Why don't the police increase drunk driving arrests tenfold by staking out bars & test patrons who drive away?

mikeysco

An interesting question. Please ignore some of the answers (the "thumbs down" is a pretty good indication as of this moment).

There is nothing unethical about watching a bar to see if reasonable suspicion can be developed to support a traffic stop. If you want to find commercial burglars, you go to commercial areas. If you want to find drunk drivers, you go to a bar. Nothing unethical about that and to suggest otherwise is ignorant.

Equally ignorant would be to suggest that police watching a bar in an attempt to stop drunk drivers could possibly be a violation of anyone's rights. There is no right to privacy when you are walking through a parking lot and getting into your car. None.

Those who would suggest the police can somehow divine that a person has been drinking simply because they are walking out of a bar are sadly misinformed.

Those who would suggest the police can tell someone walking out of a bar and towards (or into) a car is going to drive are equally mistaken.

Persons who drive while intoxicated don't normally wear signs on their backs saying, "I'm impaired and I'm getting into my car so that I can drive. If the police are watching me, now is the time to come and stop me." Since the crime of Driving While Intoxicated requires driving, there is no crime and no reason to prevent anyone from driving until such time as they do - and of course that's what this is all about.

Alcohol devices on cars. Right. And no one would ever have their less-than-drunk friend blow for them.

Most of the answers here (mine included, to some extent) have assumed based on the wording of your question that you're talking about simply stopping people who drive away from a bar and then testing those people. In the USA, that's illegal. Traffic stops must be based on reasonable suspicion and walking out of a bar and driving away in a car does not form the basis for reasonable suspicion of a criminal act.

uncledjm14

Why not just make it illegal for a bar to have a parking lot.

liberal italienne goddessâ„¢ v1.02

They already do this to some extent.

Drinking and driving is not illegal, only driving impaired due to alcohol or drugs. You can have a drink and still not be impaired, just not too many.

Staking out a bar parking lot is considered unethical and a possible rights violation.

You know that someone is drinking, you know that they are going to drive, and you let them just to get the arrest? Wrong on so many levels. Instead, put breathalyzers on all automobile ignitions, then you could not start your car if you were drunk.

mariner31

I am SURE that here in the USA, it's because of it would be a violation of the right of freedom from unreasonable search and seizure: You have to either demonstrate unsafe driving prior to them pulling over, OR go through a sobriety-checkpoint.

In California, they are required to POST a notice in the paper prior to any sobriety-checkpoint being used.

JUST because you were INSIDE a bar doesn't mean you are intoxicated, OR that you even consumed alcohol. Therefore stopping and testing "patrons" would be unconstitutional.

Mama

They do this a lot already.

Here, bars close at 2 am and every bar in town is within a few blocks of each other in one certain area of town.

At 1:45 cops start swarming to that side of town. Known fact.

Also, there are situations like last night (the 4th) where if they think there's going to be a lot of people in one particular area drinking (the lake, for example) they will have extra patrol cars in that area.

laughter_every_day

Despite some of the answers, there is nothing about that plan that would violate the rights of anyone. There is no right to be free from observation in a public place. However, most cops have more to do and find your plan is unproductive. They must observe signs of impairment before making a stop and they can find more of that by just patrolling. Nevertheless, some cops do it. Often in smaller towns, when they find themselves between other calls, and have done all their other duties,and find a moment to simply park, many choose to park near a bar and see if someone chooses that moment to come out and then see if that person staggers or shows other signs, and then see if they begin to operate a vehicle. In other towns, the department is understaffed and a patrol cop will not expect to have even a moment between calls that is not devoted to other duties.

chilebreath

In spite of all the drivel from uninformed wannabes, cops do indeed stake out on bars around closing time. Sometimes they have other things to do at 2am in the morning, but if there;s a lull in the call load you can bet your granny's panties that a police cruiser might be lurking near the parking lot of a local bar watching loud staggering drunks get into their cars, and that's all the probable cause they need to make a stop for suspected drunk driving. Be afraid, be very afraid!

laura d.

Because it would cause an uproar amongst people everywhere. They tried this pro-active measurement somewhere in the south, I believe, where they went inside the bars and actually made people take sobriety tests to see if they were guilty of public intoxication...and people freaked out. The bar owners said it was like living in a communist country, etc. etc. blah blah. I can see the point from both sides. One the one hand, this is a free country, and if cops start coming in bars and clubs to see who's 'too drunk' that would just be ridiculous. On the other hand, when I was a police officer, one of the things i remember most was being called to a traffic accident where a drunk driver slammed into another car with a mom and three kids, at two in the afternoon. The mom and kids were okay, the drunk driver died on scene, so maybe there's a little justice out there. It is still a picture ingrained in my mind that I wish I didnt have.
I do think cops hang around bars and clubs come closing time to some extent, I know I used to!

Diana S

For two reasons for one the laws are not stiff enough and most times drunk drivers skate when it comes to punishment so just because police arrest them does not mean they will stay behind bars.The other reason is because they might have to arrest their fellow officers or friends that frequent the bars they stake out.

Kevy

Some police do that. The problem with that, is that you need probable cause or reasonable suspicion to pull them over, and leaving a bar is not probable cause.

Jim B

And let us not forget that ................

The whole world is not the USA, nor vice versa.

In many countries, a Police officer CAN stop a vehicle, to find out if the driver is..........

1 Properly licenced 2 The vehicle is properly insured. 3 The driver has not been drinking 4 The driver is not wanted by Police. 5 The vehicle is in a safe mechanical condition.

Every driver is required to hold a current valid DL and be insured , and not be impaired by drugs or alcohol, so the stop is legal there.

Do not try to apply US laws to other countries.

Reread the original question. No mention of any particular country, is there ?

Jim B. Toronto.

shygirl93

They do that already.

richard h

They already do to a large extent. At 2PM, one has to do a lot to get pulled over. At 2Am, try not using a blinker or even going a few miles per hour over the speed limit and see if you don't see blue lights behind you. What it boils down to are interest groups such as MADD on one side and the hotel and restaurant businesses on the other. The legal limit for intoxication was 1.5 in the 70's then went to .10 and is now .08 in most all states. MADD is now pushing for legal intoxication at .05. They are really meeting resistance from the restaurant and bar industry. After all, it's not illegal to drink and drive and if legal intoxication is defined as .05, then for all practical purposes there should not be any parking lots in restaurants that even serve beer. Studies show that most serious injuries and fatalities that are alcohol related involve drivers that are 2-as much as 4 times the legal limit. If we want to get touch on drunk driving we need to increase the penalties instead of decreasing the legal level of intoxication. It's too black and white now. In most states, most people face the same charge of DUI whether they are at .08 or .25. So, a women that has two drinks at a restaurant faces the same charges as someone who has 12 drinks and passes out behind the wheel.

sensible_man

That is called entrapment and is illegal. Where I used to live, the local police tried this. The bar owner got a few people to come in and not drink, then exit and see if they got stopped. When they did, the bar owner threatened the City will a huge lawsuit and the program stopped. The police had no "probable cause" that suggested the people exiting were drunk or even drinking.

Cuerdas

cuz there dumb

sam S

They havn't got the balls to hang around.

Ellie

Because there is not enough space in jail, well in CA at least.... People will only stay in for about three days unless they did something really harmful..... Like kidnap the president or something, which would rock.... lol

.. .this can't be good

Good questions

Salt&Pepper Apricot

Probably because they have too much to do as it is.

I think drunk driving and other things would get lower if prison wasn't such a cakewalk. Anyone found guilty of drunk driving should get an automatic six month sentence on the first offense, and prison should be made to be miserable at best, and we'd have less repeat offenders. Second and beyond should be longer and longer sentences.

There'd be more space is prison was made to be miserable, because people wouldn't be wanting to go back to prison so badly. They must love prison, because they keep doing stuff to go back.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: