Letters: Reader supports police chief’s DWI checkpoint policy

I applaud Police Chief Dewayne White in regards to DWI checkpoints. Recently, 44 DWIs were issued at a checkpoint in the downtown area following an event at the River Center. In a television interview, Chief White made no apologies “for that checkpoint on that night that saved lives.”

A DWI defense attorney, representing over half of those arrested, questioned the timing and location of the checkpoint, stating the drivers were taken advantage of and because of the street’s location, they had no advance notice to exit to another street.

It was also implied that with the success of this particular checkpoint, the police just might consider doing the same thing after the local colleges’ home football games.

Major concerns came to mind when I heard this broadcast. Should drivers be given the opportunity to dodge checkpoints?

Are drunken drivers less likely to hurt themselves and/or others if they are leaving certain functions? What about the New Year’s Eve checkpoints? Are they taking advantage of drunken drivers? I support the decision Chief White made regarding that checkpoint. If the law states no drinking and driving, so be it! It does not matter when or where checkpoints are located; if they are in the business of saving lives, we need to have more of them.

Renita Dominique

program coordinator

Baton Rouge

Comments

1) Comment by Bouncer - 19/09/2012

I don't argue with fence posts.

2) Comment by Whatchange - 19/09/2012

Wow DMJ, are you really against DWI check points? I know you say you're not, but then you go on to say you are, or it sure seams that way. I lost my son to a drunk driver, I say bring on all the DWI check points they want, heck, they should have one ever night of the week. Furthermore, I do believe the Police Chief, Sheriff, and State Police Commander know best how to prioritize and manage their resources better than anyone.

3) Comment by DMJ - 19/09/2012

Bouncer, so....they're are infinte cops who can do all things at once? That's good to know. Seriously though, I'm not saying that there shouldn't be DWI checkpoints, but if the cops are working the checkpoints, it means they're not doing something else, as people don't have the ability to be in two places at once. Being a police chief is about prioritizing and managing resources, after all.

4) Comment by Straight Shooter - 18/09/2012

Actually, the City wasn't even hosting the event. It was merely renting out a facility.

5) Comment by Straight Shooter - 18/09/2012

The event that she is referring to is a Taste of Tiger Tailgating. Catering companies, restaurants, and brewing companies serve food and alcohol. The City does not serve these goods. To say that the City would be liable for merely hosting an event and turning it over to private companies is silly.

6) Comment by Bouncer - 18/09/2012

On the other hand, for every cop doing A, there are other cops doing B, C, and D, such as patrolling dangerous neighborhoods. The ones at the checkpoint were performing an important public service. Dead is dead, whether from a drive by shooting or being taken out by a piece of drunken trash careening down city streets and interstates.

7) Comment by phil - 18/09/2012

True, and the overall lessons here seem to be do not drink and drive and do not attend any events at the River Center that involve alcohol.

8) Comment by Bighug - 18/09/2012

It is illegal, phil, but drinking enough to impair your driving is much less for most people than drinking enough to be obviously intoxicated. I usually agree with you, DMJ, but this thinking is what I refer to as the "steak and potatoes" logic. That is, if steak and potatoes is your favorite meal, why do you ever eat anything else? We probably agree on more than you know, CountryBoy. Here's an idea, Being Stupid: everyone refuse to drive after drinking! That'll put those coniving lawyers out of business, and free up the cops to patrol the dangerous neighborhoods!

9) Comment by phil - 18/09/2012

I am certainly not an attorney but I thought it is illegal for a bar to serve drinks to someone who is obviously intoxicated. Is it OK for a public-owned facility to allow that to happen and then post police outside to catch people drinking and driving? I am not against the police here, and I am certainly against drunk driving, but this seems to be a lawsuit waiting to happen for someone to sue the owners of the River Center for allowing them to drink too much.

10) Comment by DMJ - 18/09/2012

I think we'd all agree that drinking and driving is bad. That being said, let's consider the following fact: law enforcement resources are a zero sum business. If a cop is doing thing A, then he's not doing thing B. The resources that are used that these checkpoints were NOT used patrolling dangerous neighborhoods. Something to think about...

11) Comment by Being_Stupid - 18/09/2012

.08 is a ridiculously low low level. They need to raise the illegal level up to .10. The Lawyer Lobby got the legislature to lower the limit to .08, so that lawyers could make more money defending people in court.

12) Comment by Bouncer - 18/09/2012

Two words: designated driver. If you're going to drink to the point of inebriation at a social function, either have someone haul you home or take other transportation. The law is clear on drinking and driving.

13) Comment by 8point6 - 18/09/2012

" the police just might consider doing the same thing after the local colleges’ home football games." The police could start by stopping anyone wearing an LSU opponent's shirt/Tshirt and/or having the opponent's decal on their vehicle.

14) Comment by CountryBoysCanSurvive - 18/09/2012

to bighug finally we agree on something...scary huh?

15) Comment by Bighug - 18/09/2012

Also, phil, shouldn't banks be held responsible for robberies by keeping so much cash on hand? I am allowed to get drunk and drive every day, until I kill myself or go to prison. A crime is not the responsibility of anyone except the person committing it. It is time we got back to assuming that responsibility and stop blaming everyone else. I disagree with the lawyer who said the perps had no advance notice. I'll bet every single one of them knew it was illegal for them to drive before they were stopped. A simple way to avoid such situations is to obey the laws.

16) Comment by phil - 17/09/2012

I am certainly against drinking and driving. However, according to this article, the event where people drank and apparently got too drunk to drive was held at a building that is basically run by the city- parish government. So my question is - Is it ok for the government to allow people to get drunk inside a government building and then stop them outside that same building to see if they are driving illegal? Seems to open up the possibility that someone could sue the city-parish government because the government allowed them to drink too much while attending an event inside a public building.