MADD calls upon Minnesota to legalize sobriety checkpoints

Categories: Booze, Crime, Law
copcar.jpg
Mothers Against Drunk Driving gave Minnesota low marks in its new state-by-state evaluation of DWI laws.

SEE ALSO: Minnesota Supreme Court rules you can legally drunk-drive Segways

MADD, in particular, calls upon state lawmakers to legalize sobriety checkpoints, writing that they "will give law enforcement the tools needed to cut drunk driving fatalities." (The organization also recommends requiring ignition interlocks for all convicted DWI offenders.)

Minnesota is currently one of just 12 states that doesn't allow law enforcement to conduct sobriety checkpoints. Changing that would require a constitutional amendment, as according to Minnesota NORML, the state constitution "requires that a driver is not arbitrarily subjected to an investigative stop... without [an officer] first having an articulable suspicion of driving wrongdoing."

:::: UPDATE :::: MADD planning legislative push for more ignition interlocks

DWI arrests in Minnesota actually fell dramatically last year, to 23,800 from 28,418 in 2012. It doesn't appear the number of 2013 drunk driving-related fatalities in Minnesota has yet been released, but in recent years the number has hovered just above 100 annually.

A voicemail left with the director of MADD's Minnesota office seeking comment on if and how the organization plans to push for sobriety checkpoints this legislative session hasn't been returned as this is published.

In the state-by-state report, Wisconsin received the same two stars out of five score as Minnesota, with MADD noting that the Land of Cheese "is the only state in the nation where a first drunk driving offense is not a crime. It's 'just' a traffic ticket."

-- Follow Aaron Rupar on Twitter at @atrupar. Got a tip? Drop him a line at arupar@citypages.com.

My Voice Nation Help
330 comments
youdeserveit
youdeserveit

vote democrat and this will be law soon, there is no aspect of your life that they not interfere with

Lee Shaw
Lee Shaw

We've been through this already! How soon we forget.

Michael Wolf
Michael Wolf

they all ready pull you over for no damn reason! sobriety check points are entrapment and they get to do that shit near holidays

Matt Mortensen
Matt Mortensen

What rights, we don't have rights anymore....Madness

Will Chris
Will Chris

4th Amendment to the Constitution--Ya'll should read it sometime. You can't legalize something that's already outlawed How about instead of further infringing on people's freedoms, we make breathalyzer interlocks standard on all cars--the same as seat belts and airbags. That way if someone has had a couple, they blow into their vehicle, and it tells them if they're good to drive or locks if they're not. SIMPLE. FUCKING. SOLUTION.

Matt Mortensen
Matt Mortensen

Yes do it, please show everyone that I am right when I say this is not a Free Country anymore

Chad Liljegren
Chad Liljegren

Where is DAMM when you need them. DRUNKS AGAINST MAD MOTHERS!!!

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

It's a GOD GIVEN RIGHT of every Minnesotan to DRINK and DRIVE without any interference from law enforcement !!


Let Natural Selection run its course!



TC4L
TC4L

Wow.  Only 12 states don't allow this.  Technically if you're driving shortly after 2am you may get pulled over.  Champlin and Golden Valley surprisingly get away with this all the time.  And for some reason they get pissy when you blow a 0.0 as if they were hoping you drive drunk.  I don't dislike police but I really don't like the Champlin and G.V. police.  Crooked.

LTdslr
LTdslr

Our rights as outlined in the constitution don't allow for this. Someone send them a copy of the US Constitution with the 4th amendment highlighted...

Kitty Hodge
Kitty Hodge

I can understand why people who have lost a loved one because of drunk driving would want something like this, but I don't agree with it. Sounds like the law currently in place is the way to go. Also, what are they going to do about all of those inconsiderate people who think it is OK to text while they are driving?

_Joe_
_Joe_

Can't wait to see the wave of Minnesota made "Am I free to go?" videos on youtube!


What next?  Random searches of your home?  Proof of citizenship?  State observers in your bedroom to make sure that sex with your wife is consensual for both parties?

Brian Frisco
Brian Frisco

sounds stupid there's better things to do

Blake Anderson
Blake Anderson

What I or anyone else thinks doesn't matter as it is against natural law as well as the Magna Carta and United States constitution. I believe this is when people say things like "love it or leave it".

MrGasso
MrGasso

Anybody remember when the Founder of MADD got a DWI? I do. I suppose all MADD members will get a tip off of to where the checkpoints will be in advance so as to save any embarassment. Yes, I agree; A Damn Stupid Idea! DAMM; Drunks Against Mad Mothers!

Pat Vance
Pat Vance

Bad bad bad idea. The laws on the books already should be enforced. Why aren't the bars that serve people who are "over the limit" or will be "over the limit" held responsible. The law says that someone who aids another commit a "misdemeander" is guilty of a felony. The laws we have should be enforced, until then why make more. Get the multiple DUI drivers off the road, yes. But stop everyone because they might have had "too much" bull. What happens if you have a cold and just had taken cough medicine? What if the checkpoint was 1/2 block from where you just had one beer and it was still "fresh on your breath". Please MADD STOP THE MADNESS!!!

