ISP conducts sobriety checkpoints in the area; numerous citations issued and arrests made

Saturday, March 14, 2009
Photo courtesy of the Indiana State Police Trooper Mike Adams administering Field Sobriety Tests to a DWI suspect.

The Bloomington Post of the Indiana State Police conducted a driving while intoxicated (DWI) saturation patrol district-wide on Friday night and cited numerous motorists for traffic and alcohol violations.

The Bloomington District covers Greene, Monroe, Lawrence, Owen, and Brown counties and the saturation patrol itself lasted eight hours, according to ISP Public Information Officer Sgt. Curt Durnil.

During that time period, Bloomington District troopers wrote 67 traffic violations, 200 written warnings were issued and nine criminal arrests were made - eight felonies and one misdemeanor.

Photo courtesy of the Indiana State Police Trooper Mike Adams escorting a DWI suspect into a local hospital.

Eleven motorists were arrested for DWI (10 misdemeanors and 1 felony) along with eight citations being written for seat belt violations. Two motorists were cited for driving while suspended.

"The Indiana State Police encourages all motorists to call 911 or the closest Indiana State Police Post when they observe another motorist that may be impaired. Be prepared to give a description of the vehicle, location and its direction of travel," Durnil said in a prepared news release. "The Indiana State Police are committed to traffic safety and will continue to conduct saturation patrols and sobriety checkpoints to apprehend impaired drivers and to deter others from drinking and driving."

Comments
View 35 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • WTG ISP

    -- Posted by Dtown on Sat, Mar 14, 2009, at 6:18 PM
  • Well said...

    Thanks ISP for helping to protect us

    from impaired drivers.

    -- Posted by Mr. F on Sat, Mar 14, 2009, at 8:38 PM
  • No one wants drunk drivers among us. But, should we need to prove ourselves innocent? Adjust to checkpoints and "show us your papers"! Be careful what you wish for.

    -- Posted by Ex-Pat on Sun, Mar 15, 2009, at 6:30 AM
  • I thought the state had a budget crunch. How can we afford these types activities when people are out of work and children do not have health care?

    We add loads of customers to a legal system we can not properly fund in the first place. Dont these people have murders and robberies that they could be working on instead of harassing law abiding taxpayers? I thought the supreme court ruled that these things were unconstitutional.

    -- Posted by ole'pete on Sun, Mar 15, 2009, at 7:56 AM
  • These checkpoints are so wrong. Innocent people should not be checked for no reason. If people continue to think this type of law enforcement is ok, the next step is random home searches.

    Question: Who wants the police search their homes at 3am for no reason?

    Answer: the same people that think these police check points are a good thing.

    -- Posted by Free4now on Sun, Mar 15, 2009, at 10:12 AM
  • I dont think there is anything wrong with the checkpoints..if it helps get drunk drivers of the street then go for it..those of you complaining about it ..if you had a loved one killed by a drunk driver you would be back on here commenting and wanting to know what law enforcement is doing to prevent this..as far as random home searches i think that would probabaly be a little much if it were at 3am but i trust they wouldnt do that outside of daylight hours so if that is something they wish to start doing then go for it it would help get rid of some drugs i am sure...and those of you who are severely opposed to the se things should think about why it bothers yu so much do you have something to hide?

    -- Posted by sissy on Sun, Mar 15, 2009, at 11:09 AM
  • Well Sissy I hope they come to your house first. Sad very sad.

    -- Posted by Vote4NewCouncil on Sun, Mar 15, 2009, at 12:06 PM
  • If you have nothing to hide, whats the problem? If your a law abiding citizen you have nothing to worry about when your pulled over. They can pull me over anytime or even come in my house, unless clutter is felony I have nothing to hide. Sounds like paranoia or a guilt complex.

    -- Posted by Dtown on Sun, Mar 15, 2009, at 1:09 PM
  •  

    To me this is still a direct violation of the 4th ammendment of the U.S. Constitution because of the lack of probable cause. However once again the U.S. Supreme Court has managed to tailor the constitution to suit their agenda justifying such wrongfulness.

     

    -- Posted by dorindaJ on Sun, Mar 15, 2009, at 1:59 PM
  • I have had two "loved ones" killed by drunk drivers and I am still not willing to give away my Constitutional Rights to the Authorities. Without these rights, we have nothing. Before being so willing, please give a little more thought to the repercussions.

    -- Posted by Ex-Pat on Sun, Mar 15, 2009, at 3:38 PM
  • I tried to refrain myself from commenting, but I can't seem to restrain myself.....in my own hick- like manner of course...........

    If you're not swerving all over the road, crossing center lines...then why? I, meaning ME have had an uncle killed by a drunk driver. My grandmother never "GOT OVER IT" til the day she died, BUT she believed that no one in this "free" country, should have to endure the things that ALL of us do when it comes to driving our happy @$$es down the road. If we're not doing anything wrong (I.E.-swerving all over the road, crossing center lines).....couldn't that be, um...maybe someone's car is outta line???? Hi dorindaJ :)

    -- Posted by blin08 on Sun, Mar 15, 2009, at 4:03 PM
  • Well,I just happen to kinow a man who was in a car accident this past week. they immediately had him blow and it was .00 he had not been drinking and he told them that well they were not satisfied with the answer so they had him do the sobriety test where he had to stand on his left foot and hold his right foot up at a 90 degree angle and hold it there, he could not do that especially after the trauma of the wreck so took him to bloomington hosp for blood test and slapped him in monroe co jail with charges of ovwi. he posted bond the same day then prior to his court appearance they dismissed all charges *they got the blood tests back and guess what, he was not on drugs, or alcohol. so they had impounded his car in the mean time now he has to pay to get the car out of impound and for what? because overzellous officer let the badge go to his head like so many! so no I do not agree with the sobriety check points they need to watch for a swerving driver or another clue rather than accuse and possibly incarcerate someone for something they did not do. because they can't stand still on their left foot and hold their right foot up at a 90 degree angle I can't do that and haven't had a drink in I couldn't tell you when! and I ain't on drugs! (*false imprisonment_) so here ya go what that has all done is tied up the future courts cause you bettcha he's sueing!

    -- Posted by elynn66 on Sun, Mar 15, 2009, at 6:14 PM
  • This process of finding DWI is absolutely needed. I think of the days long ago I drove when I should have never been on the road and thankful nothing happen. Scares me that people like I was is out there now.

    -- Posted by gary g on Sun, Mar 15, 2009, at 6:55 PM
  •  

    I believe that people who are willing to trade their freedom and constitutional rights away in exchange for temporary security deserve neither and will eventually lose both.

     

    blino! ;)

    -- Posted by dorindaJ on Sun, Mar 15, 2009, at 8:58 PM
  • It appears to me that no one including the Greene County daily world has correctly read Sgt Durnil's news release... I do believe it read the ISP conducted a saturation patrol not a DUI check point as the paper has it listed... As I read this article it looks to me that the officers in 5 differenct counties were patroling stopping cars and arresting drunk drivers not at a check point pulling over anybody and everybody they wanted to with out probable cause... People are so fast to judge with out actually reading and comprehending what they have read... I for one am glad there are police officers out there getting these drunks off the streets... I for one do not give a hoot if there are some innocent people out there that may have been bothered for a few minutes if even one life were saved... What if it were your life??? Good Job ISP!!! Keep up the good work...

    -- Posted by concerned greeneco citizen on Sun, Mar 15, 2009, at 9:11 PM
  • It is better to keep your mouth shut and let people believe you are a fool than to open your mouth and prove it. 90 degree foot holding has me rolling on the floor - you are a moron.

    -- Posted by makeithappen on Sun, Mar 15, 2009, at 9:14 PM
  • i must clarify my last post ...when i said it wouldnt bother me if they came in and searched my house or my car I was not meaning they just came in because i would assume they were looking for something and had probable cause...i do not want to give up my constitional rights however i say if they are setting up checkpoints then good i think they should set up more of them...these people that drink and drive have no respect for themselves or others or they wouldnt be out there driving drunk...WTG ISP keep up the good work..

    -- Posted by sissy on Sun, Mar 15, 2009, at 9:28 PM
  • Any poster who is concerned with a Nazi checkpoint should stick it to the government. Walk down to the BMV as soon as possible and forfeit your privilege to drive. You will not use a vehicle and will not purchase gas which is taxed to pay for roads. The government, federal and state, will lose revenue. You win!! You will not be subject to sobriety checkpoints, speed limits, or most any traffic law that regulates the operation of an auto carriage.

    -- Posted by makeithappen on Sun, Mar 15, 2009, at 9:30 PM
  • Thats right.

    -- Posted by Dtown on Sun, Mar 15, 2009, at 10:32 PM
  • I would also like to give props to the men and women of the entire criminal justice system. All of whom do a great job in trying situations.

    Satuartion patrols are different than check points. I would even say they are more effective in deterterring illegal and irresponsible behavior.

    We do want people to be out and about. They go shopping and eat out at our restaurants creating economic activity.

    We can have safety and be welcoming of traffic within the community at the same time.

    I am definitely pro golf cart too...those things are great to get about on during the summer days.

    -- Posted by ole'pete on Sun, Mar 15, 2009, at 10:38 PM
  • I would support some check points ie: looking for a missing person or like when looking for that guy who escaped from carlisle last week or maybe a terrorist or something.

    random ones just dont seem American.

    Foreign countries have all kinds of check points. Ask an Iraq or Afghanistan war vet..we are so lucky and unique to have the freedom of movement that we enjoy here.

    -- Posted by ole'pete on Sun, Mar 15, 2009, at 10:59 PM
  •  

    Posted by makeithappen:

    "Any poster who is concerned with a Nazi checkpoint should stick it to the government. Walk down to the BMV as soon as possible and forfeit your privilege to drive. You will not use a vehicle and will not purchase gas which is taxed to pay for roads. The government, federal and state, will lose revenue. You win!! You will not be subject to sobriety checkpoints, speed limits, or most any traffic law that regulates the operation of an auto carriage."

    ∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

    In one post you state "It is better to keep your mouth shut and let people believe you are a fool than to open your mouth and prove it" and then you follow up with the above post inwhich you contradict your very own statement.

    Although I do not consider random pullovers Nazi I do consider them to be unconstitutional. However I choose to keep on driving ~and~ continue to disagree with the constitutionality of such random, without probable cause, police pullovers. ☺

     

    -- Posted by dorindaJ on Mon, Mar 16, 2009, at 4:09 AM
  • All of you that are against this type of action, need to read your driver's manual. Driving is a privledge, not a right. When you accept your driver's license you are agreeing to submit to a chemical test whenever asked to. If you don't, then you lose your license automatically for (1) year.

    -- Posted by avenger on Mon, Mar 16, 2009, at 4:52 AM
  • just another way to make the state more money!!! saturation patrol. there is no patroling involved they just sit there and make everybody feel guilty and waste everyones time!

    -- Posted by notdumb on Mon, Mar 16, 2009, at 5:16 AM
  • The reason driving is declared a privilege and not a right is that they cannot tax a right.

    -- Posted by Ex-Pat on Mon, Mar 16, 2009, at 6:35 AM
  • I'm kinda divided here. So many lives have been lost tragically due to drunk driving; it needs to be stopped NOW. But I can't agree with the philosophy of "guilty til proven innocent" either. There are so many things that are unconstitutional that we accept today, I wonder where it will stop. For instance, it is unconstitutional to pay income tax. Our forefathers fought taxation. But we all pay our taxes. If we don't, we go to jail. But read the constitution, do some research. There are even some former IRS employees who've stopped paying their taxes since the 90's because they realized it was illegal.

    So, now checkpoints. At first, checkpoints are used to discover and arrest drunk drivers. But what if later down the road the checkpoints were used to discover someone's nationality, or religion? We already have the precedent set, and an accepting pattern of behavior. How can we argue against it then, will we argue against it if it's already ingrained to obey it?

    Hitler did use check points, demand papers, etc. We are hardly in a nazi state, yet look how quickly Hitler took control of one country, then many more. Do we want to put ourselves there?

    But then I'm back to the original quandry: How do we protect ourselves against drunk drivers?

    Maybe there are some ideas floating out there that just need encouragement to talk with lawmakers. Cars with breathalyzers, cops painting the bumpers of vehicles parked by bars at night so they only pick off certain vehicles of individuals that put themselves in a position to be marked in the first place; I don't have the answers, but I do think this needs some serious thought.

    Sorry for rambling. But it's a big question.

    Queenie

    -- Posted by Queenie_2008 on Mon, Mar 16, 2009, at 9:57 AM
  •  

    Avenger wrote:

    "All of you that are against this type of action, need to read your driver's manual. Driving is a privledge, not a right. When you accept your driver's license you are agreeing to submit to a chemical test whenever asked to. If you don't, then you lose your license automatically for (1) year."

    Submitting to chemical tests whenever ask to and being detained without probable cause are two entirely different matters. To be in compliance with the 4th ammendment probable cause must be established by conditions met BEFORE the polices stop.

     

    -- Posted by dorindaJ on Mon, Mar 16, 2009, at 1:16 PM
  • I have an inkling you're right Dairyman! ;)

    -- Posted by dorindaJ on Tue, Mar 17, 2009, at 12:16 AM
  • ...how about random stops and checking people to make sure they have auto insurance! I believe that is a law that never seems to be enforced and costs the insurance carrying citizens a wad of $$$ every year! I'm all for insurance checkpoints as well!!

    -- Posted by my two cents on Tue, Mar 17, 2009, at 8:01 PM
  • Sissy you wrote:I dont think there is anything wrong with the checkpoints..if it helps get drunk drivers of the street then go for it..those of you complaining about it ..if you had a loved one killed by a drunk driver you would be back on here commenting and wanting to know what law enforcement is doing to prevent this..as far as random home searches i think that would probabaly be a little much if it were at 3am but i trust they wouldnt do that outside of daylight hours so if that is something they wish to start doing then go for it it would help get rid of some drugs i am sure...and those of you who are severely opposed to the se things should think about why it bothers yu so much do you have something to hide?

    No, I do not have anything to hide but I do want to keep the freedoms our soldiers past and present have given thier lives for! My home is a private retreat for me and I do not wish to have it bombarded by police at anytime day or night and if we allow that privacy to be taken away, where would it end? To me that would just be the beginning of bad things to come.

    -- Posted by sassy12 on Wed, Mar 18, 2009, at 5:39 AM
  • most of these comments say they are taking away our rights. first off, driving is absolutely not a right, it is a privilage, and second, if you don't drink and drive why do you care? and if you do drink and drive, how do you feel about taking the lives of innocent children while you live through the event? all in my opinion of course :)

    -- Posted by dieselworker on Thu, Mar 19, 2009, at 10:47 AM
  •  

    "most of these comments say they are taking away our rights. first off, driving is absolutely not a right, it is a privilage"

    • I have not read anywhere in the comments where anyone has stated that driving is a right.

    "if you don't drink and drive why do you care?"

    • Why do I care? Because I care about the Bill of Rights which were intended to be very sacred and not misconstrued and tailored by the U.S. Supreme Court to allow such personally violating agendas as this.

     

    -- Posted by dorindaJ on Thu, Mar 19, 2009, at 1:16 PM
  • I AM A FORMER HOOSIER AND NOW LIVE IN FLORIDA. I THINK CHECKPOINTS ARE GOOD. THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO SEEM TO GET UPSET OVER THESE BUT IF YOU ARE LEGAL THEN YOU SHOULD NOT WORRY ABOUT BEING CHECKED. I KNOW SEVERAL PEOPLE WHO HAVE GOTTEN KILLED AND MAIMED BY DRUNK DRIVERS& PEOPLE HIGH ON DRUGS. SOME PEOPLE INSIST ON DRIVING EVEN IF THEIR MEDICATIONS ADVISE AGAINST IT. IF YOU ARE IMPAIRED YOU SHOULDN'T DRIVE ANY KIND OF MOTORIZED VEHICLE OR EVEN A BICYCLE BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT ONLY ENDANGERING YOURSELF BUT OTHERS. LICENSES ARE A PRIVILEGE AND SHOULD BE RESPECTED. GOOD GOING TO THE INDIANA STATE POLICE OR ANY OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT THAT IS WORKING TO GET DRUG & ALCOHOL IMPAIRED DRIVERS OFF THE ROAD.IT MAY BE YOUR LIFE THEY ARE SAVING!!!!!!!!!!!! ALSO ENFORCING THE SEATBELT LAW IS GREAT.

    -- Posted by ROSEMARY on Fri, Mar 20, 2009, at 4:29 AM
  • For those of you who are bashing the saturation patrol- It was not a checkpoint. They were uniformed officers PATROLING in their cars. If you were stopped, it was because you committed a violation, some of which are indicators of impairment. Health care for your kids? Not an issue if they get hit and killed by a drunk. The 4th amendment is not violated if you commit an offense and get stopped. People have the right to travel freely on these highways, knowing that they are safe from impaired drivers. Know the law people!

    -- Posted by involved on Sun, Mar 22, 2009, at 9:02 PM
  • involved posted:

    "For those of you who are bashing the saturation patrol- It was not a checkpoint. They were uniformed officers PATROLING in their cars. If you were stopped, it was because you committed a violation, some of which are indicators of impairment. Health care for your kids? Not an issue if they get hit and killed by a drunk. The 4th amendment is not violated if you commit an offense and get stopped."

    ♦ I believe the use of the word "checkpoint" as used in the title of this report would lead many people to believe the saturation did not involve patrolling and pullovers with probable cause which I am sure you can understand.

    Posted by involved:

    "People have the right to travel freely on these highways, knowing that they are safe from impaired drivers. Know the law people!"

    ♦ My point exactly, thank you!

    I am all for keeping impaired drivers off the road and if you are involved thank you very much! However I am strictly against being detained without probable cause and against my will just as I'm sure many are also.

    -- Posted by dorindaJ on Mon, Mar 23, 2009, at 1:31 AM
Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: