Statewide crackdown on drinking and driving to be announced today

I would like to say that enforcement efforts can appear to infringe on rights. However, these efforts are tageting an offense that endangeres the public. There are no check points for seatbelts or loud radios, or window tinting, because although they are offenses, they do not typically endanger others. The responsibility of the government is to provide for public safety and well being, while minimally affecting freedom and liberty. I am all for the checkpoints if they get some drunks off the road.

The article also doesn't say where the money is coming from. My understanding is the money is taken in from the alcohol companies to use for purposes like this.

Two comments: 1) Just in time for Labor Day!
2) And won't we be glad for drinkers when the Tide is fully operational from the Oceanfront to Downtown Norfolk, then the bases and other city centers start tying in? I guess, if we throw in the Portsmouth ferry, we will be able to get someone back to Olde Towne Portsmouth from the Oceanfront after a night of drinking, just with the original Tide set-up! Cheers, MGM

Read the article: the one million dollars is being spent on advertising/PR, not checkpoints. Checkpoints are only one part of the effort. Checkpoints don't take officers away from regular patrols: added officers are used. Talk to police officers: I have talked to local and state officers here in Virginia. All the ones I've talked to have said they ARE effective, but that they are just ONE part of the DUI/DWI program. They are set up randomly and only stop every third or fourth vehicle unless the people in a car start acting suspiciously. People don't HAVE to use that particular street or highway, but if they do, they could be stopped. In your opinion, they aren't worth it. In my opinion, knowing that they are just part of the program and that they don't take officers off regular patrols and that officers ARE for the use of them, and that they DO catch drunk drivers, they ARE worth it.

I agree, nothing is going to happen until the judges get tougher with these criminals instead of just slapping them on the wrist.

I am 100% in favor full enforcement of the drunk driving laws - but instead of police "catching" drunk drivers, why not post police officers at parking lots near places where drunk drivers are known to get into their cars (like the Oceanfront strip)?
Wouldn't it be better for everyone involved if an officer intervenes BEFORE the drunk driver gets in his or her car and starts driving? In that case, the driver is stoppd before he becomes a menace to other drivers, his driving record isn't damaged, and the police don't end-up writing reports of DUI accidents or worse.
This past weekend there was an article in the Beacon about Virginia Beach police officers who won awards for the number of their DUI arrests. While I commend these noble officers, it would have been far safer for the rest of us if those drunk drivers were stopped before they got behind the wheel.

Wow Midas! Let's go even further. How about mandatory GPS on your vehicle where government can track your every move? How about the rice chip under your skin or a dog collar with an RFI chip in it? That way everyone will be under scrutiny. Except judges, prosecutors and law enforcement. After all, they never get drunk. Gee wizz! Funny how the actions of a few punish the whole state.

Not worth the risk of any of it. DUI, accident, whatever.

The sad truth is that the problem in attacking DUI is not the toughness of the existing law or the level of police enforcement. We can't even really blame the criminal defense lawyers. Like it or not, they're only doing what they are paid to do. The problem is that, by and large (not every single one - but way too many) the judges appointed by our elected officials are weak people who favor the defense lawyers (their friends who they frequently socialize with) and simply don't do their jobs. They sit on their ivory tower and don't relate to the lives shattered by drunken drivers. I assure you that if any of them had a family member who suffered in some way due to DUI (And I'm not talking about the ones whose children get DUI's and they have to get their tickets fixed) they'd be clammering for some judge to be tough. And for their pal, a judge would probably be tough. They're simply out of touch with the view

"I'm no expert on constitutional law, but the day we prevent anyone from even QUESTIONING is the end of the American dream."

I never new the American dream included drunk driving with the posiblility of killing another driver.

"Then get the best lawyer you can afford. There's a good chance to get bumped to a moving violation"

Who would have ever thought someone would try and tell you how to get out of a DUI? The laws are not strict enough, and then the Judges need to enfore the ones we have. If you are going to drink and drive YOU WILL get caught. Sooner or later you will, and let's all hope it's before you KILL SOMEONE. As far as checkpoints, they should be around town constantly instead of occasionally.

