'm aware that half the comments on this thread were 4 years ago...but I had to vent somewhere.

And NO I'm not working for the police

Jerk and not Sorry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So Cary...because YOU couldn't find where the PD
> announced it was having a road block means the
> department is in violation? I'm glad to see
> you've been given that authority. I feel safer
> now that some stupid bitch is in charge of trying
> to get around checkpoints.
>
> Ever driven drunk? Ever had a loved one killed by
> a drunk driver just to watch them walk away? Fuck
> you and anyone that looks like you. Who cares if
> they announce road blocks? They're conducted in a
> manner that is safe for the pubic AND if it only
> takes one DWI violator off the road it's worth
> it.
>
> Have your 4 year old daughter murdered by a DWI
> fuck head and tell me your rights are being
> violated because you're 5 minutes late coming home
> from the bar.


Shut up you little bitchy faggot if you or someone else lost a 4 year old to drunk driving maybe you should have been taking care of them better you cocksucker.

Jerk and not Sorry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So Cary...because YOU couldn't find where the PD
> announced it was having a road block means the
> department is in violation? I'm glad to see
> you've been given that authority. I feel safer
> now that some stupid bitch is in charge of trying
> to get around checkpoints.
>
> Ever driven drunk? Ever had a loved one killed by
> a drunk driver just to watch them walk away? Fuck
> you and anyone that looks like you. Who cares if
> they announce road blocks? They're conducted in a
> manner that is safe for the pubic AND if it only
> takes one DWI violator off the road it's worth
> it.
>
> Have your 4 year old daughter murdered by a DWI
> fuck head and tell me your rights are being
> violated because you're 5 minutes late coming home
> from the bar.

Dude no one is arguing that drunk drivers are good thing. The fact is, drunk drivers will always be around, you can't stop it. Checkpoints are not a very good way of keeping drunk drivers off the road, because the drunk driver had to DRIVE TO GET TO THE CHECKPOINT!

I think checkpoints are wrong because its against our 4th amendments rights. that protects us "against unreasonable searches and seizures,"

If they can do checkpoints, whats next??

There are better ways of keeping drunks off the roads.

Jerk and not Sorry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So Cary...because YOU couldn't find where the PD
> announced it was having a road block means the
> department is in violation? I'm glad to see
> you've been given that authority. I feel safer
> now that some stupid bitch is in charge of trying
> to get around checkpoints.
>
> Ever driven drunk? Ever had a loved one killed by
> a drunk driver just to watch them walk away? Fuck
> you and anyone that looks like you. Who cares if
> they announce road blocks? They're conducted in a
> manner that is safe for the pubic AND if it only
> takes one DWI violator off the road it's worth
> it.
>
> Have your 4 year old daughter murdered by a DWI
> fuck head and tell me your rights are being
> violated because you're 5 minutes late coming home
> from the bar.

Well, since the police department has a site that they post these announcements on usually, Cary has a valid point. They did not post any notification on that site, seems to reason they screwed up. The checkpoints are announced and the results are also posted after the fact. Here are some recent results. It's clear that these checkpoints are a big inconvenience to a lot of drivers clearly a revenue source but they do manage to catch a few DUIs as well. I don't think following the rules is such a big deal, they should have posted the checkpoints. Everyone needs to, not just the ordinary citizens.

As an aside though, they may have gotten around that little rule by not calling it a Sobriety Checkpoint. They got people for not coming to a full stop at a right on red in Springfield last week. They were just standing in a parking lot a hundred feet down the road and stepping out and flagging them down. Clearly not an announced event.

A three hour checkpoint recently:
Approximately 393 motorists were stopped on Reston Parkway near the intersection of Sunset Hills Road. No arrests were made for DWI. Three summonses were issued for miscellaneous traffic offenses.
Nine officers and six auxiliary police officers participated in the checkpoint.

Another 3 hour checkpoint: (This one was actually successful)
Approximately 515 motorists were stopped on Arlington Boulevard near the intersection of Annandale Road. There were four arrests made for DWI. Thirteen additional summonses were issued for miscellaneous traffic offenses.
Nine officers and six auxiliary police officers participated in the checkpoint.


An 8 hour checkpoint:
Approximately 63 motorists were stopped. Nine arrests were made for DWI. Five additional criminal arrests were made and 19 summonses were issued for miscellaneous traffic offenses.
Eight officers and one auxiliary police officer participated in the operation.


A 5 hour checkpoint:
Approximately 43 motorists were stopped. Four arrests were made for DWI. Sixteen summonses were issued for miscellaneous traffic offenses.
Eight officers and one auxiliary police officer participated in the operation.

A 6 hour checkpoint:
Approximately 52 motorists were stopped. There were seven arrests made for DWI. Three criminal arrests were made and 25 summonses were issued for miscellaneous traffic offenses.
Eight officers participated in the operation.

A 4 hour checkpoint:
Approximately 32 motorists were stopped. Five arrests were made for DWI. Eight summonses were issued for miscellaneous traffic offenses. One person was arrested for allegedly being drunk in public.
Eight officers and three auxiliary police officers participated in the operation.

And a three hour checkpoint:
Approximately 800 motorists passed through the checkpoint at Route 50 and Pleasant Valley Road. One arrest was made for DWI. Seven traffic summonses were issued; four for driving with no operator’s license and three for driving with suspended operator’s licenses. Additionally, one misdemeanor criminal charge was placed.

Eight Fairfax County Police officers, six Virginia State Troopers and 12 auxiliary police officers participated in the checkpoint.


And before you lay into me about driving drunk, I've never had any alcohol and then driven within the next twelve hours. Not everyone who demands the cops follow the rules breaks them themselves.

I'm doing some weekend lawyerin' here but from what Cary posted, it looks like not announcing a checkpoint would only be in violation of a policy guideline for a federal safety board, not any kind of law.

Also, I want to believe its not a violation of your constitutional rights as long as they do something like stop every 5th car, or every single car, or whatever. They can't pull you out of the lineup for no reason, you have to be randomly selected by some process that was applied equally to everyone.

One of the case law links was 404, and for the Delaware v Prouse, from what I gather that only affects Delaware. I found a link to sobriety checkpoint laws and they seem to be pretty legal in this state (and are in DE too)

http://www.iihs.org/laws/checkpoints.html

Here's all the cases that website lists. Maybe one of them addresses rather or not they have to pre-announce a checkpoint, since one of the notes mentions a "deviation from a plan"..

Lowe v. Commonwealth, 337 S.E.2d 273 (Va. 1985), cert. den., 475 U.S. 1084 (1986). See also, Crandol v. City of Newport News, 386 S.E.2d 113 (Va. 1989); Simmons v. Commonwealth, 380 S.E.2d 656 (Va. 1989); Hall v. Commonwealth, 406 S.E.2d 674 (Va. App. 1991); Thomas v. Commonwealth, 473 S.E.2d 87 (Va. App. 1996). Deviation in checkpoint location, as stated in plan, will not invalidate the checkpoint. Sheppard v. Commonwealth, 489 S.E.2d 714 (Va. App. 1997). Legal driving maneuvers that reverse a driver's course toward a checkpoint do not justify a stop, Bass v. Commonwealth, 525 S.E.2d 921 (Va. 2000). See also, Murphy v. Commonwealth, 384 S.E. 2d 125 (Va. App. 1989). Certain avoidance maneuvers do justify a stop, Commonwealth v. Eaves, 408 S.E. 2d 925 (Va. App. 1991); Stroud v. Commonwealth, 370 S.E. 2d 721 (Va. App. 1988); Brown v. Commonwealth, 440 S.E, 2d 619 (Va. App. 1994).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/26/2009 12:43PM by jimmy jingles.

jimmy jingles Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm doing some weekend lawyerin' here but from
> what Cary posted, it looks like not announcing a
> checkpoint would only be in violation of a policy
> guideline for a federal safety board, not any kind
> of law.
>
> Also, I want to believe its not a violation of
> your constitutional rights as long as they do
> something like stop every 5th car, or every single
> car, or whatever. They can't pull you out of the
> lineup for no reason, you have to be randomly
> selected by some process that was applied equally
> to everyone.

Well then they should change the law to say, if you are driving on public roads, you give up your 4th amendment right.

The 4th amendment says "unreasonable" search and seizure. I think unannounced random sobriety checkpoints are pretty reasonable to me.

I don't want them pulling me over for no reason and taking my whole car apart looking for drugs, but stopping me randomly in a roadblock to say hi and smell for liquor breath, and letting me go immediately if there is no evidence of drinking, is 100% reasonable to me.


Adam Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well then they should change the law to say, if
> you are driving on public roads, you give up your
> 4th amendment right.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/26/2009 01:22PM by jimmy jingles.

I understand that police are trying to prevent drunk driving. However searching all cars looking for an offense is certainly unconstitutional. That is that same as going to door to door searching houses looking for some type of fire code of violation. Yes, they do use the stops to check for other violation such as turn signal out or etc... but still.

The nice part is that we all have cell phones and the minute these stops get put in place the first person threw them usually calls back to a bar or party and lets everyone know to avoid the checkpoint.

