AGAINST SOBRIETY CHECKPOINTS

AGAINST SOBRIETY CHECKPOINTS

Procedures for conducting sobriety checkpoints.

To conduct an effective sobriety check, several procedures must be followed. First of all, the selection of the site for the checkpoint should be determined by empirical evidence pointing to locations where high rates of severe and fatal accidents occur. The Chief of Police then reviews the evidence before approval. It is then set at a location that is close to these areas.  After that, The Chief of Police determines the date and time for carrying the sobriety checkpoints. A standard operating procedure is then established to outline the goals and procedures for carrying the checkpoints.

The checkpoint is then supervised by officers with adequate training and knowledge in all the areas of police checkpoints. They will also be briefed on operations that are safe and efficient for the operation of the checkpoint. The check should be conducted briefly, systematically, and in a non-intrusive manner.

Arrests and vehicle stops are carried out according to federal, state, and all the local laws and also the procedures for conducting the sobriety checkpoints. Constitutional rights of the individuals stopped at the checkpoints should also be upheld.

Avoiding arrest at sobriety checkpoints

To avoid arrest at these checkpoints, one can avoid the locations where the checkpoints are set up by turning around and taking a different route to avoid the checkpoint. Also, one should not drive while drunk or even have alcoholic beverages and drugs in the vehicle. They should also keep their license and registration paper where they can easily retrieve them for presentation to the officers manning the checkpoints and should not have any trouble answering any questions asked by the officers.

Number of checkpoints depending on political campaigns

During political campaigns, the number of checkpoints may be increased to ensure safety on the roads. The public may be made aware of the checkpoints through Public Service Announcements in the radios. This can be carried out to reduce the cases of drunk drivers and increase seat-belt usage during the campaigns. (Fell and Voas, 2004).

Wrong techniques at the checkpoints which may help drivers getaway

Several techniques used in the checkpoints may make the drivers get away with charges set against them. According to Buracker’s “The roadblock strategy as a drunken driver enforcement measure” written in 1984, some people have argued that about 20 percent of the sobriety checkpoints do not make an impact in reducing alcohol-caused accidents. This may be due to the use of some wrong techniques at the sobriety checkpoints. For instance, the decision to set the checkpoint must be made by an administrative officer but not by a field officer. If a field officer makes the decision, the charged drivers may challenge the checkpoint in a court of law and thus get away with the charges set against them. (Buracker, 1984).

In addition to this, stopping the motorists on an impartial basis may make some of the getaways. Therefore the decision on which vehicle to be stopped should be made beforehand by the administrative officer in charge since the decision agreed on how to stop the vehicles may also make some of the getaways.

Another technique that may make some drivers getaway is setting the checkpoint at an inconvenient location. For the checkpoint to be more effective, it must be located in an area with high rates of drunk-driving or road accidents. Otherwise, it will not be effective, and some drivers will take a getaway.  Stopping motorists randomly and not according to the procedures set for a checkpoint can also make them get away with any charge against them. Therefore, the technique for stopping the motorist should be pre-arranged or be neutral as outlined by a supervisor determining which vehicles to be stopped. (Wells & Williams, 1997).

Constitutional laws.

For a checkpoint to be established, there is a set of legal guidelines to be followed. The administration of The National Highway Traffic Safety should present a report with recommended checkpoint procedures. However, these procedures should be in line with federal and state laws. There are also pre-set constitutional laws governing the following; decision making, which should be done at the supervisory level, field officers discretion, safety conditions maintenance, and the location for the checkpoints. In addition to this, regulations also exist governing the time and duration for the checks, official nature of the checkpoint, length, and also nature of detention in case of arrest and advance publicity of the checkpoint.

Weakness in inadequate measures of catching drunk drivers

Some measures may lead to inadequacy in catching the drunk drivers. For instance, the lack of the necessary resources to implement the strategies necessary to stop drunk-driving may hinder the process.  If these measures are not put in place, many drunk drivers will get away with it, and this may lead to several accidents. To avoid this, adequate measures must, therefore, be put in place to catch the drunk drivers. These measures may include; establishing drunk driving laws, installing interlocks in cars to measure driver’s breath for alcohol, using multi-component interventions, mass media campaigns, and the revocation of administrative licenses for the drunk drivers.  All these measures will ensure that all the drunk drivers are caught. (Elder, 2002).

Methodological considerations.

To interpret the research literature on sobriety checkpoints, we need to understand each intervention’s nature, that is, each activity type, the intensiveness of the activity on the number of checkpoints, and the number of drivers stopped compared to the target population.  We also need to understand the duration of the activity and the impact of publicity. Several research reports do not include findings on these matters, although the checkpoint programs that already exist vary greatly.

Several drunk driving measures were used to measure the effectiveness of the laid interventions. For instance, blood-alcohol concentrations (BAC) has been used in the driving population, although it is a bit expensive. Other measures that have been taken into considerations include; single-vehicle fatalities, nighttime fatalities, and injury crashes. All these lead to interpretation and understanding of research reports.

Issues when gathering data and interpretation.

Several issues are faced when gathering data and during the interpretation of the data on the success of sobriety checkpoints. For instance, when gathering data, some of the encountered issues may include; individual data items errors, systematic errors, violation of protocol, problems with staff and site performance, as well as cases of fraud and scientific misconduct. Other challenges include logistical issues and patent identification.

When interpreting the data, great caution is needed because the data may present fatalities from not only drunk driving but also caused by factors other than alcohol. Also, one must keep in mind the likelihood of differential reporting and also changes in the relationship between traffic fatalities and alcohol impairment.

Officers identifying drunk drivers correctly

To identify drunk drivers in the road, police officers always look out for some everyday driving habits of drunk drivers. This includes traffic violations such as speeding, driving with lights offs, and improper lane usage. Other violations identified include expired license plates and missing taillights. For sobriety checkpoints, the police pick out cars using a selected pattern for checking. They then run alcohol tests on the drivers of the picked cars so as to identify the drunk ones correctly.  These tests include; the ‘walk and turn test,’ ‘one-leg stand test’ horizontal gaze nystagmus, preliminary breath test, finger-count test, and picking up coins, among many other tests.

The officers may also receive calls from road users reporting cases of drunk driving and thus set pursuit for the said motorist. Such calls may be reported due to motorists drifting from one lane to the other.

Lack of funding.

Lack of police resources and funding for the sobriety checkpoints leads to the ineffectiveness of the checkpoints. These make the checks not to be productive enough and thus leads to their use not being so frequent. This is because a lack of resources will lead to low-staffing of the checkpoints. For example, lack of resources makes the checkpoint be run on passive alcohol sensors, which are usually effective for small and moderate-sized communities. For high effectiveness in large communities, there is a need to use other strategies like random breath-test programs.

However, passive alcohol sensors may have the same level of effectiveness as random breath-test programs if run properly. It may be carried out by about three to five officers on patrol duty. The officers converge at a point that is already present, conduct a mini-checkpoint, and then return to their normal standard patrol duties after about two hours. (Fells & Williams, 2003).

References.

Elder, R. W., Shults, R. A., Sleet, D. A., Nichols, J. L., Zaza, S., & Thompson, R. S. (2002). Effectiveness of sobriety checkpoints for reducing alcohol-involved crashes. Traffic Injury Prevention, 3(4), 266-274.

Wells, J. K., Greene, M. A., Foss, R. D., Ferguson, S. A., & Williams, A. F. (1997). Drinking drivers missed at sobriety checkpoints. Journal of studies on alcohol, 58(5), 513-517.

Fell, J. C., Lacey, J. H., & Voas, R. B. (2004). Sobriety checkpoints: evidence of effectiveness is strong, but the use is limited. Traffic injury prevention, 5(3), 220-227.

Fell, J. C., Ferguson, S. A., Williams, A. F., & Fields, M. (2003). Why are sobriety checkpoints not widely adopted as an enforcement strategy in the United States?. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 35(6), 897-902.