Howie Feltersnatch
Howie Feltersnatch

More stupid people wanting to put the constitution in a shredder.

James Williams
James Williams

No! Police should have cause to pull someone over.

Anita Ewald
Anita Ewald

No they shouldn't ppl need to be responsible for themselves this would give cops the right to stop ppl fir no reason while most cops n ppl in general are good there's always the one bad one who will pull over most likely a single female driver n rape her useing this as an excuse goverent needs to back the fuck outta ppl lives I do NOT condone drunk driving I hate it but I don't agree w this

David Heun
David Heun

We have enough of a big brother /police state already! I vote no to police check points! "Land of the free , home of the brave", remember?

Chad Nieland
Chad Nieland

Hell. No. Checkpoints should be unconstitutional. Your goal is prohibition, otherwise you become irrelevant as an organization. Thank god Google driverless cars are coming. They will make madd irrelevant without prohibition. And then you can all get back to not being nazis. And the rest of us can get back to not having our lives ruined for having two beers and driving home.

Hank RC
Hank RC

turn around, look for the signs if you dont want to be harassed by people doing there jobs

Drew Woolcott
Drew Woolcott

Was just checking arrest rate statistics for sobriety checkpoints nationwide and what a surprise !! Less than one percent DUI arrest rate!! Wow effective use of tax dollars to stop thousands of drivers for nothing. Much less to mention they are putting an entire portion of our economy out of business those people who work in restaurants and clubs and depend on tips to pay their rent.

Quentin Weedman
Quentin Weedman

Dude can't even spell himself so pretty sure he still has to sound out most of his words

Jacob Abraham
Jacob Abraham

I don't remember saying anything about a 'Anarchy State'. But I think you're the one who doesn't know what their talking about if you think check points are a good idea.

Drew Woolcott
Drew Woolcott

They will keep pushing until they have prohibition again. It will become such a legal liability to even manufacture alcohol that you won't be able to buy it and drink at home.

Gene Hawk
Gene Hawk

This is a joke. I've been stopped for no reason and given sobriety checks in front of my house five times in the last 6 years.

Mark D. Gengler
Mark D. Gengler

Yes, then they can start doing full body searches if you are walking down the street too. Search my bag at the library? Sure! HELL NO. How about a stiffer penalty for ALL alcohol related victim crimes.

Alex Alvarez
Alex Alvarez

A resounding no its unconstitutional it is an illegal search..

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@LTdslr  <== daft drunkard.


The SCOTUS already ruled that Sobriety Checkpoints ARE legal ...


... been that way for nearly 25 years.



midwestexplorer81
midwestexplorer81 topcommenter

I think we should ban anybody over 55 from driving, lets save some lives.

midwestexplorer81
midwestexplorer81 topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay @LTdslr Not in Minnesota they're not. The Minnesota state constitution gives more protection of privacy than the U.S. constitution. Any city that sets up a checkpoint in Minnesota will get sued and rightfully so.  Minnesota lawmakers and the courts have already ruled we don't do checkpoints here.

midwestexplorer81
midwestexplorer81 topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay @midwestexplorer81Yes that argument has been beaten dead man. We know driving is a privilege  not a right, that's how they require insurance. Stopping people for driving their personal vehicle without evidence a law is being broken is different than stopping commercial vehicles for inspection though. Under federal law engaging in interstate commerce automatically puts you under a lot more regulation. That is why Minnesota laws make a distinction between the two. The laws are so different that they actually have an entirely different division of police that enforce commercial laws. If I'm not driving a commercial vehicle and I'm obeying all laws an officer can't stop me in Minnesota. The Minnesota constitution says so, the majority of Minnesotans agree, and Minnesota courts agree. Get over it and admit you're a troll working for MADD. I've never seen you on these boards until this MADD article popped up. You're probably not even in Minnesota and probably have no address here. You should mind your own damn business.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@midwestexplorer81 " I would argue the Supreme Court got it wrong."


So file your Amicus brief and let us know how it goes.



@midwestexplorer81 " I would say that stopping somebody without reasonable suspicion is against the 4th amendment."


Except that OPERATING a MOTOR VEHICLE on the PUBLIC ROADWAYS is a privilege and not a right. 


Or are you now going to argue that stopping OTR trucks at weigh stations -- or temporary safety checkpoints -- and demanding their logs, manifests, insurance and licenses is also "unconstitutional" ?



midwestexplorer81
midwestexplorer81 topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay @midwestexplorer81You got me but I would argue the Supreme Court got it wrong. I would say that stopping somebody without reasonable suspicion is against the 4th amendment. Many many people feel the courts got that one wrong. It wouldn't be the first time they've read the constitution wrong.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@midwestexplorer81 ... you should read the comments you're replying to, the original poster LTdsir cited the U$ constitution and the 4th Amendment.


SCOTUS has ruled regarding the legality of sobriety checkpoints not being violative of the U$ constitution.


hth.



Now Trending

Minnesota Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...