KANSAS CITY, Mo. — As a former sergeant with the O’Fallon, Missouri, police division, State Rep. Justin Hill, R-St. Charles County, has a singular perspective on the problem of sobriety checkpoints.
He’s utterly against them.
“This present day with social media, it’s really easy to keep away from a DUI checkpoint,” Hill instructed FOX4.
Along with the price of patrolling the checkpoints, Hill’s greatest grievance with checkpoints facilities round whether or not the enforcement infringes on residents constitutional rights.
Hill favors police saturation patrols to fight the hazard of drunk driving.
“In a DUI checkpoint, it’s a random ‘examine your papers, please’ type of state of affairs,” Hill stated. “Now (with saturation patrols) a police officer has to develop possible trigger, which is a good factor. It’s the rights that all of us have within the structure.”
Hill is sponsoring House Joint Resolution 11, which might put the problem earlier than voters within the type of a possible constitutional modification.
“It’s not about comfort. It’s about constitutional rights,” Hill stated. “Would they be OK with doing a checkpoint for weapons? Or checking folks’s free speech?”
Chris Mann, a Kansas Metropolis legal professional with longstanding ties to Moms In opposition to Drunk Driving (MADD), is against the measure.
“It’s been confirmed that states which have sobriety checkpoints of their toolbox have decrease charges of DUI fatalities than states that don’t,” Mann instructed FOX4.
Mann stated statistics from the Facilities for Illness Management and Prevention assist his argument.
“The one precise information on the market reveals that these checkpoints save lives,” he stated.
Counsel a Correction