37 Comments - Ben Franklin - Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 9:57 am: sarcasm– No there’s no racism or bias among police, if THOSE people are getting arrested it’s their own fault. - The Captain - Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 9:59 am: Related, here’s the lede from a great article on the history of rooting out corruption in the Chicago courts that went online yesterday, very relevant: FBI Special Agent Ken Misner was doing his best to get arrested for drunk driving. Yet each time the police pulled him over, he escaped with a warning – no matter how erratically he had driven, and no matter how well he had faked his drunkenness. It was 1980, and the Chicago police simply didn’t arrest middle-aged white guys for traffic offenses. When his act failed yet again, he finally decided it was time to resort to desperate measures. He jumped from his car, leaped onto the hood of the police cruiser, and started screaming obscenities. The officer promptly yanked him down and began writing a summons. At last, thought Misner, mission accomplished. But as he read what the cop had written, he saw that he had caught another “break.” The charge was disorderly conduct, a minor offense that wouldn’t get him anywhere near traffic court. - William - Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 10:01 am: So now we like the Tribune. - anon - Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 10:02 am: The last line of the story is just as telling as the first. - Fedralist - Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 10:02 am: I will wait for the CPD explanation. Maybe they have a good one, but count me as an initial skeptic. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 10:02 am: ===So now we like the Tribune.=== LOL For the record, I have loads of respect for many Tribune reporters. Not so much their editorial board. Try to learn the difference, doode. - A Jack - Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 10:07 am: Duh, you know those “sobriety” checkpoints are just an excuse to do vehicle searches. I have never quite understood how those are legal under the U.S. Constitution. - Come on Man! - Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 10:07 am: Growing up in Jeff Park this is not surprising. - Just Me - Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 10:08 am: I would be curious to see if the “sobriety” check point locations have a stronger correlation to gun violence. I’m wondering if the CPD is using this as an excuse to really look for vehicles that have weapons. - Wordslinger - Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 10:11 am: It appears the coppers might be stretching the court-validated sobriety checkpoints into fishing expeditions. - Bigred - Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 10:16 am: Do we like guns on the street? If the answer is no then we need to use all tools available that are legal under 4th amendment - Nick Name - Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 10:20 am: “Do we like guns on the street? If the answer is no then we need to use all tools available that are legal under 4th amendment” Does “all tools available” include racist policies and round-filing people’s rights under the Fourth Amendment? - Bigred - Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 10:24 am: Nick name Check points are legal. - Touré's Latte - Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 10:25 am: snark Drunks take up a lot of time. Putting up roadchecks where there are not many drunks just makes sense from a least-resulting-hassle-and-paperwork POV. /snark - OneMan - Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 10:28 am: Bigred Then lets not call them sobriety checkpoints if the search for a different reason then. How about, you live or have driven into an ‘unsafe’ neighborhood checkpoints. - 47th Ward - Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 10:40 am: I don’t want to log-in to the Tribune to actually read the full story, but I’ve seen these checkpoints in my neighborhood on several occasions, seems like once a year or so. The last time I saw it the police used the parking lot at Lane Tech to pull over every driver going south on Western Avenue. It was a Friday and I happened to be driving north (and sober). To be clear, this is in the 47th Ward, a majority white area. Also, they’ll write tickets for everything they find, from broken headlights to cracked windshields to improperly secured baby seats. It’s a dragnet. - Adam Smith - Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 10:49 am: This is a tough one. On its face, the CPD is clearly showing bias in enforcement of traffic laws. It is clear that drunk driving is an issue among every demographic group and must be evenly enforced. But the point has been made that these check points are a great tool for scooping up violent offenders with outstanding warrants, finding drugs and firearms, and keeping a handle on gang activity. (Cops can record who is hanging out with whom, etc.) The Tribune (and many progressives) love to claim that police efforts to curb violence in minority communities is lacking, but they also push back when the cops try other tactics. No matter what CPD does to target violent crime, it will disproportionately impact minority communities, because that is where the overwhelming majority of violent crimes occur. That is just a fact. And folks need to get over the antiquated stereotype of CPD being a bunch of bigoted white guys. Look at the senior leadership today. The number two is African American, as is the head of administration. The head of detective and internal affairs are Hispanic. - phocion - Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 10:55 am: And this is why we need a robust free press. I suspect Jeff Park is going to start seeing some checkpoints in the near future. Good story. - nixit71 - Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 10:58 am: Chad and Trixie always uber and taxi their way home from John Barleycorn’s. No need for checkpoints in their neighborhoods. - A Jack - Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 10:59 am: Perhaps studies such as this will give the ACLU the ammo it needs to revisit that 1990 Supreme Court opinion. I side with the dissenters that any intrusion against someone who is not suspected of anything is unreasonable. Oddly they cite the practice of stopping vans at the border to search for illegal aliens as a basis for their decision. - DuPage - Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 11:30 am: Many years ago, police in one far western suburb set up a DUI checkpoint over a holiday weekend. They would stop every 4th car, and closed up shop after they had stopped 500 cars. They were financed entirely by some federal DOT grant. They caught 3 DUIs, but over 75 “other violations”. - Tobor - Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 11:32 am: Ferguson. - Shanks - Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 11:41 am: Sobriety checks (Even though I disagree with them legally) should be done at a location solely on the statistics of alcohol related accidents/incidents….which apparently they have not done. - nona - Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 11:49 am: Running sobriety checkpoints in neighborhoods with low histories of DUI crashes is like putting up red-light cameras at intersections with low accident rates. It becomes more objectionable when doing no checkpoints in neighborhoods with high rates of DUI crashes. Is it possible to agree that DUI enforcement activity should prioritize areas where the problem is the greatest rather than areas where it is the lowest? - Just Observing - Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 11:53 am: === Check points are legal. === Under relatively tight protocol. If the motivation is to find guns, drugs, etc., the CPD are skirting the spirit (and possibly the letter) of SCOTUS’ parameters re: DUI checkpoints. - Ghost - Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 12:09 pm: These arent really about dui. The court has said checkpoint, generically to check for criminals are illegal, but focused checkpoints for dui are legal. They want to find drugs to confiscate money and cars - 47th Ward - Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 12:29 pm: I’m pretty sure CPD calls these “safety checkpoints,” not sobriety checkpoints as the Tribune refers to them. Is it a distinction without a difference? Maybe. But they do check for things like seat belt usage and vehicle insurance, etc. It’s not just about DUIs. There are all kinds of fines and fees to be levied to keep us all safe. - Ed - Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 12:42 pm: Check points are funded by the USDOT—-overtime costs,”administrative costs etc.It’s a money maker for a police department and there may be little regard for where,but just for numbers. - JP16 - Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 1:00 pm: They were in Jeff Park last month and I thought there was another one in July … http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20150807/jefferson-park/police-crack-down-on-drunken-drivers-on-far-northwest-side-saturday - JP16 - Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 1:01 pm: Crackdown in July in Jeff Park … http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20150702/jefferson-park/2-people-arrested-112-ticketed-jeff-park-drunken-driving-crackdown - Chicago Bars - Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 1:23 pm: This story and headline (probably) could have just as easily been: “Chicago Police Department places DUI checkpoints where the shootings are, not the drunk drivers”. They’re almost certainly putting these checkpoints in districts with disproportionate amounts of shootings where they want to surge more cops into without spending local dollars. In my limited lunch hour couldn’t pull up enough data, but if you eyeball statistics on which districts have the most shootings in Chicago and which have the most DUI checkpoints, there seems to be a heck of a correlation. But CPD probably can’t say that’s what they’re doing without endangering federal grant dollar for the program. Many, many hospitality districts in Chicago want these patrols. A DUI checkpoint is a show of law enforcement that makes for a very safe weekend night for their customers smart enough not to drive. - Team Sleep - Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 1:35 pm: I’ve wondered about the legality of the check points, but Michigan State Police v. Sitz saw the U.S. Supreme Court rule 6-3 that they are. I’m actually surprised there hasn’t been a legit challenge since. http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/15/us/excerpts-from-supreme-court-s-decision-upholding-sobriety-checkpoints.html However, this earlier report in the Trib’s web of papers is something that Governor Rauner should perhaps consider pushing as a reform or working with, say, Senator Raoul on potential legislation: http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/lake-county-news-sun/opinion/ct-lns-rutter-dui-checkpoints-st-0515-20150514-story.html - Name/Nickname/Anon - Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 2:09 pm: I agree that they should be placed where the greatest incidence of DUI accidents/fatalities occur but I am confused where the number of the day:0 comes from? - Name/Nickname/Anon - Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 2:34 pm: Find a new user name, and for the number of the day: ==no checkpoints were scheduled in the majority white Jefferson Park District == zero - Lobo Y Olla - Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 2:41 pm: Ferguson. Thanks for the trenchant commentary. - Formerly Known As... - Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 3:37 pm: @JP16 - There were also Jefferson Park checkpoints in January and March. That is at least three in Jefferson Park between March and August when the story says zero. - As We Go Silly - Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 4:09 pm: So, how are we gonna blame this one on Bruce Rauner? Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.