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
- In our opinion: Brexit and the U.K.'s new...
- In our opinion: US v. Texas and immigration...
- On Second Thought: Departugal, Italeave and...
- In our opinion: California considering bold...
- John Florez: If elephants can dance so can...
- Letter: Come together
- Letter: Reducing teacher load
- Charles Krauthammer: Hillaryism: Tired...
- Letter: Shooter's motives 36
- Letter: Carbon emissions fee 30
- In our opinion: California considering... 29
- In our opinion: US v. Texas and... 22
- My view: Taxpayers should call foul on... 19
- Letter: Panhandlers in Sandy 19
- In our opinion: Brexit and the U.K.'s... 18
- Charles Krauthammer: Hillaryism: Tired... 17