Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Today’s number: 0

Posted in:

Illinois

Months after revealing the Chicago Police Department set up sobriety checkpoints almost exclusively in African-American and Latino communities, the Tribune has found that the pattern continues.

Between March and August, Chicago police scheduled 14 roadside checks, pulling over drivers randomly to check for drunken driving and other violations. Nine of the checks were in majority black police districts. Four checkpoints occurred in a predominantly Latino districts. There was one in a majority white area. That’s despite the fact that the Tribune has in the past shown some predominantly white districts in Chicago had more alcohol-related crashes than many minority districts. […]

On March 20, police scheduled a checkpoint in the majority black Grand Crossing District even though the area has had the fewest alcohol-related crashes in the city.

Meanwhile, no checkpoints were scheduled in the majority white Jefferson Park District despite ranking third citywide for the number of alcohol-related crashes and fatalities. Police officials have maintained the lack of checkpoints there has nothing to do with the fact that roughly one-fifth of the city’s police officers and their families live there.

posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 9:53 am

Comments

sarcasm– No there’s no racism or bias among police, if THOSE people are getting arrested it’s their own fault.

Comment by Ben Franklin Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 9:57 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.

Comment by The Captain Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 9:59 am
So now we like the Tribune.

Comment by William Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 10:01 am
The last line of the story is just as telling as the first.

Comment by anon 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.

Comment by Fedralist 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.

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 10:02 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.

Comment by A Jack Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 10:07 am
Growing up in Jeff Park this is not surprising.

Comment by Come on Man! Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 10:07 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.

Comment by Just Me Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 10:08 am
It appears the coppers might be stretching the court-validated sobriety checkpoints into fishing expeditions.

Comment by Wordslinger Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 10:11 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

Comment by 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”

Does “all tools available” include racist policies and round-filing people’s rights under the Fourth Amendment?

Comment by Nick Name Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 10:20 am
Nick name
Check points are legal.

Comment by Bigred Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 10:24 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

Comment by Touré's Latte Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 10:25 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.

Comment by OneMan Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 10:28 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.

Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 10:40 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.

Comment by Adam Smith Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 10:49 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.

Comment by phocion Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 10:55 am
Chad and Trixie always uber and taxi their way home from John Barleycorn’s. No need for checkpoints in their neighborhoods.

Comment by nixit71 Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 10:58 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.

Comment by A Jack Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 10:59 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”.

Comment by DuPage Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 11:30 am
Ferguson.

Comment by Tobor Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 11:32 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.

Comment by Shanks Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 11:41 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?

Comment by nona Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 11:49 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.

Comment by Just Observing Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 11:53 am
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

Comment by Ghost Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 12:09 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.

Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 12:29 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.

Comment by Ed Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 12:42 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

Comment by JP16 Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 1:00 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

Comment by JP16 Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 1:01 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.

Comment by Chicago Bars Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 1:23 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

Comment by Team Sleep Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 1:35 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?

Comment by Name/Nickname/Anon Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 2:09 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

Comment by Name/Nickname/Anon Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 2:34 pm
Ferguson.

Thanks for the trenchant commentary.

Comment by Lobo Y Olla Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 2:41 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.

Comment by Formerly Known As... Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 3:37 pm
So, how are we gonna blame this one on Bruce Rauner?

Comment by As We Go Silly Thursday, Sep 10, 15 @ 4:09 pm

Add a comment

Sorry, comments are closed at this time.

Previous Post: Today’s moment of irony
Next Post: In real danger of collapse

Last 10 posts:

Reader comments closed for the weekend (11-22)
Isabel’s afternoon roundup (11-22)
The Waukegan City Clerk was railroaded (11-22)
Whatever happened, the city has a $40 million budget hole it didn't disclose until now (11-22)
Manar gives state agencies budget guidance: Cut, cut, cut (11-22)
Roundup: Ex-Chicago Ald. Danny Solis testifies in Madigan corruption trial (11-22)
Open thread (11-22)
Isabel’s morning briefing (11-22)
SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today's edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password) (11-22)
Live coverage (11-22)