Remember also that Checkpoints have very strict rules on how they are to be conducted, which includes anly stopping cars at certain intervals to make it "Random" usually it's every 5th car or so, so in driving up on the checkpoint, you have an 80% chance of just being waved through. i PERSONALLY don't like the checkpoints, and I wont work them..not that we do them all that much, in my 24 years I THINK we've done a total of maybe 8, 5 of which were in the last couple of years. the majority of the Arrests that were generated from the checkpoints were from people doing REALLY stupid crap..like panicking and pulling an illegal u-turn to avoid it, or trying to blow through it..or, my favorite, Stopping 30 feet from the checkpoint and swapping drivers.

 

Interesting, the ones in Holmdel and Old Bridge, both on 35 where talking to EVERY car..

The ones ive seen have stopped every car

I perfer the roving patrol as opposed the Checkpionts. My Dept would get a grant to conduct roving patrols until the supervisors found out they were eligible to work the details efectivly pushing the young guys out.

 

I would just stop people with one headlight. (probible cause) I would get at least 1 summons out of the stop. It would never fail that I would get at least 2 drunks a night. I never cherry picked, ever. (parking a block away from a bar waiting for it to close) If you got locked up by me, you were intoxicated. I was very fair with my field sobriety tests. Biggest obstical for me was launguage barrier. Between Korean, Chinese, different dialects of spanish some times it was difficult

It usually would take me at least 2 hours to process a drunk including Johns Law. If there were outstanding warrants could take longer.

 

I did many Fatal Accident Investigations during my career. (Hudson County Departments does their own, there is no Fatal Team like Bergen) I have personally handled 3 personal freinds that expired during alcohol related crashes. No mercy from me when comes to DWI.

I have done many notifications for other Departments during my years.it just doesnt ruin your day, it ruins your weeks.

Just so we can all level-set, exactly which right(s) are being violated by being pulled over at at checkpoint of any kind, whether it be for DUI, seat belts, fugitives, missing persons, etc? Driving is not a right, so the act of driving is taken off the table. So, which right(s) are being challenged?

 

I would go on to say that it is an unreasonable detention and that even if it is for a few seconds, it is unreasonable. I was outside Yankee stadium driving home last year and the traffic is bad enough on the Major Degan, but they were stopping EVERY car and making the driver blow a breathalyzer. They cost me an hour extra wait for BS. So the city can make some money by harassing people. Basically the city forced thousands of innocent people to be illegally detained so they could catch 1 or 2 lawbreakers. Not worth it.

 

 

You are arrested for Driving Impaired based on my Observations. your actual BAC is immaterial to your impairment. I;ve seen people who, unless you did SFST's looked pretty straight at a High .2+ BAC, and others who were utterly DEMOLISHED at that .02 that you were talking about. The .08 limit is the court's reference level that says the Majority of people who's BAC is at that level are too impaired to safely operate a vehicle. Yes there are people who can drive perfectly at a .08, and there are some who can't drive after ONE drink. i don't NEED the Alcotest (or brethalyzer before that) results to get a conviction. I need to be able to articulate my Probable Cause for making the arrest based on my observations, coupled with my Education, Training, and Experience. or let's take Narcotics..It takes WEEKS to get back the lab results from Blood or Urine..yet they are still charged before those results are in hand.

 

Ok that makes sense but how do you actually prove it? I understand what you say about training and observations, but those are not definitive proof like a breathalyzer would be. There is no real proof unless you had a dash cam recording the erratic driving. I'm guessing with a lawyer the person would beat the charge. Well unless they blew a .08 or above that is.

Ok that makes sense but how do you actually prove it? I understand what you say about training and observations, but those are not definitive proof like a breathalyzer would be. There is no real proof unless you had a dash cam recording the erratic driving. I'm guessing with a lawyer the person would beat the charge. Well unless they blew a .08 or above that is.

 

If you blow under a .08 you can still be charged with the DUI, HOWEVER you do stand a better chance of having it dismissed.. It will depend on the judge, your lawyer, and prosecutor arguments.. As stated it has been well documented that people can blow well under the .08 and still be too impaired to drive... If you refuse the alcotest you automatically are pleading guilty..

 

 

 

And why the hell do cops who make salary get paid overtime for this? It's not like teachers get paid overtime for back to school night... or any other events they're required to attended after hours.

