Controversial DUI Enforcement

A news article in
USA Today features Fresno Police Department’s aggressive efforts to curb repeat
DUI offenders. I think they are on to something despite its controversial methods.

Repeat DUI offenders are typically alcohol dependent and require herculean
effort to stay sober. Breaking this addictive cycle of drinking and driving,
states have responded with lower legal limits, tougher penalties, and
even yellow license plates here in Ohio. However, as a practitioner on
the front lines of this battle, alcoholics think more about their next
drink than worrying about driving without a license.

So, Fresno P.D. is helping these folks in their efforts not to drink. Fresno
P.D. may be the toughest city in the United States in DUI enforcement.
This city of 460,000 has more sobriety checkpoints per capita than any
other city. There were 96 just last year! Columbus, Ohio DUI enforcement
might allow for 10 checkpoints in any given year.

Unlike any other city in the United States, Fresno police officers sit
in bar parking lots in unmarked cars watching people stumble out of local
watering holes. Marked units are then called in to sweep up the DUI motorist
before he can get to the intersection. Why wait for an accident. Most
DUI lawyers nitpick traffic stops for being unrelated to impairment anyway.
Here is enforcement of impaired people as they enter a vehicle. Let the
DUI lawyers nitpick whether or not the person was impaired as they walked
out of a bar. Plus, the deterrent effect is huge!

However, the most aggressive action may be the use of GPS. Fresno police
officers will sneek into the driveways of convicted
DUI offenders who are on probation and place a stealth GPS device on the DUI offender’s
vehicle. The GPS alerts police or a probation officer when the DUI probationer
goes into a bar or tavern.

Professionally, I have no problems with this in light of the fact GPS is
reserved for repeat DUI offenders who have already acknowledged, in court,
their alcoholism and desire to get sober. If this technology is a deterrent
and/or allows for immediate intervention that the offender already desires,
then why not. I am sure other civil libertarians will find my opinion
out of step with their philosophy,. When it comes to protecting us from
each other, that is where most libertarians and Ayn Rand followers would
concede governmental intervention is naturally justified.