“The June checkpoint lasted for 2 1/2 hours with 406 vehicles passing through. Two of four people stopped for further testing were arrested on a charge of driving under the influence or driving while intoxicated.” (November 8, 2009).

That’s 406 drivers – plus their passengers – detained with no probable cause. “Detained” is really a euphemism for ‘arrested’ since the trapped drivers were not free to leave until a trooper decided they had not been drinking and all their papers were in order. Of the 406 drivers, 2 were charged with DUI or DWI, which is a mere 0.5 percent of the drivers stopped.

Equally important is the fact that 50 percent of the drivers subjected to more intensive testing were released after being forced to prove their innocence, which means the police guessed wrong in judging sobriety in half the cases and could be wrong in the other half.

It is not uncommon for police to exaggerate when filling out DUI reports or simply rubberstamp the forms, e.g., “glassy eyes” – check; “wide right turn” – check.

“Chicago police officer Richard Fiorito is now facing 37 lawsuits alleging he intentionally targeted gay and lesbian drivers to issue false DUI arrests.
The lawsuits claim Fiorito was looking to capitalize on overtime pay issued to police officers when they appear in court to testify in a DUI case. Fiorito made 313 DUI arrests between January of 2007 and June of 2008; the officer was even honored by MADD for his efforts. Most of these arrests were against gay and lesbian suspects. He supposedly targeted these individuals when they left gay and lesbian bars or frequented gay and lesbian areas.
New dash cam evidence is pointing to the fact these arrest reports may have been exaggerated if not totally falsified.”
http://www.duiattorney.com/news/6136-more-lawsuits-against-chicago-dui-cop-richard-fiorito

When conducting sobriety roadblocks, police are supposed to systematically check cars, e.g., every third vehicle or every fourth. But that doesn’t mean they don’t ignore the rule or that drivers won’t be subjected to harassment for “driving while black” or being a “long-haired hippie” or a “goth punk.” A driver could be subjected to excessive scrutiny based on profiling, e.g., a 24 year-old male in a pickup truck.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling that allowed roadblocks (Michigan v Sitz) was based on drastically inflated statistics. Chief Justice Rehnquist (and the justices who sided with him in the 6-3 ruling) weighed the greatly exaggerated numbers against what Rehnquist called the “slight intrusion” of being stopped. That’s tricky, twisted logic because he transformed the Bill of Rights (specifically the 4th Amendment) to a slight, insignificant inconvenience – then put his weightless creation on the balance scales against magnified figures taken out of context.

Drivers and passengers funneled like sheep through roadblocks are more than inconvenienced – they are being robbed of their rights.

Stephen Beck