 

Please don't get me started on this.. First of all there are plenty of functions where police volunteer their time throughout the year.... Also, last time I checked teachers werent working every holiday and around the clock.. But I am not getting into this argument.. I don't bash teachers.. they have their own job to do.. You cannot compare the job of a teacher to that of a police officer.. It is two completely different professions.. My suggestion is that if they don't like doing it then they find another place to work or work on a raise for the added hours..

So you agree with reasonable infringements? Who decides what is reasonable. I would give my life for this country and the constitution that I swore to uphold, as supposedly did the politicians who represent us. Maybe we should have a king so he can tell us what reasonable is? Oh wait we had that once....

 

We had a king once? I must have missed that day in History 101. :-)

 

I think BAC is bs for the simple reason that it cannot accurately gauge someone's ability to operate a vehicle with reasonable judgment. Saying that it is better than a "subjective" SFST is a lousy reason to rely on something which could possibly determine guilt or innocence in a court of law. The solution, either find an accurate gauge of one's ability to drive or stop infringing on people's rights and only arrest those who are clearly inebriated and unable to properly operate a vehicle. It seems as if there is a presumption of guilt upon arrest with little chance of proving otherwise after the fact. This is a result of the state and courts desire to be tough on drunk drivers. Maybe if this wasn't the case cops would be a less likely to abuse the subjective nature of a SFST [in the absence of breathlyzer]??

 

My comments above ignore the real issue, the prohibitionist lobby of such groups as MADD. The founder of MADD, Candy Lightner left MADD because the organization has morphed from what it once was, a group trying to curb deaths associated with drunk driving, into a neo-prohibitionist movement. Do the members and leadership truly believe in an alcohol free society or is it the natural progression of an organization whose sole goal is to stop drunk driving? Regardless of whether MADD is non-profit, when there are C level individuals making hundreds of thousands of dollars they will obviously have a vested interest in keeping the gravy train moving.

 

Lies, damn lies, and statistics. The NHTSA, private (with gov't funding) groups such as MADD, AAA, and the media would have you believe that you are at great risk of becoming a victim of a drunk driver. "Everyone knows someone who has been affected by drunk driving". Possibly, but everyone also knows Kevin Bacon through 6 or less friends. So what does that tell you? The actual rate of death per mile driven due to a drunk driver is extremely low when all the bs is washed out of the statistics. [My definition of bs: Stats that include a person who had between .01-.07 BAC, stats that count a drunk pedestrian being killed by a sober driver, stats including sober drivers hitting a person with alcohol in their system but otherwise obeying all laws.] Currently statistics put forth by the NHTSA and groups like MADD include all those ridiculous scenarios [unless that has been changed in the last few years].

 

I'm not advocating on behalf of drunk drivers. However, I think the whole campaign against drunken driving is a circus similar to the never ending (and never productive) war on drugs. Go after people who are truly driving drunk, .15% and above or those who are visibly impaired [not hard to prove after the fact now that most cops have dash cams]. Stop wasting money, time, and resources on something that is not nearly as big a problem as the government would like us to believe.

 

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety

Interesting, the ones in Holmdel and Old Bridge, both on 35 where talking to EVERY car..

Then they are violating the guidelines

Can I refuse the sobriety tests in the field? I know I need to blow in the Alcotest (or breathalyzer) at the station in which I doubt Id refuse.

But again, do I need to answer his questions about drinks & take the field tests? I'd prefer to plead the 5th & keep my mouth shut & stay in the car.

 

let us know how that works out for you....WAY more people talk themselves into trouble than out of it.

Grey area? you can have any windows tinted but the front windows to any percentage you want.... no grey area i know of.. and no mirror tint

 

Some courts see it differently..then there is Factory tint..if it's OEM, then what??? I;ve always looked at it as a pissant type of offense..kind of like the Lighted windhsield washers..are they a violation?? yeah but not one i'd ever stop someone for as a primary.

Ok that makes sense but how do you actually prove it? I understand what you say about training and observations, but those are not definitive proof like a breathalyzer would be. There is no real proof unless you had a dash cam recording the erratic driving. I'm guessing with a lawyer the person would beat the charge. Well unless they blew a .08 or above that is.

 

Keep guessing..i win them ALL THE TIME.

Keep guessing..i win them ALL THE TIME.

