Now
Overcast
31°
High
32°
Low
21°

Deputies to launch drunk driving crackdown over holiday

Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

By the Lincoln Journal Star

Thursday, Aug 28, 2008 - 11:46:59 am CDT

The Lancaster County Sheriff’s Office will participate the nationwide “You Drink & Drive. You Lose” campaign to crack down on drunk drivers over the holiday weekend.

Sheriff Terry Wagner said his office would conduct a high visibility checkpoint from 10 p.m. Friday until 2 a.m. Saturday on U.S. 77 between Pioneers Boulevard and Old Cheney Road.

Vehicles will be stopped systematically and occupants will be checked for signs of alcohol use, Wagner said.

Story Photo
Sheriff Terry Wagner

There also will be an increased number of deputies in marked patrol cars from 10 p.m. Saturday to 3 a.m. Sunday, he said.

Overtime for the additional deputies working overtime during the campaign will be funded by a mini grant from the Nebraska Office of Highway Safety, Wagner said.


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Local > Back to Top of Story

All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Ted wrote on August 28, 2008 12:13 pm:
" People who haven't been drinking will be irritated by this. If I was out driving and got stopped,( I never drink) and was stopped and tested, I would hire an attorney and sue. Stopping everyone, In my opinion is an invasion of privacy, they have no "Probable Cause" to do it! Just another off shoot of the Bush patriot act. "

why wrote on August 28, 2008 12:19 pm:
" why would you tell everyone where they will be??? Now the drunks will avoid hwy 77... brilliant! "

Davey D wrote on August 28, 2008 12:22 pm:
" Has not nothing to do with Bush (ugh I hate it when I actually have to defend him)...there is case law dealing with checkpoints..google search the topic and then repost what you learn "

Kristine wrote on August 28, 2008 12:26 pm:
" What exactly will you sue for, Terry? Harrassment? Pain and suffering? I think the courts have better things to do.
And I think this is great. I fully support our law enforcement for this. Drinking and driving is beyond stupid. "

JP wrote on August 28, 2008 12:32 pm:
" TED buddy get over it!! Who cares if you don't drink? They are doing it for the entire public's safety, including yours!!!! "

remember wrote on August 28, 2008 12:33 pm:
" Driving is a privlage, not a right. it's not an invasion of privacy to test someone for alcohol becuase you are on a PUBLIC road. if you were on a private road that you owned and they did a test without cuase then yes that would be an invasion of privacy. I wish people would quite complaining about this. the police are not trying to invade your privacy they are trying to keep drunk drivers from crashing into your car and possibly killing you "

sue happy wrote on August 28, 2008 12:35 pm:
" If you were hit and injured or a family member killed by one of those drunk drivers, you would be the first to complain about the lack of law enforcement getting drunk drivers off the road. You would proabably sue the state for letting drunk drivers on the road. "

Yup wrote on August 28, 2008 12:38 pm:
" I won't mind if I'm stopped. If I'm out that late, I would rather keep the drunk drivers off the roads anyway. I don't think they will do a sobriety test on everyone they stop, just the ones they smell alcohol on or look under the influence. "

comeon wrote on August 28, 2008 12:48 pm:
" "Ted"....come on this is for safety reasons! I for one think it is a great idea especially since I have a 18 year old on the road coming home after 10:00pm. Anything to do to make our roads safer....I am all for it (that includes getting pulled over myself!, I have nothing to hide) sounds like you just want to join the "I will sue about anything club!" "

right said Ted wrote on August 28, 2008 12:50 pm:
" Ted truly sounds like a non drinker. I think most non drinkers don't want drunk drivers on the road. To be honest, I think most drinkers, whether excessive or not, don't want drunk drivers on the road. "

The Other Side wrote on August 28, 2008 12:50 pm:
" I don't mind 5 minutes of my time to take idiots off the road who are putting other peoples lives at risk due to their drinking and driving. "

telling wrote on August 28, 2008 12:50 pm:
" Ted: police have been doing sobriety checkpoints like this long before the days of the Patriot Act. It has stood up as legal in court and can be quite an effective tool for removing impaired drivers. If you have such a problem with it, drive an alternate route. "

Tina wrote on August 28, 2008 12:53 pm:
" Do you think it would be possible to get more than 4 taxi cabs for this city? "

