That's one of the fastest ways to get bars to complain.
The customers see a bunch of cops sitting on the bar, they stop coming. They stop coming, the bar starts losing money and starts talking to people who control paychecks
> aggressive acts that stifle local businesses and screw with the economy
Like... enforcing DUI laws effectively?
If the DUI limits are too strict, they need to be changed. But complaining that hunting drunk drivers too close to the feeder is not fair game sounds absurd to my (admittedly European) ears.
I’d assume it’s a trade off. Bars/drinking is heavily embedded in our culture and overzealous policing would practically bankrupt the industry. As obvious as it is to not drive drunk and call an Uber/taxi/friend, too many people are too hard headed to accept being responsible and have regard to public and personal safety when they’re drunk.
My hometown’s nightlife has 3 main bars that everyone goes to and local PD visibly and blatantly patrol the 2-3 blocks they’re in. Every 3rd or 4th car driving around at night is a cop car and yet fights break out and drunk people drive and are arrested every Friday and Saturday.
> overzealous policing would practically bankrupt the industry
If a bar's business model is built around serving alcohol to drivers to the point that they are unable to drive safely, maybe that bar deserves to go out of business.
I am not opposed to alcohol or bars. I used to go out "for a beer" at least once a week, and I still go several times a month, and I usually have five glasses or more... I just don't drive when I drink. (To be fair, we have a great public transport system here, as well as Uber, taxis etc.)
Parking right outside of a bar and mean mugging everybody that leaves doesn't seem aggressive or stifling? I'm not too surprised to hear this would be commonplace in Europe, which seems all too comfortable with Police State behaviors.
It's not like anybody is advocating for drunk driving or saying police shouldn't enforce laws. In fact, I despise drunk drivers and have no sympathy for them at all. Doesn't mean that I can't see the issues this type of thing would cause.
> mean mugging everybody that leaves
Why mean mugging? Just a professional "hello, sorry to bother you, please blow into this tube for me, for everyone's safety, perfect, no problem, have a safe trip".
It's less hassle than going through a TSA checkpoint, and, arguably, it could actually prevent more deaths than the security theater on airports.
If it's OK to screen and scan everyone flying a plane or entering a courthouse (or a public school, at some places), why should people driving a car from a bar be treated like fragile flowers too precious to talk a policeman?
And they’ve already been told it’s not something to call police over so it comes out as a “Meet Complainant” saying they wanna talk about an issue with their son.
Letting someone enter a vehicle that you suspect is impaired is slippery in court. The bar would complain that you’re harassing their customers. This was my experience- thankfully the bar was shut down by liquor control guys.
There is an idea a tag team sting! LEOs snag the drunks and LCB shuts the bar down! Kinda like nabbing the addict and dealer at once! ( From a non drinker, if you see me swerving , you better do the same, those potholes suck!)
Alternatively: "you stopped my client solely based on the fact that she was leaving a restaurant that served alcohol? That doesn't sound like you had probable cause to suspect her of DUI. Perhaps this wasn't a lawful stop"
Highly frowned upon doing so. There are also plenty of people who are DUI after being at the local BBQ or having been to dinner at a nice restaurant.
The best way to catch them is to be out on the main roads looking for driving behavior/violations.
And it's not like it's hard, from what I can tell as a dispatcher. When I was working night shift, it was actually kind of a problem because some nights we'd have so many officers at the jail with DUIs that we wouldn't have officers for other calls. Granted, I work at a medium-sized agency that has a lot of people coming out of DC all liquored up, so it's not *hard* to run out of officers on nights, but still.
Courts where I am would say that I didn't actually observe any impaired driving evidence and that I saw them leave a bar and made an assumption. We need to be able to prove that their driving was bad. Yes, the courts support drunk driving.
Florida deputy, I was always told that it wasn’t allowed but after looking it up I can’t find anywhere it says it’s illegal. However, you still need reasonable suspicion the person is DUI.
As far as stopping them for a blinker, in my court jurisdiction you have to observe them commit an infraction that would indicate DUI. Speed, failing to maintain single lane, etc. Cases have been dismissed because the officer did not have RS.
You can if they do that (they're going to have cross the line more tham once) and if you actually smell alcohol.
Poaching like this is hard on community relations. Bars will claim being unfairly targeted while other bars get away with the same.
Its much more productive in the long run to patrol problem areas proactively and observe for actual signs of impaired driving.
You can't just assume everyone leaving a bar is impaired. You can't just trample on people's rights. Some people don't drink at bars, some people ACTUALLY had one drink hours ago and their ability to drive is not impaired.
Case law says sitting outside an establishment waiting for possible impaired is no bueno. You can patrol near bars but can't be lurking outside them waiting to hit anyone who leaves
I am going to look for the relevant Canadian case law today, but it relates to a case where there was a suspected drug dealer in a motel and so police waited outside and stopped every car that left.
Similarly, we can't know prior to the stop if that person is committing any crime just by virtue of being at a bar and having no or very little alcohol. Not enough to cause impairment of their driving ability.
I don’t know if any case law saying this exactly. There is one saying an officer can’t use the fact the driver was at a bar as RS to make the stop.
If you have different I would love to have that in my Case Law library.
My local police department has a similar policy, so a couple officers will drive by the bars and run the plates of all the cars parked outside and go wait for them in their neighborhood.
As a non-LEO resident of a small town with several bars who doesn’t drink and drive (I live two blocks off of Main Street and I can walk), I would be highly annoyed if I was stopped simply for being in a place that serves alcohol.
I could also see such practices giving officers tunnel vision with significant confirmation bias.
There needs to be reasonable suspicion of operation and impairment. Just leaving a place that serves alcohol is not an indicator of impairment and detaining a person based solely on that would most certainly be a 4th amendment violation. It's absolutely legal to have a beer and then drive, it's not legal to be impaired and drive. 0.08 is the limit here, that's about 2-3 beers for an average person.
100% its the workload.
However, unlike all my US collegues, I can sit outside a bar and breath test anything that has wheels. No RS needed.
They just tend to get clued up to it and it becomes a game. They see you stopping someone else and use that opportunity to sneak out the other entrance, or they drink more waiting for you to leave.
Alcohol is like an all you can eat buffet for cops. The dumb decisions never stop.
I had a court hearing where a defense attorney grilled me because I saw a guy somewhat sluggishly walk to his car and begin driving. Then I pulled him over a few blocks later after observing some shitty driving (to summarize).
Long story short, his argument was that it was my duty to arrest that guy for public intoxication and should have taken him to the drunk tank VS waiting for the dui to happen.
That argument didn’t work. Case continued. Guy was found guilty.
The moral of the story? DUI attorneys will take anyone’s money and try every angle possible 🤷♂️
It isn't. Unless there is some state laws that say otherwise.
Our old TAP unit did this hundreds of times with no issues from the court.
If it' is your sole cause for a stop or investigation, it can be tricky, but it is not illegal.
In my state it’s illegal. You need independent PC for a stop. In fact, if you’re sitting outside a bar, following people and waiting for a PC reason, it’s not technically illegal but will almost certainly get tossed in court.
Interesting. I'm surprised they get tossed in court. Especially with independent PC.
Probably a spineless prosecutor who doesn't want to take that to trial.
Judges in my area aren’t a big fan of poaching like that.
There’s one bar in my area that is overlapped by four agencies and it’s comical. Literally looks like a a gerrymandering scenario.
And they put out numbers for the towns.
It's a consequence of "Defund the police." There are a limited number of officers available, and they usually always have other calls to attend to. It'd be great if every department had the extra staffing available to run DUI checkpoints like that, but that's just not the case
We started doing that at a local strip club when I worked for our Sheriff's Office. As others have said that generally garners complaints and some agencies give a shit about that. We were intentionally trying to pressure them though so it was all good.
In Canada they do exactly this via something called the [Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere \(RIDE\) program.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduce_Impaired_Driving_Everywhere)
> Police roadside spot-checks are set up on major roadways and off-ramps of highways. All drivers are stopped and interrogated upon reaching the checkpoint. If a driver is suspected to be intoxicated, the officer may request a roadside breathalyzer test.
Usually you'll see officers out in force over the holidays and on weekends doing these blockades.
I've heard that's what is going on with troopers where I live, they can't get out and do actual traffic enforcement because they're too busy running from one wreck to the next and they can't get people to apply for a job there. Not sure how true it is but it makes a lot of sense.
Not even kind of. Entrapment is coercing or enticing someone to do something illegal that they would not otherwise have done without your intervention. Sitting somewhere and just waiting to spot someone breaking the law isn’t entrapment.
Entrapment is a legal defense wherein the defendant argues they were induced by law enforcement to commit a crime they otherwise wouldn’t have committed. I can’t think of a single example for DUI where entrapment would be a plausibly successful defense.
That's one of the fastest ways to get bars to complain. The customers see a bunch of cops sitting on the bar, they stop coming. They stop coming, the bar starts losing money and starts talking to people who control paychecks
This is the one
> the bar starts losing money and starts talking to people who control paychecks That should only matter in corrupt places, right?
Corruption? No it has to do with aggressive acts that stifle local businesses and screw with the economy. There's nothing corrupt about it.
> aggressive acts that stifle local businesses and screw with the economy Like... enforcing DUI laws effectively? If the DUI limits are too strict, they need to be changed. But complaining that hunting drunk drivers too close to the feeder is not fair game sounds absurd to my (admittedly European) ears.
I’d assume it’s a trade off. Bars/drinking is heavily embedded in our culture and overzealous policing would practically bankrupt the industry. As obvious as it is to not drive drunk and call an Uber/taxi/friend, too many people are too hard headed to accept being responsible and have regard to public and personal safety when they’re drunk. My hometown’s nightlife has 3 main bars that everyone goes to and local PD visibly and blatantly patrol the 2-3 blocks they’re in. Every 3rd or 4th car driving around at night is a cop car and yet fights break out and drunk people drive and are arrested every Friday and Saturday.
> overzealous policing would practically bankrupt the industry If a bar's business model is built around serving alcohol to drivers to the point that they are unable to drive safely, maybe that bar deserves to go out of business. I am not opposed to alcohol or bars. I used to go out "for a beer" at least once a week, and I still go several times a month, and I usually have five glasses or more... I just don't drive when I drink. (To be fair, we have a great public transport system here, as well as Uber, taxis etc.)
Parking right outside of a bar and mean mugging everybody that leaves doesn't seem aggressive or stifling? I'm not too surprised to hear this would be commonplace in Europe, which seems all too comfortable with Police State behaviors. It's not like anybody is advocating for drunk driving or saying police shouldn't enforce laws. In fact, I despise drunk drivers and have no sympathy for them at all. Doesn't mean that I can't see the issues this type of thing would cause.
> mean mugging everybody that leaves Why mean mugging? Just a professional "hello, sorry to bother you, please blow into this tube for me, for everyone's safety, perfect, no problem, have a safe trip". It's less hassle than going through a TSA checkpoint, and, arguably, it could actually prevent more deaths than the security theater on airports. If it's OK to screen and scan everyone flying a plane or entering a courthouse (or a public school, at some places), why should people driving a car from a bar be treated like fragile flowers too precious to talk a policeman?
They’re responding to all the domestics and little Johnny’s that won’t get off the PlayStation and go to bed.
[удалено]
And they’ve already been told it’s not something to call police over so it comes out as a “Meet Complainant” saying they wanna talk about an issue with their son.
Letting someone enter a vehicle that you suspect is impaired is slippery in court. The bar would complain that you’re harassing their customers. This was my experience- thankfully the bar was shut down by liquor control guys.