When are the geniuses in the State law making section going to do something intelligent for once like completely banning cell phone use while driving. A study was done in Europe a few years back and the results were similar to driving with a .08% BAC. I'm more concerned with some using a cell than someone who had a few beers.

should be required to add new safety features preventing drunk driving. They were forced to add seatbelts to ensure people’s safety; they should be forced to add breathalyzers. I’m sure everyone has heard that people with multiple DUI/DWI offenses are often required to have these machines placed in their vehicles. I will acknowledge that someone will argue that the current breathalyzers can be bypassed by having someone else blow into the machine. My response is that a new version of breathalyzer should be created. If they have in expensive handheld devices to test the blood sugar levels of diabetics, they can create another version that tests blood alcohol levels of drivers. This type of device will also be able to provide a DNA record of who was tested to start the vehicle. Believing that a million dollar advertising campaign will change the world is ludicrous. The state should not go forth with this campaign, the state should be intelligent enough to realize there is a better way to combat drunk driving… death by firing squad, just kidding!

On both the state and federal levels court after court in every region of the country have upheld the constitutionality of checkpoints for the most part. One person in Virginia knows better though; of course, the next argument will be they are "activist" judges dictating law from the bench. However, it is a knee-jerk response that gets great press but does little to stop drunk driving. As one mentioned previously, how about some real teeth in the drunk driving laws and the uniform application of them? Maybe some REAL parental oversight of our teenagers might help. Sadly, that's not likely to happen. I wish high schools were allowed to take every student in driver ed class to a morgue to view the mangled and torn bodies of men, women, and children killed by drunk drivers...perhaps it would make a lasting impression.

" The only reason someone that thinks it's unconstitutional is someone that engages in [blank]. "

That's exactly the kind of statement that the Facist and Nazi regimes used to erode the rights of their citizens on their way to totalitarian power. That's why it was scary to hear this statement used to defend domestic wiretapping.

I'm no expert on constitutional law, but the day we prevent anyone from even QUESTIONING is the end of the American dream.

Read the 4th amendment and compare it to the actions. An appeal to authority argument is a logical fallacy. Just because some court says it is doesn't make it true.

Although the State can do them, you don't completely have to play ball if you've had one too many. My advice is if pulled over DO NOT DO ANY ROADSIDE SOBRIETY TESTING. They cops can't make you because it violates the 5th amendment for self-incrimination. They will take you to the pokey, but that's not a big deal, as by not falling over in front of a camera or gibbering like a schoolchild, you've gone a long way to putting the burden of proof on them (as it should be). Then get the best lawyer you can afford. There's a good chance to get bumped to a moving violation.

"If they stop ONE DUI accident that injures or kills someone with the campaign, it's worth it."

No, it is not worth it. This age-old rallying cry is flawed logic. Police checkpoints constitute lazy, passive enforcement. The $1mil would be better spent on active enforcement, including overtime, through patrols and investigations.

Sorry, but checkpoints have been tested in court against the constitution and found to be a legal way of enforcing the laws. There is no unlawful seizure involved as long as the guidelines are followed. Driving on the road is a privilege, not a right. Since it is a privilege and not a right, you don't have a right to drive. You are not subject to unlawful search since the officer walks to your window to speak to you. When he does, he may be able to build reasonable suspicion to investigate further for any criminal violations. If you smell like an alcoholic beverage, I'm sure you're going to get a more thorough investigation out of it.

It's pretty dang simple. Don't drink and drive and the problem is solved.

And then you will see it is unconstitutional. Police can not just search your vehicle without reason. This is a BIG waste of money. Adults (anyone over 21) know it is wrong to get wasted and drive, advertisement is not going to change their minds. Anyone under 21 shouldn’t be drinking in the first place and they are they won’t stop b/c of advertisement.