I'd rather have all the cops in one spot where I know they are then driving all over the place looking for violations.

but its TOTALLY unreasonable. they are using passive detection before you even open you mouth. you are being searched on the grounds of... well, nothing. besides, these sobriety checkpoints yield NO RESULTS. according to the FCPD, out of 48,465 drivers screened, 186 people were arrested for DWI. thats a success rate of 0.001 percent. in other words, wholly ineffective.

http://policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=638&issue_id=72005


jimmy jingles Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The 4th amendment says "unreasonable" search and
> seizure. I think unannounced random sobriety
> checkpoints are pretty reasonable to me.
>
> I don't want them pulling me over for no reason
> and taking my whole car apart looking for drugs,
> but stopping me randomly in a roadblock to say hi
> and smell for liquor breath, and letting me go
> immediately if there is no evidence of drinking,
> is 100% reasonable to me.
>
>
> Adam Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Well then they should change the law to say, if
> > you are driving on public roads, you give up
> your
> > 4th amendment right.

Janie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I understand that police are trying to prevent
> drunk driving. However searching all cars looking
> for an offense is certainly unconstitutional.
> That is that same as going to door to door
> searching houses looking for some type of fire
> code of violation. Yes, they do use the stops to
> check for other violation such as turn signal out
> or etc... but still.
>
> The nice part is that we all have cell phones and
> the minute these stops get put in place the first
> person threw them usually calls back to a bar or
> party and lets everyone know to avoid the
> checkpoint.
>
> I'd rather have all the cops in one spot where I
> know they are then driving all over the place
> looking for violations.


After you irresonsibly kill a family of 4 while driving drunk I hope you lose everything in the civil suit, or dead, either is fine, try growing up...

Just wondering if anyone has personally been searched/had their car searched at a sobriety check point despite not having been drinking and driving.

hope there is a tree with YOUR name on it Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> After you irresonsibly kill a family of 4 while
> driving drunk I hope you lose everything in the
> civil suit, or dead, either is fine, try growing
> up...

More poeple are killed by sober drivers than drunk drivers. Know your facts!

People using cell phones while driving are five times as dangerous as a drunk driver.

Janie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> People using cell phones while driving are five
> times as dangerous as a drunk driver.


Right .....,thats true of airline pilots too, please, a few of us actually have high school diplomas and college degrees.....

VER ARE YOUR PAPERS?

Next Fairfax County PD will be putting GPS systems in all residents cars to monitor if anybody speeds. Enjoy

sullenburger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Janie Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > People using cell phones while driving are five
> > times as dangerous as a drunk driver.
>
>
> Right .....,thats true of airline pilots too,
> please, a few of us actually have high school
> diplomas and college degrees.....


Actually, some university did a study and driving while using a cell phone, even hands free, is the equivalent of being drunk. And based on what I see everyday, I'll take the drunk drivers over the idiots on the cell phones.

They swerve all over, change speed for no reason, stop in the middle of the road randomly, and are completely unaware of anything around them including the traffic lights.

Shadow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> sullenburger Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Janie Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > People using cell phones while driving are
> five
> > > times as dangerous as a drunk driver.
> >
> >
> > Right .....,thats true of airline pilots too,
> > please, a few of us actually have high school
> > diplomas and college degrees.....
>
>
> Actually, some university did a study and driving
> while using a cell phone, even hands free, is the
> equivalent of being drunk. And based on what I
> see everyday, I'll take the drunk drivers over the
> idiots on the cell phones.
>
> They swerve all over, change speed for no reason,
> stop in the middle of the road randomly, and are
> completely unaware of anything around them
> including the traffic lights.


Though it would be almost impossible to figure out. It would be nice to see how many drunk driving accidents would have happen anyways, if the driver wasn't drunk.

What if a drunk driver is inlvoed in a fatel crash, but the person killed was the cause of the crash. I'm sure the driver would get a DUI, but would he be charged with anything else.

nevermind



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/26/2009 11:44PM by jimmy jingles.

First of all did I say I drive drunk? I simply said that I like to know where police are and knowing they are at a roadblock is fine with me.(Twitter and cell phones are awesome) Stopping cars for no reason is certainly unconstitutional.

Just because I go to a bar or parties doesn't automatically make me a drunk driver.