NICE wrote on August 28, 2008 12:55 pm:
" You can't sue for this. It isn't an infringement of anything. The Sheriff is notifying the public, via public media, out right telling people they will be out, and what they will be doing. Oh, and they won't be stopping everyone...how many deputies do you HONESTLY think they employ...sheesh. "

Uh Ted wrote on August 28, 2008 12:58 pm:
" Dear Ted,
I can remember as a kid my parents having to stop at these types of checks and go through routine safety checks so to speak where the patrolman has them turn on each of their blinkers, brake lights, etc. This is not a new concept. Get over yourself. "

George wrote on August 28, 2008 12:59 pm:
" How many people do they expect to stop when they give the exact area and time they will be doing the checkpoint? Doesn't it kind of defeat the purpose of a checkpoint? Won't people who are impaired simply avoid that area? You gotta be a real idiot if you get busted. "

Jr wrote on August 28, 2008 1:03 pm:
" If there really worried about Drunk Drivers why don't they run the busswes later on Game Days and holidays, or even have a cab system that you don't have to wait 2 hours for. Lets get real this is another way to make money for the State & City. "

Tina wrote on August 28, 2008 1:04 pm:
" Has anyone out there ever tried to get a cab in this town? Good Luck! We need many more of them. "

Adam wrote on August 28, 2008 1:06 pm:
" At checkpoints like this they make it known to the public for the people that are sober drivers to find another route for the inconvienence. I believe they do it in a "Systematic" way they dont stop EVERYONE that goes through their checkpoints. I have been through a lot of these and NEVER been stopped, granted every time I have been through one I have been sober. "

Kurt wrote on August 28, 2008 1:27 pm:
" This is a waste of money and time. This protects nobody and prevents nothing! This is just the government taking action to shut up MADD, who with all their nagging have caused money to be wasted that could have gone somewhere worth while. Maybe the less fortunate perhaps. The only way to stop drunk driving is to prevent it from ever starting, Spend the money on public transportation. Cindy Wanek and her daughter would never think of something like that with their selfcentered agends. MADD is a worthless organization. "

Fourth Amendment wrote on August 28, 2008 1:33 pm:
" The U.S. Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice Rehnquist (Reagan appointee) ruled in 1990 that "properly conducted" sobriety checkpoints are constitutional. Although acknowledging that such checkpoints infringed on a constitutional right, Rehnquist argued that the state interest in reducing drunk driving outweighed this minor infringement.

So forget the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution - "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..." The Supreme Court says that doesn't mean what you think it means. "

yo wrote on August 28, 2008 1:39 pm:
" This town needs more cabs...or at least more cabs running at the right time. Cab Companies also need to lower there price...it cost me $28 to get from south 27th to 48th and O the other night after the bar. If you just go out on the weekend like myself and get a cab ride home at that rate it will cost you around $1500 per year...thats lest than a DUI fine! "

ExDrunk wrote on August 28, 2008 2:14 pm:
" Ted, the minute you put your signature on your drivers license you agreed to any and all breathalizer tests law enforcement officers decide to give you when you are behind the wheel. "

Tina wrote on August 28, 2008 2:40 pm:
" I have on several occasions waited for over 2 hours for a cab to show up. People WANT to take a cab --- even if it means coughing up another $25 to $30. Listen cab companies --- we will pay for a ride -- where are you???? There is no option but to wait forever and HOPE a cab comes. People complain about the crowds downtown after the bars close. Maybe they are waiting for a cab. "

Did you know.... wrote on August 28, 2008 3:11 pm:
" that there are two cab companies in town but both owned by the same person? And did you know the city will not allow another company to start up? hmmmmm I wonder why that is? Could it be so the city has control over how many cabs run and in turn having people drive drunk. This city makes lots of money on DUI's. If the city would allow more cabs on the weekends there would be no problem, but of course that is an easy solution and that takes appointed people to actually care. "

implied consent wrote on August 28, 2008 3:52 pm:
" When you get a driver's license for the privilege to drive on the roads of Nebraska you are signing your implied consent to have your breath tested whether you are drunk or not. "

LENIN wrote on August 28, 2008 3:56 pm:
" A few points to make...
DUI's are big revenue generators for the government. If MADD, the government, and society really want to stop the problem, then put the money into treatment and more education. Catch and release doesn't work.
Michigan disagreed with the Supreme Court and made a State Constitutional Amendment preventing the use of sobriety checkpoints. At lease someone has some common sense.
Finally, roving patrols have been proven MORE effective than roadblocks in catching DUI offenders. "

joseph wrote on August 28, 2008 4:12 pm:
" this article makes me want a beer maybe several "

Nina wrote on August 28, 2008 4:42 pm:
" To 'Why' - I wonder the same thing, but I guess it's for the same reason LPS publishes where the stakeouts will be on Lincoln city streets each week. And when I find they are stopping everybody along a highway I travel, I am cooperative and cheerful, and thank them for taking such measures to ensure our family's safety. They wish me a good night and I return the wish. Give thanks for the good stuff, combat the bad stuff, and don't sweat the small stuff, I say! Puts a smile on your face and prevents stress. "

gregk wrote on August 29, 2008 7:30 am:
" it will be a 3 to 4 hour wait for a cab this weekend!! all other weekends it is at least 1 to 2 hours. "

Outside the Box wrote on August 29, 2008 9:47 am:
" There is another article about "Lincoln After Hours" that talks about seeing cabs downtown. While I'm no longer a regular on O Street, in my "glory days" it was RARE to see a cab downtown at last call.

If you go to any other city with a bar district (KC, Austin, heck even Lawrence) they have cabs at last call waiting to keep drunks off the streets.

The cab companies love to tout their safety during the holidays, but the other 50 weeks, you never see them. "

Tacres wrote on August 29, 2008 9:49 am:
" It's always about the overtime and the mini-grant from the Nebraska Office of Highway Safety. Translate this to "More Tax Dollars For Overtime For A Campaign Of Little Real Value". Other public sector workers don't merit overtime for special projects - why do law enforcement officers always need overtime pay, rather than taking a slow morning off so they can work Saturday night? Never mind, I already know the answer. "

Been there wrote on August 29, 2008 11:26 am:
" Wanted to point out to the "drinkers" out there that one beer/glass of wine/mixed drink will put you over the legal limit as an average adult. You don't have to be a "drunk" driver to get a dui. "

no way been there wrote on August 29, 2008 11:44 am:
" 1 drink dosent put you over .08 two to three drinks an hour put you over .08 a persons body can break down booze at 1.5 drinks an hour "

natefrog wrote on August 29, 2008 12:03 pm:
" I never will cooperate with any checkpoint. Do the police have probable cause to detain you? Nope. Where are you traveling? The state of Nebraska doesn't need to know where you're traveling. Have you been drinking? The state of Nebraska does not need to know that, and if they had probable cause to stop someone, they wouldn't need to ask that. "

Sara wrote on August 29, 2008 5:31 pm:
" Publishing this information is required by the federal laws that subsidize this activity and is great for responsible drivers. Tell me, if some one idiotic enough to drive after drinking, do you really think they are savvy enough to plan their route home?

Yes, Lincoln needs more cabs at decent prices. "

dui checkpoints legal but... wrote on August 29, 2008 6:53 pm:
" DUI type checkpoints are currenty 'legal' according to the supreme court. But, they have to be setup in advance by a supervisor, publicized, etc. Plus it has to be determined AHEAD OF TIME that every Nth car will be stopped (where N could be 1 for every car is stopped). But, it can't be changed during the course of the checkpoint.

It's really a violation of the constitution, but since SCOTUS says it's not now, so it's not (currently, and not likely to change anytime soon).

However, in doing a bit of research, it appears that Nebraska's 4th of July checkpoints to stop 'illegal' fireworks from coming in from Missouri (or SD...) are probably illegal since 2000 according to City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000). I wonder if anyone has challenged their stop lately (even with no fireworks you would be able to). "

andy wrote on August 29, 2008 8:27 pm:
" Too bad this waste of police time and tax money will be trumpeted as if something of substance is being done. not only is it a violation of your constitutional rights, and most citations at "check points" can and are overturned on appeal, but it is not even effective. The number of actual, legally drunk drivers caught in these check point type operations is negligible. (National Motorist Assoc.at motorists.org) Any citations given for anyother violation other than the stated purpose of the roadblock is illegal. If you do not insist on your rights, they will be taken from you. "