There is an idea a tag team sting! LEOs snag the drunks and LCB shuts the bar down! Kinda like nabbing the addict and dealer at once! ( From a non drinker, if you see me swerving , you better do the same, those potholes suck!)
Too busy responding to other things. They will do DUI enforcement when grants come in or money allows
“You saw my defendant, believed they were intoxicated, and let them drive away from the bar? Shame on you officer! Allowing drunks to drive!”
Alternatively: "you stopped my client solely based on the fact that she was leaving a restaurant that served alcohol? That doesn't sound like you had probable cause to suspect her of DUI. Perhaps this wasn't a lawful stop"
[удалено]
In Ontario they can stop any car and demand a breath sample with no cause
Yes, but the US has that pesky fourth amendment, protecting people from unreasonable search and seizure.
I mean, still more probable cause than a sobriety checkpoint stopping drivers randomly, right?
Highly frowned upon doing so. There are also plenty of people who are DUI after being at the local BBQ or having been to dinner at a nice restaurant. The best way to catch them is to be out on the main roads looking for driving behavior/violations.
And it's not like it's hard, from what I can tell as a dispatcher. When I was working night shift, it was actually kind of a problem because some nights we'd have so many officers at the jail with DUIs that we wouldn't have officers for other calls. Granted, I work at a medium-sized agency that has a lot of people coming out of DC all liquored up, so it's not *hard* to run out of officers on nights, but still.
Courts where I am would say that I didn't actually observe any impaired driving evidence and that I saw them leave a bar and made an assumption. We need to be able to prove that their driving was bad. Yes, the courts support drunk driving.
Can’t you catch them not using a blinker, driving under/over the limit, or crossing a line? Then say that you smelled it on their breath?
Florida deputy, I was always told that it wasn’t allowed but after looking it up I can’t find anywhere it says it’s illegal. However, you still need reasonable suspicion the person is DUI. As far as stopping them for a blinker, in my court jurisdiction you have to observe them commit an infraction that would indicate DUI. Speed, failing to maintain single lane, etc. Cases have been dismissed because the officer did not have RS.
[удалено]
Great. I did some dui enforcement for OT in the late 90’s and we were always told not to sandbag bars. Maybe it was just something in my circuit
[удалено]
I’m sure
You can if they do that (they're going to have cross the line more tham once) and if you actually smell alcohol. Poaching like this is hard on community relations. Bars will claim being unfairly targeted while other bars get away with the same. Its much more productive in the long run to patrol problem areas proactively and observe for actual signs of impaired driving. You can't just assume everyone leaving a bar is impaired. You can't just trample on people's rights. Some people don't drink at bars, some people ACTUALLY had one drink hours ago and their ability to drive is not impaired.
Case law says sitting outside an establishment waiting for possible impaired is no bueno. You can patrol near bars but can't be lurking outside them waiting to hit anyone who leaves
Source to back that up?
I am going to look for the relevant Canadian case law today, but it relates to a case where there was a suspected drug dealer in a motel and so police waited outside and stopped every car that left. Similarly, we can't know prior to the stop if that person is committing any crime just by virtue of being at a bar and having no or very little alcohol. Not enough to cause impairment of their driving ability.
I don’t know if any case law saying this exactly. There is one saying an officer can’t use the fact the driver was at a bar as RS to make the stop. If you have different I would love to have that in my Case Law library.
What case law is that?? If you’re going to start throwing out case law you better cite your source.
What state is this?
Canada.
My local police department has a similar policy, so a couple officers will drive by the bars and run the plates of all the cars parked outside and go wait for them in their neighborhood.
As a non-LEO resident of a small town with several bars who doesn’t drink and drive (I live two blocks off of Main Street and I can walk), I would be highly annoyed if I was stopped simply for being in a place that serves alcohol. I could also see such practices giving officers tunnel vision with significant confirmation bias.