 

So just your word and word alone is enough to convict someone of a crime? No witnesses, no dash-cam, no nothing?

So just your word and word alone is enough to convict someone of a crime? No witnesses, no dash-cam, no nothing?

yes it is

Blood alc has to be used. You can't let cops have the ability to decide you are drunk just because they "think" you are. They could be running around saying anyone is drunk with no evidence at all If that was the case.

 

My issue with DUI penalty is nj should have a work liscence so you can still go to work.

yes it is

 

And that's why people get pissed.

And that's why people get pissed.

 

How could you get pissed? If I see someone attempting to break into your car and stop them in the act where is the evidence, other then my word of what happened? Do I have to hope there is a camera in the area or another person who witnessed you doing it? No.. So why should it be any different in a DUI case.. I report what is observed..

 

 

Please don't get me started on this.. First of all there are plenty of functions where police volunteer their time throughout the year.... Also, last time I checked teachers werent working every holiday and around the clock.. But I am not getting into this argument.. I don't bash teachers.. they have their own job to do.. You cannot compare the job of a teacher to that of a police officer.. It is two completely different professions.. My suggestion is that if they don't like doing it then they find another place to work or work on a raise for the added hours..

 

What exactly are those functions where you're volunteering your time? Most cops I know get paid for what they do. Let's be honest there aren't many people volunteering their time.

 

I do agree with you when you say we shouldn't compare jobs. Different careers have different obligations.

 

Well that is one of the biggest loads of bs I have ever heard. How can the notion of "Innocent until PROVEN guilty" play out if there is no proof of guilt? That is akin to me going into the police precinct and saying you or anyone for that matter punched me in the face and them arresting and convicting you of it. Can I do that? Will they convict you on my word alone? Somehow I doubt it. I mean I hope that something like that can't happen.

 

So you pull someone over for driving erratically, you arrest them for driving impaired. You don't have a dash-cam or witness. What would your proof be in order to convict that person in this scenario?

 

edit. not sure why it didn't quote you.

What exactly are those functions where you're volunteering your time? Most cops I know get paid for what they do. Let's be honest there aren't many people volunteering their time.

 

I do agree with you when you say we shouldn't compare jobs. Different careers have different obligations.

 

The city I work for has many events throughout the year where officers volunteer their time.. I don't want to get into specific events but we have roughly 10 community events throughout the year where officers volunteer their time and help out.. It is not mandatory to do but many officers do participate in the events.. But as stated you can't compare different professions that have nothing to do with each other..

 

 

The city I work for has many events throughout the year where officers volunteer their time.. I don't want to get into specific events but we have roughly 10 community events throughout the year where officers volunteer their time and help out.. It is not mandatory to do but many officers do participate in the events.. But as stated you can't compare different professions that have nothing to do with each other..

 

Oh okay that's what I thought you meant. I have a lot of those functions too but it's not mandatory.

Please don't get me started on this.. First of all there are plenty of functions where police volunteer their time throughout the year.... Also, last time I checked teachers werent working every holiday and around the clock.. But I am not getting into this argument.. I don't bash teachers.. they have their own job to do.. You cannot compare the job of a teacher to that of a police officer.. It is two completely different professions.. My suggestion is that if they don't like doing it then they find another place to work or work on a raise for the added hours..

 

It was just an example... I was not saying teachers should make overtime and i'm not comparing jobs, im saying when u make salary your paid for the year to do your job and all the details that come with it... last time i checked cops are not paid by the hour and their pay should not reflect that like every other person who makes a salary... People who make salary don't punch out when their 8 hours are up, they go home when the work is done. Imagine if every person went to their superior and said hey i put in more then 40 hours this week i want overtime for that... It's even worse when u have 3 cops making overtime watching road work.. Im not bashing cops, just the system in which they work for... to me it is a joke and a slap in the face to the people who pay them..

Well that is one of the biggest loads of bs I have ever heard. How can the notion of "Innocent until PROVEN guilty" play out if there is no proof of guilt? That is akin to me going into the police precinct and saying you or anyone for that matter punched me in the face and them arresting and convicting you of it. Can I do that? Will they convict you on my word alone? Somehow I doubt it. I mean I hope that something like that can't happen.

 

So you pull someone over for driving erratically, you arrest them for driving impaired. You don't have a dash-cam or witness. What would your proof be in order to convict that person in this scenario?