I support almost anything to toughen drunk driving laws.

I think this is a good thing. The only problem I have is that a lot of judges are so slack! one of my best friends was killed by a drunk driver a year ago. He was just one year shy of college graduation. A promising young life, lost for no reason! And what did the judge do? The judge referred to the driver as "a good boy" who had "learned his lesson" and gave him one year in prison with work release. The kid was 24, single, lived at home with his parents, and worked at circuit city. does he really need work release? and one year? for killing someone? I don't think he should rot in a jail cell for the rest of his life and i dont think he meant to kill. But the bottom line is that he did it and we need consequences!

drunk driving will continue to be a huge problem until there are consistent, harsh sentences.

I think "mostlyconfused" is one of the people that needs to be caught. The only reason someone that thinks it's unconstitutional is someone drinking and driving. I for one would have no problem with it.

The courts here sometimes require "Car Interlock Breathalyzer" be put on all the vehicles the DUI offender uses, including motorcycles. DMV seems to require it more often than the courts. In my opinion, the court should require it for the first offense and a mandatory three days in jail. If nothing else DMV should require the placement of the Car Interlock Breathalyzer for the very first offense. Shame for bad behavior never killed anyone, and DUI does.

I agree with most of you, this is little more than grandstanding. I don't see where we've had a commitment from the state's judges to impose tougher sentences, and keeping these lamebrains off the road is the only way we're going to accomplish anything. I was a jury foreman on a trial a few years ago where the perp had a vehicular homicide, 5 DUIs, and a habitual offender violation on his record. He shouldn't have even been able to ride a bike, but that's our system!

People seem to be under the misconception that stuff like this actually changing something. It doesn't. This purely political garbage so some one can say they're "getting tough on [fill in the blank]". It's just a massive waste of our tax money along with clearly unconstitutional. Maybe we should start randomly search homes to get tough on other crimes.

No one thinks anything like DUI/DWI or killing/maiming someone while driving "could possibly happen to them" until it does. Spend all you want, I don't see much changing anytime soon; unfortunately. I'm in a similar situation that you are, Anne. It sickens me though that there are plenty of folks still out there who have yet to be caught!

While they're doing the alcohol enforcement, I hope that they take the opportunity to check on some other law violations, i.e. seat belts, unauthorized cell phone usage (correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't kids under a specific age not allowed to use phones while driving), and window tinting that's too dark.

Anyone getting a driver's license should be mandated to visit the courtrooms that have DUI's on the docket. Listen to the Commonwealth Attorney, the Judge and the "I'm sorry now", standing there with their families waiting for the sentence. Go to see family members that have lost loved ones or friends due to being so irresponsible. I would join MADD but I have not lost a loved one to drinking. Not sure if you have to have lost somebody to join.

It's about time they did something more to crackdown on drunken drivers. I hope their efforts get a bunch of them off the highways and that it sends the message for others to not drink and drive.

BTW: THAT'S what they are doing spending all that money on advertising: trying to get that message across - and yes, they are legally in the right to do it. If they stop ONE DUI accident that injures or kills someone with the campaign, it's worth it.

So bring on the checkpoints and greater enforcement: it's what Virginia needs to stop drunk drivers.

Spend as much as you need to in order to hopefully get it across to people to not drink and drive. Need billboards, tv commercials, of those that have hurt, killed, and messed up their jobs, their families, etc. for being so irresponsible to drink and drive. I grew up with an alcoholic father. Of course, it didn't start out that way. To see your father arrested in front of you, to have a bondsman come to your mother at night, all this stuff that should have happened. THEN for my own son to be taught not to do this, goes out and gets a DUI. Wrecks his new truck, loses licenses, not to mention the court costs, ASAP classes, can't drive but to work, or to substance abuse class. Also, it stays on your DMV record for 11, yes ELEVEN years. I'm all for putting this out to the public and have some wrecked vehicles along the road to show people, "this could be you" or "your loved ones killed by a drunk driver".