chevelle mackaroy: blog 
chevelle mackaroy's blog
dwi checkpoint necessity
Published Jun. 1, 2008
It is real easy to be an armchair critic of law enforcement. Twenty years in Law Enforcement has toughened me to the criticism LEOs recieve on a daily basis. It comes with the job. This is especially true of the critics of the DWI checkpoints. I have supervised and participated in many DWI checkpoints throughout Wake County in my career. I have heard all the complaints about the constitutional issues regarding the 4th Amendment and it "violating my rights". The US Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the police every time. That ought to tell you something.
If you are driving on the road and are impaired, revoked, wanted or engaging in criminal activity you should be horrified at the thought of coming up on one of these checkpoints. If you are not involved in some nefarious criminal activity then show you license and registration and continue about your business. I find the overwhelming majority of the motoring public like to see these checkpoints and often tell us so.
I and many other officers have experienced first hand the horrible senslessness associated with serious and fatal motor vehicle collisions. We have had to tell family members that a loved one has been killed in a collision with an impaired driver. Each time we have to do that, the moment is ingrained in our memory forever. The horrible screaming of the surviving family members is constantly with us.
I am an ardent defender of our United States Constitution, and believe the Bill of Rights is one of the most impotant documents in our nations history. But if you think I am going to agree with you that driving drunk on our highways and streets is a god given right protected by our constitution, then my friend I do not know what else to say to you.
close
Welcome to GOLO, where WRAL.com visitors can comment on stories and create profile pages, blogs and photo galleries.
You must be a registered WRAL.com user to use these tools. Click here to register or log in.
GOLO member since May 22, 2008
June 4, 2008 6:02 p.m.
June 4, 2008 9:33 a.m.
GOLO member since February 22, 2008
June 3, 2008 3:45 p.m.
GOLO member since January 21, 2008
June 2, 2008 5:26 p.m.
GOLO member since March 26, 2008
June 2, 2008 4:14 p.m.
GOLO member since May 29, 2008
June 2, 2008 3:12 p.m.
What about when you get carded for alcohol and cigarettes? No one seems to think twice about that one, but it's kinda the same thing. Here, prove you're legal!
Here's what I think is intrusive. If a store clerk forgets to card someone, and a minor ends up buying alcohol or cigarettes, they are given a sky high fine and possibly a mark on their criminal record. I think that's putting far too much responsibility on the store clerk. I'm not saying they shouldn't card, in fact, I think they SHOULD. But I think holding the clerk accountable for what might have been a mistake is a bit much.
My apologies for the tangent. I just see it as being a similiar situation but more intrusive (in the life of the clerk).
GOLO member since August 3, 2007
June 2, 2008 3:12 p.m.
All of your points are evidence of the Slippery slope argument. Fallacious logic. What you are pointing out is clearly an intrusion. Drunk checks are *not* 'clearly intrusive.'
I'm starting to wonder if any of you people have ever been through a drunk-check. You're stopped for about ten seconds from the time you hand over your license til you get it back and they tell you to leave.
If you think that's an intrusion, I'd say you should probably grow a thicker skin. (I'd really hate to see what you think of the DMV or god help you, the Census).
GOLO member since August 3, 2007
June 2, 2008 3:00 p.m.
No, you're reading into the Constitution. It doesn't, which is why the Supreme Court says you're wrong. I believe taxes are a major intrusion in my life, I still have to pay them. I believe having to play a three week game of tag between the DMV inspectors and the vehicle registration department to get a 40 year old truck legal is a major intrusion. Asking to see my license, which is nothing more than a quick glanceover, isn't.
The answer is probably "You don't like it". Now you brought up that as long as you said "Drunk Check" that other people would say "It's okay."
But whenever someone else says "Terrorist Threat" that automatically makes wiretapping okay in your eyes? Who's playing the hypocrite card here? So would it appease you if they called drunk checks, "Terrorist Threat" checks?
Think about the logic you're portraying for a moment.
GOLO member since August 3, 2007
June 2, 2008 2:53 p.m.
GOLO member since May 22, 2008
June 2, 2008 2:21 p.m.
Please log in to add comment.