Jimmy, please, relax have a rum and coke and hang with your friends once in a while. Who knows, maybe some day you'll get laid.


jimmy jingles Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Janie-
>
> Of COURSE you'd rather have cops in one spot,
> because you're a drunk driver. In fact, I'm hoping
> you were drunk when you posted this, because if
> you were in full control of your mind when you
> typed this up, then you're mentally retarded.
>
> It's not unconstitutional. Maybe you think it is,
> but your opinion is irrelevant. The courts say its
> constitutional, and they're the ones that will be
> deciding your fate when you finally get caught.
>
> Drunken driving is not at all similar to a fire
> code violation. I'm embarrassed to have to explain
> the difference to you. I'd say its more evidence
> of your complete lack of intellect, but I think
> its actually an artifact of how you rationalize
> your reckless behavior to yourself when you get
> behind the wheel drunk. "Oh man I'm so drunk, but
> its okay, the safety of those sharing the roads is
> exactly the same as if I plugged too many
> appliances into an outlet in my kitchen."
>
> I also find it really repugnant that you care more
> about ensuring your drunk driving partymates don't
> get in trouble with the law for their crimes than
> CALLING A TAXI or a friend so you don't have to
> drive drunk.
>
> I hope you are forced to confront the reality of
> what you do someday, before you kill someone, you
> vapid, clueless, selfish cow.

hahaha.. I actually went back and took out my comment because I thought it came off too harsh.

Oh well, there it is.. You spent at least 6 minutes on that excellent retort, so I guess I'll serve back:

Janie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ... (Twitter [is] awesome) ...

Automatic failure.

I do acknowledge your attempt to hurt my feelings with the "lawl I hope you get laid" comment, but it doesn't actually help your strategy in defending yourself as a clueless fool.. just for future reference.

Edit:

Christ it just dawned on me you're admitting to not only driving with at least some drunkenness (otherwise why would you be concerned about a checkpoint?) but that you're text messaging while driving.

Yeah you probably shouldn't be on the road at all, actually. Maybe I was right to be harsh to you.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/27/2009 12:04AM by jimmy jingles.

Jimmy,

Your logic is so flawed and now you are editing your old posts?

Honesty, I do hope you get laid some day or can have a drink while hanging out with friends. One or two drinks does not make you a drunk driver(accept maybe in your book).

As for friends calling on their cells to say where a roadblock is or texting it to a group on twitter... I might not be a speeder, but I still like to know where a speed trap is.


jimmy jingles Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> hahaha.. I actually went back and took out my
> comment because I thought it came off too harsh.
>
> Oh well, there it is.. You spent at least 6
> minutes on that excellent retort, so I guess I'll
> serve back:
>
> Janie Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ... (Twitter awesome) ...
>
> Automatic failure.
>
> I do acknowledge your attempt to hurt my feelings
> with the "lawl I hope you get laid" comment, but
> it doesn't actually help your strategy in
> defending yourself as a clueless fool.. just for
> future reference.
>
> Edit:
>
> Christ it just dawned on me you're admitting to
> not only driving with at least some drunkenness
> (otherwise why would you be concerned about a
> checkpoint?) but that you're text messaging while
> driving.
>
> Yeah you probably shouldn't be on the road at all,
> actually. Maybe I was right to be harsh to you.

Janie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your logic is so flawed and now you are editing
> your old posts?

Yeah, you can edit posts on this website. Confusing, huh? Drink up! :)

It's just a little unusual for people to be going back and editing their old posts. That's all I was saying. :)

I went through two speed trap today, but I'm sure you don't want to know where they are so I will not waste your time.



jimmy jingles Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Janie Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Your logic is so flawed and now you are editing
> > your old posts?
>
> Yeah, you can edit posts on this website.
> Confusing, huh? Drink up! :)

Uh, its actually not unusual, and they weren't "old posts" either. The first one I edited a half hour after it was posted, when I second-guessed posting something harsh (before you even replied to my message, incidentally), and the second one was edited 3 minutes after I posted it.

You can try to tease me about something else if you want though, since I've obviously hurt your feelings and you're looking for some subtle retaliation. Maybe suggest I have no friends again, or can't get laid, that might somehow work in your favor this time around...

Edit: I edited this post too. That means my arguments are invalid.


Janie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's just a little unusual for people to be going
> back and editing their old posts. That's all I
> was saying. :)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/27/2009 11:28AM by jimmy jingles.

> After you irresonsibly kill a family of 4 while
> driving drunk I hope you lose everything in the
> civil suit, or dead, either is fine, try growing
> up...

If you are referencing the beltway crash several months ago with the Range Rover. Please note the Dad pulled out from the shoulder in front of the Range Rover.

While the Range Rover was traveling at a high rate of speed and the driver was most likely drunk; the cause of the accident was the father not yielding to traffic. We should be happy the guy in the Range rover was not killed by this idiot father.

J4C6E