Five arrested at sobriety checkpoint

Just one driver was drunk, while others received minor charges Friday
Register
Jun 28, 2014

Local law enforcement officers arrested five drivers Friday at a three-hour sobriety checkpoint on Ohio 4, according to a news release from Ohio State Highway Patrol.

Just one man was driving while intoxicated, according to the release.

The other four arrests: two individuals driving under suspension, one individual driving without a driver's license, and one individual carrying marijuana and drug paraphernalia.

The drunken driver refused a breathalyzer test.

When he learned about his imminent arrest, the man complained of high blood pressure and anxiety and requested an ambulance take him to Firelands Regional Medical Center for treatment, according to the release.

He will appear in Sandusky Municipal Court this week.

In total Friday, officers stopped 590 vehicles and inspected 23 in a diversion area.

Ohio State Highway Patrol troopers operated the sobriety checkpoint in conjunction with Perkins police and the Erie County Sheriff's Office.

Sobriety checkpoints, funded by federal grant funds, aim to deter and intercept impaired drivers.

Comments

GoBigLex2001

It got these 5 people off the road, yet people will still complain about these.

SamAdams

Five people were arrested, only one of whom was driving impaired. And the rights of 590 people were violated to do that. It's apparent that you personally have no problem with random searches and other law enforcement fishing expeditions. It's also apparent that you have no respect for civil liberties. Obama voter, eh?

swiss cheese kat

Seems nobody was impaired, just an assumption that one person was.

Pterocarya frax...

SCOTUS said sobriety checkpoints are not a 4th amendment violation.

See: Michigan v. Sitz

Nemesis

SCOTUS also said blacks are not people. See Dred Scott.

gennycreamale

Hey pterocarya,......I mentioned that in regards to this post earlier this week. However, this has fallen on the deaf ears of the sandusky registers commenters.

Nemesis

SCOTUS said separate but equal was legal.

GoBigLex2001

No, not an Obama voter. Just an informed person. NOTHING says you have to go through the checkpoint. Thats why its advertised and they must leave you a way out before getting to the checkpoint.

Nam Vet

So where exactly was the checkpoint?

WaterStreetCooncat

Refuse to blow regardless. You may not have been drinking & they may still charge you (crooked blowing device). Ask the officer the last time the machine was calibrated. Refuse, then call your lawyer - if you can afford one.

Stop It

4th amendment. Illegal search and seizure.

"590 vehicles and inspected 23 in a diversion area"

Chirp

Amendments? What are those?

Chirp

"The drunken driver refused a breathalyzer test." THEN HOW DO YOU KNOW HE WAS DRUNK?

swiss cheese kat

Poor journalism. Assumptions.

Remember: Innocent till proven guilty in a court of law.

Morningbreezes1

They Don't!! Unless they do a blood test~~~ And the last time I heard about this... If one refuses the breathalyzer test, it'a an automatic 6 month suspension on your licence. Which sucks if you haven't been drinking. You would need to hire a lawyer , and the extra cost can be expensive.

sugar

It's a police state in this country. They really have no right to stop you. I would have refused to be detained. A**holes.

eightballcuet1

A friend had was busted for DUI and had to go to DUI school. They had a lawyer from Cleveland come in to talk to the "offenders". The lawyer told them to always refuse the breathalyzer. He said that you might get your license suspended for the refusal but you cannot be found guilty of the DUI because there will be no proof that you were legally over the limit.

Donegan

Makes you wonder where Jazzbo ,Dog and Coasterfan are tonight? I picture there dumb a**es cheering on the encroachment of the the police ste with mindless abandon.

OSUAV8TER

So .17% of those stopped were drunk. What a waste of resources. Absolutely ridiculous.

Perkins Resident

OSU, the worst part about it is that the money came from a Federal grant, meaning borrowed from China.

OSUAV8TER

When is federal money ever responsibly spent?

Nemesis

"So .17% of those stopped were drunk. What a waste of resources. Absolutely ridiculous"

More importantly, on a warm Saturday night in a tourist town, ONE, count it, ONE (ALLEGEDLY) drunk driver was arrested. If you believe for one minute that was the only drunk driver out last night, or even more than 5% of them, then I have a bridge to sell you.

How many drunks drove home last night, weaving in their lanes, jerking the wheel when they hit the rumble strip on the shoulder of a curve they didn't anticipate, etc., without any risk of being seen or caught because half the law enforcement resources in the area were sitting on Rt. 4 harassing innocent travellers without any basis?

Get them out on the road where they can spot actual at-risk driving behavior. Let them use their observation skills instead of being glorified button pushers subordinate to breathalyzers and radar/lidar guns.

SmokingGunn

There was a huge illuminated sign at the corner of Strub and Rt4 telling drivers to prepare to stop for a checkpoint, how on earth are you going to catch any criminal activity telling them you there and waiting for you?
With those rules in place I would agree, a waste of resources..so much for the element of surprise...

SamAdams

The advance notice -- from warnings in the paper (which gradually get more specific) and up to signage immediately prior to the checkpoint -- are the only things that make these searches TECHNICALLY legal. The idea is that, since notice of the checkpoint was given, going through the checkpoint means you've volunteered to be stopped and searched. Cute, eh?

Know what's even cuter? If you turn off (take an exit ramp, make a U-turn, take a side street), there are some LEOs who will go after you on the grounds that you must be guilty of something since those with nothing to hide will go through the checkpoint. In a related note, LEOs have to have cause to actually search your vehicle. If they ask, you can refuse permission. The catch? Courts have ruled that refusing permission must mean you're hiding something and thus gives the LEOs "just cause" to perform their search.

Yes, we're rapidly approaching "police state" status. No, not enough people care. When you've NOT been free and have to fight for it, you appreciate it, but when you're born to freedom, too many take it for granted. Add those numbers to a certain percentage of the population that are willing to trade pretty much ANYthing for the perception of security, and you get to where we're headed, sooner rather than later.

holysee

drunk people suck I DO NOT LIKE OR RESPECT THEM

Nemesis

What's your point?

There are lots of people I don't like or respect. Should we start house to house searches to find them and send them to internment camps?

pptrsha

I live on rt 4. I got stopped at the checkpoint. there was plenty of time and room to turn around if you didn't want to go through it, unless you were going to the pump or the legion.

Seen it All

Here is a horrible story of the police over stepping.....

http://www.newsnet5.com/news/loc...

Molon Labe

Does it really matter? 90% of people end up getting "limited driving privileges" which aren't very limited anyhow. This community will be plagued by offenders the rest of our lives unless the court starts cracking down on people and stops giving everyone and their brother "limited" privileges. I'm glad this checkpoint was run, and 5 people were arrested! Don't do the crime if you can't do the time!!!! I don't see how it is violating any rights. Keep up the good work boys!

Chirp

It's violating rights, obviously. If I'm on my way home from work, why should I be stopped to verify that I'm not drinking? NO PROBABLE CAUSE. It's a waste of my time. Also, a waste of the cops time apparently as they ALLEGEDLY caught one drunk driver.

Pages