 

edit. not sure why it didn't quote you.

 

I am not getting what you are talking about here.. You are driving erratically.. I pull you over and based on your driving, my observations of you, etc I arrest you on suspicion of driving while impaired.. I take you back to HQ.. you can A) refuse the alcotest at which point your are basically pleading guilty, or B) take the test at which time we will see what your BAC is.. .08 or above and automatically guilty by being above the per se.. .01-.07 shows that you have alcohol in your system which can cause impairment.. 0.00 and you possibly could have been under the influence of some kind of drugs or such.. The "proof" is the totality of the circumstances.. My observations plus the alcotest results... Observations include your driving, observations of you speaking and how you conduct yourself, and observations of how you perform the field sobriety testing.. I have yet to have a DWI case where the alcotest results were below a .08.. With the exception of those under the age of 21...

How could you get pissed? If I see someone attempting to break into your car and stop them in the act where is the evidence, other then my word of what happened? Do I have to hope there is a camera in the area or another person who witnessed you doing it? No.. So why should it be any different in a DUI case.. I report what is observed..

 

Because observation without backup is bulls%^t. Got it on camera fine. Got an instrument reading to back up your observation fine. Just because you feel bitchy NOT fine.

It was just an example... I was not saying teachers should make overtime and i'm not comparing jobs, im saying when u make salary your paid for the year to do your job and all the details that come with it... last time i checked cops are not paid by the hour and their pay should not reflect that like every other person who makes a salary... People who make salary don't punch out when their 8 hours are up, they go home when the work is done. Imagine if every person went to their superior and said hey i put in more then 40 hours this week i want overtime for that... It's even worse when u have 3 cops making overtime watching road work.. Im not bashing cops, just the system in which they work for... to me it is a joke and a slap in the face to the people who pay them..

 

Well let's see.. Road construction jobs are not paid by the "taxpayers".... So I am confused.. So how is it a slap in the face to taxpayers?? During road construction jobs the company doing the construction contracts the police department and the company pays for the police to be there.. The DWI details are normally done with grant money.. The actual pd/city doesn't pay for it.....The police contracts have the salary listed for the time worked.. So in my contract is says that for the amount of hours worked I will be given such salary as compensation.. A police officer's job cant be compared to a private sector salary job..

Because observation without backup is bulls%^t. Got it on camera fine. Got an instrument reading to back up your observation fine. Just because you feel bitchy NOT fine.

 

So I see a guy walk into your backyard.. I follow and observe him with a credit card in hand attempting to get your door open.. I arrest him for attempting to break into your home.. Now there are no cameras in the area, no witnesses that saw him go back there.. Now what.. We just let him go? You are not making any sense and are trying to prove a point that can't be proven.. Cops don't lock up people because they feel "bitchy".. I cant just lock you up for DWI/DUI and see how it goes.. And if the courts see that a cop is locking people up with constant 0.00 bac you will have issues.. No cop is going to just lock people up for DWI for no reason.. The instrument will show what your BAC level is and that will backup the officers observations.. If you refuse to take it then that is you pleading guilty to the DWI.. If you take it and you blow a .08 you are drunk in the eyes of the state.. if you blow a .07 or below you may not be drunk according to the state but you are can still be too impaired to drive and judge will rule based on ALL the facts..

Well let's see.. Road construction jobs are not paid by the "taxpayers".... So I am confused.. So how is it a slap in the face to taxpayers?? During road construction jobs the company doing the construction contracts the police department and the company pays for the police to be there.. The DWI details are normally done with grant money.. The actual pd/city doesn't pay for it.....The police contracts have the salary listed for the time worked.. So in my contract is says that for the amount of hours worked I will be given such salary as compensation.. A police officer's job cant be compared to a private sector salary job..

 

- so then please tell me how overtime works into their pension? I herd that a while back they were trying to change the pension system because cops were putting in hours of overtime during there last 3 years before retirement to pump up their pension.. Why don't these companies just pay some guy with a flag to direct traffic for 10 an hour.... like they do 50% of the time? And the DWI details are paid with grant money!!! taxpayers money!!

 

What about when they post up seat belt checks? or inspection checkpoints? or when they need to put extra guys on the schedule for a town event?

 

No matter how you look at it one way or another the money is coming out of the peoples pocket. If a town requires 3 cops sit at an intersection when road work is taking places... they charge the company and the company charges me. The cops get paid a fat overtime check to sit on their cell phones( and really i dont blame them, what else are they gonna do..

- so then please tell me how overtime works into their pension? I herd that a while back they were trying to change the pension system because cops were putting in hours of overtime during there last 3 years before retirement to pump up their pension.. Why don't these companies just pay some guy with a flag to direct traffic for 10 an hour.... like they do 50% of the time? And the DWI details are paid with grant money!!! taxpayers money!!

 

Overtime does not get put towards pension.. You pension is based off base salary which would be calculated at what your would make according to the specified work schedule.. Again overtime is not included towards pension.. As for the guy using a flag to direct traffic.. It was determined that for insurance purposes and safety purposes that an officer must be on scene.. That is just the way it is.. And yes.. as stated DWI details are paid with grant money from various state/federal departments... Yes taxpayer money.. I didnt say it wasnt essentially taxpayer money.. However its not the pd/city that is paying.. It is given from the federal/state level and only given to pay for officers to specifically target DWI/DUI offenders..

tint is a gray area...while there is a statute that limits it..it also doesn't actually set the Criteria for what constitutes a violation. MOST states have a meter that they use to determine If the tint is too dark, NJ, it all depends on what the local Municipal judge considers good.

 

Great, more arbitrary violations that they leave up to a judge to determine if he wants to make more money for the state or not. That makes sense...

 

 

yes it is

 

Exactly. People are arrested and convicted based off of no evidence and just the subjective opinion of an officer who of course never makes mistakes or dare I say would never lie to obtain a conviction right? Free America or police state? You tell me.

 

let us know how that works out for you....WAY more people talk themselves into trouble than out of it.

 

And people also get themselves in trouble for following the law when it gets the officers upset because their every word isn't being complied with. So what are you saying?

 

Then they are violating the guidelines

 

Exactly the point. Where is the accountability?

 

How could you get pissed? If I see someone attempting to break into your car and stop them in the act where is the evidence, other then my word of what happened? Do I have to hope there is a camera in the area or another person who witnessed you doing it? No.. So why should it be any different in a DUI case.. I report what is observed..

Is that your job?

 

Keep guessing..i win them ALL THE TIME.

 

Great. Someone admitting they work to get convictions without any evidence or wrongdoing, or any victim, ALL THE TIME. We need more peace officers like you. Sorry, edit that. Peace officer is a misnomer I suppose...

 

 

So I see a guy walk into your backyard.. I follow and observe him with a credit card in hand attempting to get your door open.. I arrest him for attempting to break into your home.. Now there are no cameras in the area, no witnesses that saw him go back there.. Now what.. We just let him go? You are not making any sense and are trying to prove a point that can't be proven.. Cops don't lock up people because they feel "bitchy".. I cant just lock you up for DWI/DUI and see how it goes.. And if the courts see that a cop is locking people up with constant 0.00 bac you will have issues.. No cop is going to just lock people up for DWI for no reason.. The instrument will show what your BAC level is and that will backup the officers observations.. If you refuse to take it then that is you pleading guilty to the DWI.. If you take it and you blow a .08 you are drunk in the eyes of the state.. if you blow a .07 or below you may not be drunk according to the state but you are can still be too impaired to drive and judge will rule based on ALL the facts..

Yes they do.

Yes they will.

How so?

This is suppose to happen, but does it actually?

I can show videos of people being arrested simply because the officer got upset that the person wasn't giving in to his unlawful orders.

There are tons of examples of police misconduct. You say "no cop", well that is a complete lie.

So any officer can just say, hey, I need you to take a breathalyzer, and if you don't you are going to jail for DUI, absent reasonable suspicion or probable cause, at these checkpoints? Well there is a word for that. Illegal.

 

 

No matter how you look at it one way or another the money is coming out of the peoples pocket. If a town requires 3 cops sit at an intersection when road work is taking places... they charge the company and the company charges me. The cops get paid a fat overtime check to sit on their cell phones( and really i dont blame them, what else are they gonna do..

 

But now you are going to regulate how companies spend their money.. So how about I dont feel that the Sprint store around the corner should have 5 employees working.. Does that mean they should fire 3 of the employees since everytime I walk in 3 out of 5 and just sitting there and talking amongst themselves? After all their pay checks are coming out of my pocket..