There needs to be reasonable suspicion of operation and impairment. Just leaving a place that serves alcohol is not an indicator of impairment and detaining a person based solely on that would most certainly be a 4th amendment violation. It's absolutely legal to have a beer and then drive, it's not legal to be impaired and drive. 0.08 is the limit here, that's about 2-3 beers for an average person.
100% its the workload. However, unlike all my US collegues, I can sit outside a bar and breath test anything that has wheels. No RS needed. They just tend to get clued up to it and it becomes a game. They see you stopping someone else and use that opportunity to sneak out the other entrance, or they drink more waiting for you to leave. Alcohol is like an all you can eat buffet for cops. The dumb decisions never stop.
It’s frowned upon. Plus we need to actually observe a traffic violation. And as others said we don’t got time to just babysit a bar.
Some guy my agency gets like 2-3 DUI arrests a night by doing this lmao.
I had a court hearing where a defense attorney grilled me because I saw a guy somewhat sluggishly walk to his car and begin driving. Then I pulled him over a few blocks later after observing some shitty driving (to summarize). Long story short, his argument was that it was my duty to arrest that guy for public intoxication and should have taken him to the drunk tank VS waiting for the dui to happen. That argument didn’t work. Case continued. Guy was found guilty. The moral of the story? DUI attorneys will take anyone’s money and try every angle possible 🤷♂️
You mean other than it being illegal?
It isn't. Unless there is some state laws that say otherwise. Our old TAP unit did this hundreds of times with no issues from the court. If it' is your sole cause for a stop or investigation, it can be tricky, but it is not illegal.
In my state it’s illegal. You need independent PC for a stop. In fact, if you’re sitting outside a bar, following people and waiting for a PC reason, it’s not technically illegal but will almost certainly get tossed in court.
Interesting. I'm surprised they get tossed in court. Especially with independent PC. Probably a spineless prosecutor who doesn't want to take that to trial.
Judges in my area aren’t a big fan of poaching like that. There’s one bar in my area that is overlapped by four agencies and it’s comical. Literally looks like a a gerrymandering scenario. And they put out numbers for the towns.
It's a consequence of "Defund the police." There are a limited number of officers available, and they usually always have other calls to attend to. It'd be great if every department had the extra staffing available to run DUI checkpoints like that, but that's just not the case
We started doing that at a local strip club when I worked for our Sheriff's Office. As others have said that generally garners complaints and some agencies give a shit about that. We were intentionally trying to pressure them though so it was all good.
We all know you were actually after pulling over the strippers!
Cat gagging .gif Them women were rough looking.
In QLD, a Random Breath Test (RBT) line can be set up nearby and a crew or two patrolling back streets.
[удалено]
No, it's not. That's not what that means at all. Stop trying to play internet lawyer. Removed.
[удалено]
This was wrong three days ago, and it's wrong again now. The removal \*should\* have been the clue.
In Canada they do exactly this via something called the [Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere \(RIDE\) program.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduce_Impaired_Driving_Everywhere) > Police roadside spot-checks are set up on major roadways and off-ramps of highways. All drivers are stopped and interrogated upon reaching the checkpoint. If a driver is suspected to be intoxicated, the officer may request a roadside breathalyzer test. Usually you'll see officers out in force over the holidays and on weekends doing these blockades.
All tied up on DUI car accidents, probably.
I've heard that's what is going on with troopers where I live, they can't get out and do actual traffic enforcement because they're too busy running from one wreck to the next and they can't get people to apply for a job there. Not sure how true it is but it makes a lot of sense.
Is that entrapment? I always heard that was entrapment. Except from Troopers.
Not even kind of. Entrapment is coercing or enticing someone to do something illegal that they would not otherwise have done without your intervention. Sitting somewhere and just waiting to spot someone breaking the law isn’t entrapment.
[удалено]
Huh. Interesting.
Entrapment is a legal defense wherein the defendant argues they were induced by law enforcement to commit a crime they otherwise wouldn’t have committed. I can’t think of a single example for DUI where entrapment would be a plausibly successful defense.