Sobriety checkpoints — like the ones held in Utah — often fail to make even a single drunk driving arrest, despite stopping hundreds of vehicles ("Utah House votes to ban DUI checkpoints," Feb. 24). A 2009 University of Maryland study found that checkpoints don't have "any impact on public perceptions, driver behaviors or alcohol-related crashes, police citations for impaired driving and public perceptions of alcohol-impaired driving risk."
County police should employ roving — or saturation — patrols in which police patrol the roadways for dangerous drivers. State Supreme Court cases from both Pennsylvania and New Hampshire revealed that roving patrols caught 10 times more drunk drivers than checkpoints. According to the FBI "it is proven that saturation efforts will bring more DUI arrests than sobriety checkpoints." Patrols also stop distracted, speeding, aggressive and drowsy drivers because officers can catch them in the act.
Managing director of the American Beverage Institute
- John Florez: Businesses should help pay for...
- Letter: No labels in 2016?
- Arthur Cyr: US presidential politics reflects...
- Letter: Our public lands
- My view: Your family stories have the power...
- In our opinion: Research suggests that...
- Dan Liljenquist: What we learned from the...
- My view: The solution to Utah's water problems
- Richard Davis: Do presidents have to be... 56
- My view: Get insurance out of health care 49
- My view: Obama's veto won't save Obamacare 35
- In our opinion: Attempting to... 32
- My view: 'Death with dignity' and... 27
- In our opinion: Concerned voters a good... 23
- Dan Liljenquist: What we learned from... 19
- Mantua speed trap 17