The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Talk About Tulsa => Other Tulsa Discussion => Topic started by: DolfanBob on December 16, 2013, 10:07:56 am



Title: They are ABLE!
Post by: DolfanBob on December 16, 2013, 10:07:56 am
Whoops. Looks like they are in a "Smoot" load of trouble.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/crimewatch/state-mounts-stings-to-fight-liquor-sales-to-underage-buyers/article_9961c321-e521-5ed1-bcbc-bf3740eb8d2c.html


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: patric on December 16, 2013, 11:50:11 am
Whoops. Looks like they are in a "Smoot" load of trouble.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/crimewatch/state-mounts-stings-to-fight-liquor-sales-to-underage-buyers/article_9961c321-e521-5ed1-bcbc-bf3740eb8d2c.html


The Tulsa World is usually the only place you can read a story about A.B.L.E. that doesnt appear to have been written by A.B.L.E.


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: sgrizzle on December 16, 2013, 01:23:43 pm
Smoot needs to practice his camera face in front of the mirror. It's like they always catch him making the weirdest faces possible.


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: Gaspar on December 16, 2013, 03:26:51 pm
Smoot needs to practice his camera face in front of the mirror. It's like they always catch him making the weirdest faces possible.

It's what you call "Smootfaced"


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: patric on December 17, 2013, 10:33:26 am
Things we will never have under A.B.L.E.:

Entertainment district drinking
The Huffington Post took a look at public drinking laws and found that there are 20 cities that either have no public drinking ban on the books or have designated "Entertainment Districts" where you can drink in public.

(http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2013-12-16-publicdrinkingmap.jpg)


Towns that allow public drinking in most or all areas:
Hood River, Ore.
Sonoma, Calif.
Las Vegas
Fredericksberg, Texas
Fort Worth, Texas
Arlington, Texas
Indianapolis
New Orleans
Gulfport, Miss.
Erie, Pa.
Savannah, Ga.

Towns that allow public drinking in special Entertainment Districts:
Lincoln, Neb.
Kansas City, Mo.
Louisville, Ky.
Memphis, Tenn.
Huntsville, Ala.
Birmingham, Ala.
Montgomery, Ala.
Mobile, Ala.

Now, commit them to memory.


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: TheTed on December 17, 2013, 11:55:21 am
Not included on that list: towns where the police don't care if you walk down the street with a beer open, even on a Tuesday afternoon.

Other things effed by ABLE:
Growler fills of Marshall/Prairie.
Carry-out 12 packs from the bar to take home at closing time.
Carry-out beers for the walk home.
Sundays in general.


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: DolfanBob on December 17, 2013, 11:58:13 am
Walking Under Influence.Oops. I better not give them anymore ideas for revenue.


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: patric on December 17, 2013, 12:06:04 pm
Walking Under Influence.Oops. I better not give them anymore ideas for revenue.

Different from Public Drunk (which apparently now includes passengers being driven by designated drivers) ?


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: Townsend on December 17, 2013, 12:06:56 pm
Different from Public Drunk (which apparently now includes passengers being driven by designated drivers) ?

Really?


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: patric on December 17, 2013, 12:17:04 pm
Really?

Really

TULSA, Okla. (AP) — Tulsa police officers made 10 arrests at a weekend drunken driving checkpoint in midtown.
The after-holiday checkpoint was set up last Saturday at 10 p.m. and ran until 3 a.m. as part of the state's "More Cops. More Stops." alcohol enforcement campaign.

Police say the checkpoint resulted in 95 vehicle stops, 71 citations issued and 10 arrests made.
The arrests were on complaints of driving under the influence, drug possession, misdemeanor warrants and public intoxication.


Deputies from the Tulsa County Sheriff's Office, Oklahoma Highway Patrol troopers and ABLE Commission officers were assisting at the roadblock.


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: DolfanBob on December 17, 2013, 12:23:17 pm
Whats the point of Tipsy Tow then?


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: patric on December 17, 2013, 01:21:30 pm
Whats the point of Tipsy Tow then?

An opportunity to make a responsible choice (that still wont satisfy the nanny state).


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: DTowner on December 17, 2013, 03:26:25 pm
Things we will never have under A.B.L.E.:

Entertainment district drinking
The Huffington Post took a look at public drinking laws and found that there are 20 cities that either have no public drinking ban on the books or have designated "Entertainment Districts" where you can drink in public.

(http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2013-12-16-publicdrinkingmap.jpg)


Towns that allow public drinking in most or all areas:
Hood River, Ore.
Sonoma, Calif.
Las Vegas
Fredericksberg, Texas
Fort Worth, Texas
Arlington, Texas
Indianapolis
New Orleans
Gulfport, Miss.
Erie, Pa.
Savannah, Ga.

Towns that allow public drinking in special Entertainment Districts:
Lincoln, Neb.
Kansas City, Mo.
Louisville, Ky.
Memphis, Tenn.
Huntsville, Ala.
Birmingham, Ala.
Montgomery, Ala.
Mobile, Ala.

Now, commit them to memory.


While I think we are all in agreement that we hate the low point beer laws in Oklahoma, that is the only thing allowing beer sales at events like Mayfest (and probably the fair).


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: BKDotCom on December 17, 2013, 03:49:26 pm
While I think we are all in agreement that we hate the low point beer laws in Oklahoma, that is the only thing allowing beer sales at events like Mayfest (and probably the fair).

I fail to follow.


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: Red Arrow on December 17, 2013, 07:56:07 pm
Different from Public Drunk (which apparently now includes passengers being driven by designated drivers) ?

Or maybe Walking While intoxicated. Make it similar to driving.

Either way, if it would be a money maker, we would already have it on the books.

Quote
An Oklahoma DWI, or driving while intoxicated, is generally seen as a lesser charge than a DUI. A driver can be charged with DWI if his or her blood alcohol content is lower than the legal limit of .08 but higher than .05. However, there is no set BAC standard, and there is no scientific or objective measurement involved with what leads to a charge of DWI in Oklahoma. Basically, if a driver is below the legal alcohol limit but is still impaired beyond the ability to drive a vehicle, that person could be arrested for DWI in Oklahoma, which is classified as a misdemeanor.

In contrast to DWI in Oklahoma, a DUI can be charged as either a felony or a misdemeanor depending on several factors including the driver's criminal record and whether or not anyone was harmed as a result of the alleged DUI. In addition, a DUI can only be charged if the driver had a BAC of above the legal limit in Oklahoma of .08. Generally, a DUI charge is the result of a more objective investigation, although a roadside sobriety test can also be used to give rise to an arrest. DUI penalties are also generally more severe than the penalties associated with Oklahoma DWI, but once again several factors determine the potential penalties.

http://www.atkinsandmarkoff.com/Legal-Blog/2010/September/Oklahoma-Drunk-Driving-Charges-DWI-vs-DUI-Arrest.aspx



Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: AquaMan on December 18, 2013, 10:12:25 am
Or maybe Walking While intoxicated. Make it similar to driving.

Either way, if it would be a money maker, we would already have it on the books.



Wait. Are you guys saying that the drunk buses, limo's, cabs and bar provided transportation, can be stopped for public drunk? Either as they enter/exit the vehicle or as they ride? It sounds like the officers have plenty of discretion. That would imply that the drivers also are at risk since they aided and abetted.


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: patric on December 18, 2013, 11:41:05 am
Wait. Are you guys saying that the drunk buses, limo's, cabs and bar provided transportation, can be stopped for public drunk? Either as they enter/exit the vehicle or as they ride? It sounds like the officers have plenty of discretion. That would imply that the drivers also are at risk since they aided and abetted.

I used to work for Larry Schaeffer when he still had the Cains, and recall the story where TPD stopped the cab taking him home to arrest him for public drunk.

Red Arrow's citation pretty much summed it up: "there is no set BAC standard, and there is no scientific or objective measurement involved with what leads to a charge of DWI in Oklahoma" which is also true of "Public Intoxication."  It's a matter of  "I'm a trained professional and I say you are public drunk" where the Smoots are in charge of the training.

In some places it's even legal to lure someone out of their home for the purpose of arresting them for public drunk:  http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2013/11/fullerton_police.php

Tipsy Tow is still a good thing, as are designated drivers, but if you find yourself in the wrong place at the wrong time you could still get vacuumed up.


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: Breadburner on December 18, 2013, 11:41:40 am
You can get a public intox and not be under the influence of anything......


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: TheArtist on December 18, 2013, 12:07:51 pm
How bout "don't get drunk" in the first place?  Study after study shows that drinking in moderation can be a part of a healthy lifestyle, and binge drinking/over drinking is really really bad for your health.  In an ideal world this wouldn't be regulated by law, but by society and culture.  Kind of like poor eating habits/over eating which kills more people in Oklahoma than alcohol.  Course here we can't seem to manage that either.

One of the cornerstones of Sociology is that "All human behaviors are learned."  Its interesting to stand back and look at what is learned here, how we teach it, and how it contrasts to other societies around the world and through time.  A woman doesn't have to be completely covered up here without worrying that every man around here will suddenly be whipped into a sexual frenzy if she shows here ankles and face, or that she is "asking to be raped" or deserves it if she does.  But mention alcohol and often the immediate association isn't most often associated with say, having a glass of wine with a meal, but with getting drunk at a club or party.  We have created a society that manages some things quite well, and others very poorly.  All you have to do is listen to how people talk about drinking here to see how we are where we are,,, and also see how all it would take is a change in attitudes to change our lives and outcomes.  We don't accept jokes about women being sexually harassed or even raped, we also shouldn't laugh at people getting drunk or accept jokes about it, as one for instance.  You listen to people complain about ABLE laws on the one hand, then turn right around and say or do something that actually helps create the situation/culture/society where it's understandable that others might feel there is a need for those laws, or at least does nothing to create a situation whereby the laws would seem less necessary.  


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: Red Arrow on December 18, 2013, 12:27:50 pm
How bout "don't get drunk" in the first place?  

Good idea.  (Not being sarcastic.)

Please define "drunk".

Rightly so, "Buzzed" driving is "drunk" driving.  Define "buzzed".  And so on.


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: AquaMan on December 18, 2013, 12:34:28 pm
Artist, we're not talking about actually being intoxicated. We're talking about capricious arrest for public intox or DUI based on an authority's assessment, not by science, and for purposes other than public safety. That leaves the door open for abuse and unintended consequences. For instance if I take a cab and am arrested for public intox because the officer thinks he sees a bottle of beer in my hand in the back seat, then the word gets around that cabs are not a solution but a potential trap. So, you drive your car where you think you have a better chance. Same thing with limos and party buses. The result will be more drunks driving all night rather than at hotels or dropped to their homes.

Yes, drinking is a problem in America. So are drugs, rape, immorality, intolerance and my new favorite word, "affluenza". But rather than convince a species whose history is one of succumbing to dangerous desires and making stupid mistakes to view alcohol as an adult beverage served with dinner and friends in a home setting, wouldn't it be easier to manage such behavior while educating the spiritually weak species?


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: Ibanez on December 18, 2013, 01:03:11 pm
I really hate this state sometimes.


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: AquaMan on December 18, 2013, 01:06:44 pm
At least we're not Texas, Kansas or Missouri. Or Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi. But the list is getting shorter all the time. :)



Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: patric on December 18, 2013, 02:16:03 pm
At least we're not Texas, Kansas or Missouri. Or Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi. But the list is getting shorter all the time. :)

At least MO allows you to openly have a drink in an Entertainment District...   something ABLE protects us from.


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: Conan71 on December 18, 2013, 02:27:55 pm
At least MO allows you to openly have a drink in an Entertainment District...   something ABLE protects us from.

You can drink during festivals in entertainment districts, i.e. Mayfest and BDAF.


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: Red Arrow on December 18, 2013, 02:44:46 pm
You can drink during festivals in entertainment districts, i.e. Mayfest and BDAF.

Any adult beverage or just 3.2 beer?



Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: Gaspar on December 18, 2013, 03:18:18 pm
You can drink during festivals in entertainment districts, i.e. Mayfest and BDAF.

Camelback full of vodka.


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: Townsend on December 18, 2013, 04:29:31 pm
You can drink during festivals in entertainment districts, i.e. Mayfest and BDAF.

The roads must be closed off.  Is that the one step to be made?  If the roads are closed off, you can drink in the streets?  Does there need to be a paid for police presence?


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: Conan71 on December 18, 2013, 04:31:40 pm
Any adult beverage or just 3.2 beer?



They sell Marshall’s and other higher ABV brews, but I don’t believe you can walk around with a cocktail.


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: Conan71 on December 18, 2013, 04:33:29 pm
The roads must be closed off.  Is that the one step to be made?  If the roads are closed off, you can drink in the streets?  Does there need to be a paid for police presence?

I organized “Rock The Block” about 20 years ago down at 18th & Boston for the Jaycees. As I recall, that was a condition of getting the permit for the event.  I believe that would have been required even if we weren’t selling beer.

Even if police presence wasn’t a requirement for a permit, I’d still do it if the event was providing beer.


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: dbacksfan 2.0 on December 20, 2013, 02:35:36 am
Something you won't be ABLE to get because Oklahoma is Smooted:

http://growlerkingbeer.com/ (http://growlerkingbeer.com/)

http://growlerkingbeer.com/tap-list-growlers-medford-oregon.php (http://growlerkingbeer.com/tap-list-growlers-medford-oregon.php)


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: patric on December 21, 2013, 12:44:28 pm
Something you won't be ABLE to get because Oklahoma is Smooted:

http://growlerkingbeer.com/ (http://growlerkingbeer.com/)

Speaking of, guess what goatee is taking credit for bringing taxis to entertainment districts? (only to be crushed by Josh Royal's powerful beard)?

http://www.fox23.com/news/local/story/New-taxi-parking-zones-in-Tulsa-hot-spots/TEmUIfC1YUOaAv8f3F8QyQ.cspx


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: sauerkraut on December 21, 2013, 02:19:18 pm
They may be able, but are they willing? That is the big question! :)


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: AquaMan on December 21, 2013, 04:11:53 pm
I never have a problem parking the commercial unit I drive around bars in Brookside, Cherry, or downtown. There are loading zones that are suitable for double parking if you are a commercial vehicle and downtown even has marked off areas in the middle of some streets for commercial units. The trolley uses them too.

I think it was a grab at attention by Smoot, an easy out for the bars and a freebie for the cabs. The cab companies are all over downtown during the late evening hours and park anywhere they want. They have no problem picking up fares. One group I carried got irritated that we wouldn't keep going past contracted time. A cab was there in less than 5 minutes.


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: dbacksfan 2.0 on December 22, 2013, 04:21:37 am
Regardless of the credit for getting Taxi Stands in the entertainment districts, I am curious as to how many cabbies there are in Tulsa, and how many would be willing to line up at the cab stands. If they are contract workers, when they sit they are not making any money, and are more likely to roam. Unless they charge a premium flag drop, like the ones at the airport (and yes those guys pay a premium for being an airport cabbie, the last time I took one from TIA to my house two miles away in the mid 90's and the flag drop was $25.00)

It would be interesting to hear a cabbies perspective.


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: patric on December 22, 2013, 11:41:39 am
Regardless of the credit for getting Taxi Stands in the entertainment districts, I am curious as to how many cabbies there are in Tulsa, and how many would be willing to line up at the cab stands. If they are contract workers, when they sit they are not making any money, and are more likely to roam. Unless they charge a premium flag drop, like the ones at the airport (and yes those guys pay a premium for being an airport cabbie, the last time I took one from TIA to my house two miles away in the mid 90's and the flag drop was $25.00)

It would be interesting to hear a cabbies perspective.

That sounds worth pursuing.  If people come to associate the "Taxi Parking Only" spots as tourist-gouging rather than the "we're saving lives" soundbite doublespeak...


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: RecycleMichael on December 22, 2013, 01:12:51 pm
There are always cabs lined up on 2nd street just east of Boulder waiting for people at the Hyatt north entrance. They seem to be doing a brisk business.


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: dbacksfan 2.0 on December 24, 2013, 01:55:28 am
There are always cabs lined up on 2nd street just east of Boulder waiting for people at the Hyatt north entrance. They seem to be doing a brisk business.

From my experience, the cabbies at hotels, entertainment districts and say downtown locations usually don't have a minimum flag drop charge, it's usually at airports, and as I understand it, it's because they pay a "privilege fee" to the airport authority to have that access. The one I referenced that I took from TIA was not a typical Yellow/Checker cab, but it had the same rate schedule on the door, but it and the regular cab's had a notice in addition to that schedule that there was an "Additional Airport Fee of $25.00" on top of the regular fee schedule. (20/20 hindsight, I should have just jumped on the Thrifty Rent A Car shuttle that went to the Pine & Memorial location which was ~300 yards from my front door.)

With the new Best Western going in down town, and the growth downtown, it could prove profitable for the cabbies, and better for the locals for cab service, unless you get Smooted because the cabbie goes through a DUI Checkpoint and has a warrant, and you get nailed for "public drunk" because you are now on foot after losing your cab ride. (just the cynic in me)


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: carltonplace on December 24, 2013, 10:40:30 am
(only to be crushed by Josh Royal's powerful beard)?



His beard became sentient last May.


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: TheTed on December 24, 2013, 01:51:33 pm
The notion that there's no parking for taxis is freaking ridiculous.

Nobody's giving out parking tickets at 1am. There are always a ton of semi-legal places for them to park. The problem isn't a lack of parking. It's the lack of taxis in general, Tulsa being a city where driving yourself is the only real option to get places when you're not drinking.

And what the eff does Smoot have to do with that story? Is there a new law that he be quoted in every story involving alcohol even if it doesn't really involve him or his department?


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: TheTed on December 24, 2013, 01:55:50 pm
Something you won't be ABLE to get because Oklahoma is Smooted:

http://growlerkingbeer.com/ (http://growlerkingbeer.com/)

http://growlerkingbeer.com/tap-list-growlers-medford-oregon.php (http://growlerkingbeer.com/tap-list-growlers-medford-oregon.php)
Love me some growlers! I have three as of now, all the sweet flip-top kind that stay good for weeks unopened.

Some cities/states just fill them and send you on your way. Some require them to be "sealed" (and in a very flimsy manner). I'm always amused when they apply a sticker across the lid or put a plastic ring around the top and heat-shrink it on there with a hair dryer to make it legally sealed.


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: Hoss on December 24, 2013, 02:03:17 pm
Love me some growlers! I have three as of now, all the sweet flip-top kind that stay good for weeks unopened.

Some cities/states just fill them and send you on your way. Some require them to be "sealed" (and in a very flimsy manner). I'm always amused when they apply a sticker across the lid or put a plastic ring around the top and heat-shrink it on there with a hair dryer to make it legally sealed.

How Smooty...


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: AquaMan on December 24, 2013, 04:04:10 pm
The notion that there's no parking for taxis is freaking ridiculous.

Nobody's giving out parking tickets at 1am. There are always a ton of semi-legal places for them to park. The problem isn't a lack of parking. It's the lack of taxis in general, Tulsa being a city where driving yourself is the only real option to get places when you're not drinking.

And what the eff does Smoot have to do with that story? Is there a new law that he be quoted in every story involving alcohol even if it doesn't really involve him or his department?

Those of us actually working downtown at those hours know your remarks to be true. It was a pr act for Smoot and a gimme for the cabs. No doubt limos and party buses are on their own finding pu and drop off spots. And they will find them.


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: patric on December 31, 2013, 11:49:04 pm
Look how thrilled these folks are that ABLE is protecting them:

http://www.fox23.com/mediacenter/local.aspx?videoid=4855266


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: Hoss on January 01, 2014, 12:39:45 am
Look how thrilled these folks are that ABLE is protecting them:

http://www.fox23.com/mediacenter/local.aspx?videoid=4855266

It's a SmootStorm!


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: dbacksfan 2.0 on January 01, 2014, 01:15:04 am
I think Sara Whaley sounds like she needs a field sobriety test done on her. Was she getting her story in the bar a getting shots?

Also sounds like Smoot is going Tom Cruise from Minority Report, arrest them before they do something wrong.


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: Red Arrow on January 01, 2014, 11:33:11 am
I think Sara Whaley sounds like she needs a field sobriety test done on her. Was she getting her story in the bar a getting shots?
Also sounds like Smoot is going Tom Cruise from Minority Report, arrest them before they do something wrong.

Might as well prevent them from getting intoxicated in the first place.  Arrest everyone going into the bar.   >:(


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: AquaMan on January 01, 2014, 02:16:44 pm
Can't be intoxicated in a local bar? That would pretty much shut them all down.

Last nite in midtown/downtown between 10:30 and 2:30 there were more cabs, limos, wreckers and patrol cars moving on the road than there were citizens. Seriously, it was weird. They could have arrested practically every pedestrian I saw as well.

Safe? Yeah, I guess. Citizenry scared drinkless? No.

Tulsa, now known locally as Smooterville.


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: dbacksfan 2.0 on January 01, 2014, 07:18:53 pm
So, will the next step in the state of "Smooterville" be they arrest you walking out of a liquor store, grocery store, because you have alcohol in your possession and you are in public, even though you aren't consuming it, yet you have it in your possession? Hey, by the way Smoot, just shut down every restaurant that serves alcohol as well.

Hey Smoot, great way to get people to want to move to the state. Why don't you just enact prohibition? (tongue in cheek comments)


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: Ibanez on January 01, 2014, 07:37:30 pm
How did this guy ever get to be the face of ABLE?


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: dbacksfan 2.0 on January 01, 2014, 08:03:16 pm
How did this guy ever get to be the face of ABLE?

He was probably appointment by the officials that were elected. And with the extreme conservatism, anti smoking, anti drinking factions that have been in Oklahoma since before WWII, and the bully pulpit of the RWRE, who happen to be some of the biggest two faced "Do as I say, not as I do" since Oral Roberts. These are the same people who spoke of the sin of the Lottery and Indian Casinos, but now welcome them with open arms.

Would love to see Smoot and his jackboot thugs go into one of the casinos to check the intoxication level of the patrons there.


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: Ibanez on January 01, 2014, 08:38:14 pm
He was probably appointment by the officials that were elected. And with the extreme conservatism, anti smoking, anti drinking factions that have been in Oklahoma since before WWII, and the bully pulpit of the RWRE, who happen to be some of the biggest two faced "Do as I say, not as I do" since Oral Roberts. These are the same people who spoke of the sin of the Lottery and Indian Casinos, but now welcome them with open arms.

Would love to see Smoot and his jackboot thugs go into one of the casinos to check the intoxication level of the patrons there.

Just wondering because I know someone who knew him as a Bixby cop and doesn't have a high opinion of him. Has always seemed odd to me that he went from small town cop to the face of the anti-booze Gestapo.


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: Red Arrow on January 01, 2014, 09:39:23 pm
Has always seemed odd to me that he went from small town cop to the face of the anti-booze Gestapo.

Probably not so odd in this part of the world. 
 
 :(


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: patric on January 02, 2014, 12:04:25 am
So, will the next step in the state of "Smooterville" be they arrest you walking out of a liquor store, grocery store, because you have alcohol in your possession and you are in public, even though you aren't consuming it, yet you have it in your possession?

It might be called "endeavoring,"  which has a much lower threshold of proof than "intent to."
Also, it's my understanding that sworn DPS positions (like OHP and ABLE) are either nepotism or cronyism, where you are elevated to the "golden circle" by political favors.   Being exempt from most accountability (Open Records, etc.) just perpetuates that system.


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: dbacksfan 2.0 on January 02, 2014, 02:07:20 am
It might be called "endeavoring,"  which has a much lower threshold of proof than "intent to."
Also, it's my understanding that sworn DPS positions (like OHP and ABLE) are either nepotism or cronyism, where you are elevated to the "golden circle" by political favors.   Being exempt from most accountability (Open Records, etc.) just perpetuates that system.

I thought you got elevated not only by nepotism, but the also reliable "It's not what you know, but who you know and who you  _ _ _ _."


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: DolfanBob on January 02, 2014, 08:37:39 am
Mr White. You are under arrest for being drunk in "Public"
Hey, Hey, Hey. I was drunk in a bar. Which is perfectly "legal"
They, Them. Threw me into "Public" Arrest them!


Title: Re: Re: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: Hoss on January 02, 2014, 09:50:57 am
Mr White. You are under arrest for being drunk in "Public"
Hey, Hey, Hey. I was drunk in a bar. Which is perfectly "legal"
They, Them. Threw me into "Public" Arrest them!

Ron White. That's always good for a laugh. 

Mr White. You are under arrest for being drunk in "Public"
Hey, Hey, Hey. I was drunk in a bar. Which is perfectly "legal"
They, Them. Threw me into "Public" Arrest them!

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: Conan71 on January 02, 2014, 11:22:22 am
It might be called "endeavoring,"  which has a much lower threshold of proof than "intent to."
Also, it's my understanding that sworn DPS positions (like OHP and ABLE) are either nepotism or cronyism, where you are elevated to the "golden circle" by political favors.   Being exempt from most accountability (Open Records, etc.) just perpetuates that system.

That was how Easley ended up on ABLE, I believe his mother was a state legislator at the time.  Then I believe he went on to the GRDA board.


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: Conan71 on January 02, 2014, 11:25:57 am
Can't be intoxicated in a local bar? That would pretty much shut them all down.

Last nite in midtown/downtown between 10:30 and 2:30 there were more cabs, limos, wreckers and patrol cars moving on the road than there were citizens. Seriously, it was weird. They could have arrested practically every pedestrian I saw as well.

Safe? Yeah, I guess. Citizenry scared drinkless? No.

Tulsa, now known locally as Smooterville.

And every bartender is committing a felony when they serve an intoxicated person.   ::)

We got some strange laws in this state.


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: TheArtist on January 02, 2014, 02:14:31 pm
And every bartender is committing a felony when they serve an intoxicated person.   ::)

We got some strange laws in this state.

If someone is intoxicated, though it likely reflects bad judgement on their part that they got to that point, it would seem even worse a wrong if the person who is supposed to be responsible, the server, then gives a person that they can see is intoxicated, and who very likely now does have impaired judgment, even more alcohol (drinking to the point of intoxication is very bad for a persons health and to turn a blind eye to that and enable the person to even further harm themselves, when their judgment is also impaired)… would at least seem wrong and immoral.  Whether it should be against the law depends on your perspective on whether such "wrong" things should be made against the law.


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: AquaMan on January 02, 2014, 02:27:07 pm
Some people are intoxicated with very little to drink. People who have low weight or low tolerance. They just loosen up then get loud and friendly pretty fast. Others, who have built up a higher tolerance due to a lifetime of alcohol consumption, can drink all night and fool even the best bartenders. The bartenders all know the law and how much someone has been drinking at their bar. They know when to say no more. But the ones that have high tolerance or who drank somewhere else previously, not so much.

Smoot made it clear that someone who is "causing a problem" and is drinking in a bar can be arrested for public intox. No breathalyzer, no testing, just the officers opinion. In a time of increasing intolerance for nonconformity, that is a fine line imo and one that concerns me.

Perhaps the answer is to only allow ABLE employees and LEO's to become bartenders.



Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: Conan71 on January 02, 2014, 02:44:41 pm
If someone is intoxicated, though it likely reflects bad judgement on their part that they got to that point, it would seem even worse a wrong if the person who is supposed to be responsible, the server, then gives a person that they can see is intoxicated, and who very likely now does have impaired judgment, even more alcohol (drinking to the point of intoxication is very bad for a persons health and to turn a blind eye to that and enable the person to even further harm themselves, when their judgment is also impaired)… would at least seem wrong and immoral.  Whether it should be against the law depends on your perspective on whether such "wrong" things should be made against the law.

I completely agree for a bartender to keep cramming alcohol down someone who is obviously plastered is wrong.  The drunk driver that killed my brother was aided to their vehicle by the bar manager because they were so unsteady on their feet.  Four people died as a result and it was a completely preventable wreck if A) The bartender had cut off the person and B) Called a cab rather than assisting the person to their car.

However, if I understand the way the law is written, someone could appear and act completely normal, but an ABLE agent could say a bartender continued serving someone beyond the point of intoxication if their BAC were over .08 whether or not the person exhibited any overt signs of intoxication.  Simply the way it is written, every bartender in the state has committed a felony at one time or another.


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: rdj on January 02, 2014, 04:30:23 pm
I completely agree for a bartender to keep cramming alcohol down someone who is obviously plastered is wrong.  The drunk driver that killed my brother was aided to their vehicle by the bar manager because they were so unsteady on their feet.  Four people died as a result and it was a completely preventable wreck if A) The bartender had cut off the person and B) Called a cab rather than assisting the person to their car.

However, if I understand the way the law is written, someone could appear and act completely normal, but an ABLE agent could say a bartender continued serving someone beyond the point of intoxication if their BAC were over .08 whether or not the person exhibited any overt signs of intoxication.  Simply the way it is written, every bartender in the state has committed a felony at one time or another.

Sorry to pry, and feel free to decline to answer.  Did the DA &/or court file charges/sue the bartender?


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: patric on January 02, 2014, 06:42:51 pm
Smoot made it clear that someone who is "causing a problem" and is drinking in a bar can be arrested for public intox. No breathalyzer, no testing, just the officers opinion. In a time of increasing intolerance for nonconformity, that is a fine line imo and one that concerns me.

"Causing a problem" like grey-haired old men asking why they have to "volunteer" their DL to prove they are over 21?
Seen that many times.


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: Conan71 on January 02, 2014, 11:04:48 pm
Sorry to pry, and feel free to decline to answer.  Did the DA &/or court file charges/sue the bartender?

Let's put it this way, it never would have made it as far as a courtroom.  It was a classic DRAM shop case, AKA, an attorney's wet dream.  Attorney sent a letter and copy of the police report with the bartender/manager's statement that night and the insurance company for the bar couldn't settle fast enough to full policy limits- which isn't as much as most would think.

I was truly stunned when I read how candid the bartender was.  I remember thinking: "Okay, you over-served these people (five pitchers of draft beer in 2 hours for two people), they got loud and rowdy, so your logical solution was to assist them to their car because they were so unsteady on their feet??"  I wonder if that bartender has ever had two thoughts about all the lives irrevocably changed that night?  I want to say the drunk driver of the other vehicle was 23 at the time, she was with her uncle what a sad deal for her family and so much unrealized potential.  I harbor no ill will...every family lost  someone important to them.

My brother was single so no real financial consequences to my mother nor myself, however, the driver of the car he was in had a wife as well as at least one kid still in college. IIRC, there was never a suit even filed and OSCN seems to bear out that recollection.  No one got wealthy but it helped take care of people who needed to be taken care of.

There never were any criminal charges filed, and no one from the Payne County DA's office ever contacted us about it.  T he bar continued to operate for many more years afterwards- at least ten or so.  I drove past a few months back and it's now "The XXXXX II" so must have bankrupted for other reasons at some point in the last few years or when someone bought it from the previous owners they wanted to distance themselves slightly from the previous ownership without losing the name.


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: patric on January 30, 2014, 05:50:58 pm
Let's put it this way, it never would have made it as far as a courtroom.  It was a classic DRAM shop case, AKA, an attorney's wet dream.  Attorney sent a letter and copy of the police report with the bartender/manager's statement that night and the insurance company for the bar couldn't settle fast enough to full policy limits- which isn't as much as most would think.

Last September, a LifeFlight pilot was killed walking home from Brookside.  Now two bartenders are charged with serving him alcohol.

http://www.newson6.com/story/24584500/tulsa-man-hit-by-two-cars-bartenders-charged-with-over-serving

One assumes the argument will be made that, when the pilot neglected his duty to govern himself, the bartenders neglected to pick up where he left off and assume responsibility for him.
So why stop there?  If ABLE is supposed to be responsible for bars and bartenders, why not argue that they also were negligent?

Its the same train of thought (albeit a straw one), and it wouldnt be the first time a bartender was fooled by someone with cred. 


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: Conan71 on January 30, 2014, 07:43:14 pm
Yep they had ol' crazy eyes on the news last night.  He was so amped up I thought he was going to smoot himself.


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: BKDotCom on January 30, 2014, 09:08:20 pm
One assumes the argument will be made that, when the pilot neglected his duty to govern himself, the bartenders neglected to pick up where he left off and assume responsibility for him.
So why stop there?  If ABLE is supposed to be responsible for bars and bartenders, why not argue that they also were negligent?

like


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: Hoss on January 30, 2014, 09:12:20 pm
Yep they had ol' crazy eyes on the news last night.  He was so amped up I thought he was going to smoot himself.

He kinda looked like he needed a bib.


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: Conan71 on January 31, 2014, 09:05:10 am
He kinda looked like he needed a bib.

Good one!

He was slathering quite a bit wasn’t he?



Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: rdj on January 31, 2014, 09:30:17 am
I liked that he was wearing his "badge" around his neck. 

(http://www.monologuedb.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/denzel-washington-alonzo-harris-training-day-150x150.jpg)


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: DolfanBob on January 31, 2014, 09:53:13 am
Gives a whole new horrible twist on the annual "Pub Crawl"

His head looks like it's gotten bigger. Must be full of "Smoot"


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: CharlieSheen on January 31, 2014, 10:01:53 am
A 6 pack of miller lite and 3 "alcoholic" drinks and he couldn't even walk? Sounds like he pre-gamed.


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: TheArtist on January 31, 2014, 10:25:36 am
Food kills more people in Oklahoma than "drink", by almost 8 times. (food addictions, obesity, diabetes resulting in blindness, limb loss, etc. it destroys families, costs all of us a lot of money, lost productivity, medical bills, insurance, etc.) I think we need to ban food sales on Sundays and hold food servers responsible for people who over eat or who do not eat a healthy diet. OR, perhaps we work to create a culture in which people both do not over eat or over drink, one in which we all know how much is "too much". A serving or two of alcohol can be part of a healthy diet. But more than 3, for just about anyone of any size or gender is too much, hurts your health and is wrong. 6 servings qualifies as binge drinking which is undeniably very bad for a persons health, this guy had NINE! We need to create that attitude in our society and have that personal and social responsibility brought back and taught. It starts with you and me just saying something. "Hey buddy, you have had enough to drink, any more and you will hurt your health. I am your friend and I care about you."


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: Conan71 on January 31, 2014, 10:42:00 am
A 6 pack of miller lite and 3 "alcoholic" drinks and he couldn't even walk? Sounds like he pre-gamed.

Nah, just an amateur.


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: patric on January 31, 2014, 10:47:44 am
We need to create that attitude in our society and have that personal and social responsibility brought back and taught. It starts with you and me just saying something. "Hey buddy, you have had enough to drink, any more and you will hurt your health. I am your friend and I care about you."

In civilized countries, a single glass of wine with your meal is simply a part of the meal, and a bottle should be good for several meals.


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: TheArtist on January 31, 2014, 01:20:50 pm
Nah, just an amateur.

How so?


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: BKDotCom on January 31, 2014, 01:37:20 pm
It starts with you and me just saying something. "Hey buddy, you have had enough to drink, any more and you will hurt your health. I am your friend and I care about you."

Don't judge me!
Not only are we not taught to take responsibility for ourselves, but we're taught to not take an interest in others lest you offend them or others.


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: Conan71 on January 31, 2014, 02:52:13 pm
How so?

That’s what us professional drunks call lightweights.  ;)


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: Ibanez on February 04, 2014, 10:00:46 am
Nah, just an amateur.

No doubt. My wife weighs 115 and can drink more than that and still function. She's not even a regular drinker and only cuts loose on occasion, but when she does she can certainly hold her alcohol better than that guy.


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: patric on March 16, 2014, 01:38:32 pm
No doubt. My wife weighs 115 and can drink more than that and still function. She's not even a regular drinker and only cuts loose on occasion, but when she does she can certainly hold her alcohol better than that guy.

The The Oklahoma Highway Safety office has budgeted $77,000 to destroy St. Patrick's Day tourism   keep people safe, by setting up a "command post" in the Blue Dome district and paying overtime to those that can meet the arrest goals.

Maybe if the Oklahoma Highway Safety office were to look at crumbling bridges instead...


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: TeeDub on March 16, 2014, 05:48:51 pm
The The Oklahoma Highway Safety office has budgeted $77,000 to destroy St. Patrick's Day tourism   keep people safe, by setting up a "command post" in the Blue Dome district and paying overtime to those that can meet the arrest goals.

Maybe you should be appreciative that you haven't lost anyone to a drunk driver.   Ask the crowd at SXSW that got plowed into how they feel about drunks.   Fuckwit.

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: Vashta Nerada on March 16, 2014, 07:13:16 pm
Maybe you should be appreciative that you haven't lost anyone to a drunk driver.   Ask the crowd at SXSW that got plowed into how they feel about drunks.   Fuckwit.

SXSW? This?


Quote
SXSW car crash: Another case of police high-speed pursuit gone awry?
Austin police pursued Rashad Charjuan Owens after he avoided a police traffic stop. Owens soon crashed into a crowd of people at the South by South West festival, killing two and injuring 23. Should the police have pursued Owens?
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2014/0315/SXSW-car-crash-Another-case-of-police-high-speed-pursuit-gone-awry-video
The city of Austin already faces a $1 million wrongful-death lawsuit filed earlier this month by the widow of a man killed when a suspect pursued by police crashed into the car driven by her husband.


AUSTIN — Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo said Thursday that officials will review the department's pursuit policy after a man he said was fleeing an officer plowed through a crowd of people who were on a street that was blocked off to traffic for South by Southwest.


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: Red Arrow on March 16, 2014, 08:17:01 pm
Maybe you should be appreciative that you haven't lost anyone to a drunk driver.   Ask the crowd at SXSW that got plowed into how they feel about drunks.   Fuckwit.

As long as the goal is to prevent drunks driving and not just to generate revenue and meet arrest quotas, it's money well spent.



Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: TeeDub on March 17, 2014, 06:37:41 am
SXSW? This?




Yup...  And don't let that article fool you (from later in the article)  "Other observers have noted that in this SXSW case its unlikely that either the police or the driver reached excessive speeds."

Rashad Charjuan Owens allegedly tore through the crowd while drunk, running over people and hitting other cars. At least 23 others were injured.


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: patric on March 17, 2014, 11:38:44 am
As long as the goal is to prevent drunks driving and not just to generate revenue and meet arrest quotas, it's money well spent.

Winner.
It's too bad DUI became more of an industry than a public safety crisis, but then, that might be what got the funding flowing.


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: Vashta Nerada on March 17, 2014, 09:39:58 pm
Smoot made it clear that someone who is "causing a problem" and is drinking in a bar can be arrested for public intox. No breathalyzer, no testing, just the officers opinion. In a time of increasing intolerance for nonconformity, that is a fine line imo and one that concerns me.

Only made worse when people who shape public opinion believe that self-serving handouts and ride-alongs are hard-hitting news:
http://www.fox23.com/news/local/story/ABLE-Commission-keeps-Tulsa-safe-this-St-Patrick/xRsJ-1NcmUmDs0oBfSD6MQ.cspx


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: Conan71 on March 18, 2014, 09:41:42 am
Loved the vest Smoot was wearing when interviewed last night with the “police” badge screen printed on the front. Anyone know if he carries the cap gun and tin handcuffs that came with it?


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: CharlieSheen on March 18, 2014, 11:41:28 am
http://www.newson6.com/category/121535/video-page?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=9956957 (http://www.newson6.com/category/121535/video-page?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=9956957)


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: Townsend on March 18, 2014, 11:51:40 am
http://www.newson6.com/category/121535/video-page?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=9956957 (http://www.newson6.com/category/121535/video-page?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=9956957)

You got your 1.5 seconds of fame...


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: CharlieSheen on March 18, 2014, 12:06:53 pm
I'm wondering who got busted for selling to a minor.


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: Conan71 on March 18, 2014, 12:17:44 pm
You got your 1.5 seconds of fame...

I didn’t catch that before.  Sheen what were you doing hanging out with Smoot?

I like how they said the Brady was a “hot bed”.  Looked like any other weeknight after work.


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: CharlieSheen on March 18, 2014, 12:20:53 pm
I didn’t catch that before.  Sheen what were you doing hanging out with Smoot?

I like how they said the Brady was a “hot bed”.  Looked like any other weeknight after work.

Yeah I was directing Smoot where to go.. I'm a NARC.


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: patric on December 17, 2014, 06:52:35 pm
ABLE Commission:  "We don't make any difference."

http://www.fox23.com/videos/news/gifts-for-lives-lost-over-the-last-4-years-to/vC6kWJ/


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: DolfanBob on December 18, 2014, 08:17:13 am
ABLE Commission:  "We don't make any difference."

http://www.fox23.com/videos/news/gifts-for-lives-lost-over-the-last-4-years-to/vC6kWJ/

Lieutenant Smoot? I had no idea ABLE had ranks.


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: Hoss on December 18, 2014, 08:41:34 am
Lieutenant Smoot? I had no idea ABLE had ranks.

(http://patchesofpride.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/sgtshultz.jpg)


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: Conan71 on December 18, 2014, 09:01:10 am
Lieutenant Smoot? I had no idea ABLE had ranks.

It’s probably like when the Rev. Carlton Pearson decided he was now Bishop Carlton Pearson.


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: Red Arrow on December 18, 2014, 09:06:32 am
(http://patchesofpride.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/sgtshultz.jpg)

"I know nothing.."



Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: DolfanBob on December 18, 2014, 09:58:17 am
He kinda looks like Smoot. Only smarter.  ;D


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: patric on December 18, 2014, 12:40:55 pm
Lieutenant Smoot? I had no idea ABLE had ranks.

Someone has to delegate the "how do we spend this money on ad campaigns?" duties.


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: Breadburner on December 18, 2014, 02:06:17 pm
The way they set bartenders up is borderline entrapment.......


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: patric on December 18, 2014, 02:46:57 pm
The way they set bartenders up is borderline entrapment.......

Its not entrapment when you call it "compliance checks" on paper, but you check compliance by entrapping people.
And the information they give bartenders can be misleading:  http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=20260.0


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: patric on April 18, 2015, 10:58:04 am
Last nights drug alcohol checkpoint on north Sheridan netted 2 DIUs and 49 "other" arrests.

http://www.kjrh.com/news/local-news/tpd-sobriety-checkpoint-results041815?


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: Vashta Nerada on April 19, 2015, 05:02:00 pm
Last nights drug alcohol checkpoint on north Sheridan netted 2 DIUs and 49 "other" arrests.

http://www.kjrh.com/news/local-news/tpd-sobriety-checkpoint-results041815?



IT WAS A SUCESS according to GLORIOUS STATE LEADERS  (and lazy reporters who just cut-and-paste handouts)
http://www.fox23.com/news/news/local/endui-campaign-success/nkxjK/





Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: patric on October 15, 2015, 04:26:39 pm
He kinda looks like Smoot. Only smarter.  ;D



There's been a Smoot sighting.

Havent seen much of him since he went on record saying DPS/ABLE didnt really make any difference in curbing drunk driving, but here he is filling the minds of young impressionable Oktoberfest beer-servers.

http://www.fox23.com/videos/news/video-changes-coming-to-oktoberfest/vDcd6H

Who wants to bet hes still telling them expired drivers licenses arent legal proof of age?


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: Breadburner on October 16, 2015, 10:53:43 am
Is ABLE a profitable government entity......???


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: patric on January 08, 2016, 11:09:40 pm
Is ABLE a profitable government entity......???

Maybe not now.


Oklahoma Department of Public Safety (OHP, A.B.L.E. etc.) knowingly used faulty Breathalyzer testing, which could now result in decades of DUI arrests being thrown out.
http://www.fox23.com/videos/news/video-court-of-appeals-ruling-could-affect-dui/vDhLPg/



Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: Vashta Nerada on May 10, 2016, 07:10:11 pm
ABLE Commission:  "We don't make any difference."

http://www.fox23.com/videos/news/gifts-for-lives-lost-over-the-last-4-years-to/vC6kWJ/


Justice Stevens argued that the checkpoints were not reasonably effective, writing that "the findings of the trial court, based on an extensive record and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals, indicate that the net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative."

Justice Brennan's dissenting opinion argued that the police had failed to show that the checkpoint seizures were a necessary tool and worth the intrusion on individual privacy. "That stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving...is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion," he stated.

 "To date, there is no evidence to indicate that this campaign, which involves a number of sobriety checkpoints and media activities to promote these efforts, has had any impact on public perceptions, driver behaviors, or alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes and injuries. This conclusion is drawn after examining statistics for alcohol-related crashes, police citations for impaired driving, and public perceptions of alcohol-impaired driving risk."


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: patric on June 27, 2016, 09:02:26 am
This week the Supreme Court ruled on blood and Breathalyzer tests, deciding that warrant-less blood tests were illegal but breath tests were not.
http://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2016/06/23/supreme-court-limits-indiana-dui-tests/86283978/

Heres the case that started it:



A Michigan teen who was ticketed — as a passenger — for balking at taking a Breathalyzer test says that she refused because the detective did not have a warrant.

Now 17-year-old Casey Guthrie has filed a federal lawsuit against the cop who slapped her with the $100 citation last month.

The honor student is also challenging the constitutionality of a Michigan law that makes it a civil infraction for anybody under age 21 to refuse a police officer's request to blow into the device — and does not require the cop to produce a warrant.

"No adequate remedy exists at law to redress this unconstitutional policy, practice, and/or custom," the lawsuit states.

The law violates Guthrie's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches, her Detroit lawyer told NBC News.

"Her rights were violated when she was forced to submit to Breathalyzer to prove her innocence," attorney Mike Rataj said. "That is not how the criminal justice system works. This is a girl who has never been in trouble before and has no criminal history."

"Also, she was not the driver," Rataj noted.

Rataj added that Guthrie's father is a retired ATF officer who had warned her earlier never to submit to a Breathalyzer without a warrant.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/michigan-teen-challenging-warrantless-breathalyzer-law-n588351


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: cannon_fodder on June 27, 2016, 10:02:02 am
The cases aren't really related. The Supreme Court ruled regarding drivers, the other involves the passenger.

The Supreme Court holding was that requiring you to prove your innocence by blowing into a government tube is a "legitimate condition on the privilege of using state roads" and that public safety is a compelling reason that justified the laws.  The police argument is that it is too much work to try and get a warrant every time they want to search a citizen. I'm skeptical of the logic (not necessarily the outcome) - because nearly every citizen in the US has to use the government roads to do anything. So if using roads is a "privilege" subject to waiving certain constitutional rights when it is convenient for the government, I have concerns of exceptions swallowing the rule (the rule being the lowly and burdensome 4th Amendment). 

But in this case, the Court basically said reasonable suspicion is enough to have a driver blow in the tube. They went on to say that a blood test is too far and requires a search warrant. Interestingly, Thomas would allow government mandated blood tests at road blocks and Alito said that breath tests are OK because it doesn't give the government a biological sample (unless, of course, he is familiar with DNA testing kits that use saliva which are for sale at Walgreens).




Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: Conan71 on June 27, 2016, 02:49:00 pm
Something about a cop asking you to blow his tube is just disturbing to me.  :o


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: Breadburner on June 28, 2016, 05:53:48 am
Something about a cop asking you to blow his tube is just disturbing to me.  :o

Just wait until he tells you too..."Spread your legs wide and doooooon't move"......


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: patric on August 11, 2016, 10:41:01 pm
The cases aren't really related. The Supreme Court ruled regarding drivers, the other involves the passenger.

The Supreme Court holding was that requiring you to prove your innocence by blowing into a government tube is a "legitimate condition on the privilege of using state roads" and that public safety is a compelling reason that justified the laws.  The police argument is that it is too much work to try and get a warrant every time they want to search a citizen. I'm skeptical of the logic (not necessarily the outcome) - because nearly every citizen in the US has to use the government roads to do anything. So if using roads is a "privilege" subject to waiving certain constitutional rights when it is convenient for the government, I have concerns of exceptions swallowing the rule (the rule being the lowly and burdensome 4th Amendment).  

But in this case, the Court basically said reasonable suspicion is enough to have a driver blow in the tube. They went on to say that a blood test is too far and requires a search warrant. Interestingly, Thomas would allow government mandated blood tests at road blocks and Alito said that breath tests are OK because it doesn't give the government a biological sample (unless, of course, he is familiar with DNA testing kits that use saliva which are for sale at Walgreens).




So while you're handy  (ahem)


The Tulsa Police Department will join the Oklahoma Highway Patrol in conducting a DUI checkpoint in east Tulsa this weekend.

The checkpoint will start at 10 p.m. Saturday and continue until 3 a.m. Sunday, according to a news release. Its specific location will not be released until shortly before officers begin operating the checkpoint, law enforcement authorities stated.


http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/crimewatch/authorities-to-conduct-dui-checkpoint-in-east-tulsa-this-weekend/article_7a658b10-747c-5bf0-af79-aba2f8bed9c6.html

Now if I read Rehnquist correctly, setting up checkpoints only met the constitutional exception if there was advance publicity which allowed motorists to avoid the intrusion.   Likewise, additional warnings like signage and lights allows "motorists to turn aside, and under the operation guidelines no motorist was to be stopped merely for choosing to avoid the checkpoint."

I noticed that the section of the ENDUIok.com website that paraphrased "advance publicity is a deterrent" was removed as well.

Is this change of tactic going to pass constitutional muster?


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: cannon_fodder on August 12, 2016, 07:30:41 am
Several police associations have begun pushing the "no notice" approach since about 2010. The goal, of course, is public safety. But police certainly will see how much of the 4th Amendment they can maneuver around while trying to do their job.  So far, Courts have said that the checkpoints have to be announced, but as the police will point out the Courts have not said they have to tell you where the checkpoint will be ("Well, we announced it, just like they said we have to.").

Drunk driving is a problem. But I disagree with the Supreme Court that drunk driving is such a problem that it overrides the 4th Amendment, which is essentially the current rule. I think the government should intrude on a person's life as little as possible, random governmental checkpoints doesn't seem to fit that line.

Consider this: recent DUI checkpoints in Tulsa have a "success rate" of about 3%. Meaning the vast majority of people stopped and searched by the government with no suspicion have not done the thing they have been stopped for. Of the 3-4% that are arrested, only some will actually be convicted of drunk driving. And nationwide this is considered an amazing success rate - many areas have a 1% success rate or less. Yes, they do catch criminals - but so would warrantless door to door searches. Some success does not end the debate.

What DUI checkpoints are fairly good at is generating tickets and conducting warrantless searches for other things. Though the May checkpoint only generated 8 arrests for DUI, it fined 134 citizens for other offenses and caught a few outstanding warrants (they also saw an SUV turn to avoid the checkpoint and chased it down... which seems dubious to me unless the SUV broke traffic laws to avoid the checkpoint). But writing tickets and warrant checks are not a justification to ignore the 4th Amendment, so we have to pretend our real concern is drunk driving. Tellingly, many advocates point to the "return on investment" of DUI checkpoints, which they have to, because...

DUI checkpoints are expensive. They take how many officers hours and hours, often on overtime? Several sources have indicated that the total cost of a DUI checkpoint is $10k. Hard to believe, but with a $101mil budget supporting 750 officers - taking a good number of them away for hours costs money. Every officer sitting at a DUI checkpoint waiting to find a drunk driver is an officer that isn't doing other things.

Roving drunk driver patrols have been shown in studies to be much more effective than checkpoints at actually catching drunk drivers. (http://www.nhtsa.gov/links/statedocs/FY09/FY09ARs/CA_FY09AnnualReport.pdf) The roving patrols stopped far fewer people, but caught drunk drivers at a rate that was 35 times higher than government checkpoints. While the arrest rate is much, much higher - the "return on investment" is lower.

12 States ban DUI checkpoints as an unnecessary governmental intrusion. While I can believe that a governmental checkpoint is the most effective way of catching criminals, it doesn't seem American to me. Officer: "Pull over, show your papers."  Citizen: "What did I do wrong?" Officer: "I don't know, you tell me." Citizen: "Am I being detained?" Officer: "Show your papers. If you just comply you can go."

Anyone know the officer's opinion on DUI checkpoints?

April DUI checkpoint results:
http://www.newson6.com/story/31802022/tulsa-brookside-dui-checkpoint-nets-8-arrests

May DUI checkpoint results:
http://www.newson6.com/story/31977785/tulsa-police-arrest-10-in-dui-checkpoint


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: Conan71 on August 12, 2016, 09:24:09 am

DUI checkpoints are expensive. They take how many officers hours and hours, often on overtime? Several sources have indicated that the total cost of a DUI checkpoint is $10k. Hard to believe, but with a $101mil budget supporting 750 officers - taking a good number of them away for hours costs money. Every officer sitting at a DUI checkpoint waiting to find a drunk driver is an officer that isn't doing other things.


How about all the extra officers standing around at a homicide scene or major crash doing nothing but chattering amongst themselves?

I understand you need a certain amount to secure the scene and direct traffic, but it seems like they end up having many officers milling around who could be out enforcing traffic laws and generating revenue or responding to burglary calls.


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: Ed W on August 12, 2016, 10:12:01 am
Sometimes there's federal grant money available for these "focused" actions. So the department and local taxpayers don't bear the full expense. Still, you'd think some of our elected officials would be complaining about it. It's federal, so it must be evil somehow.


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: patric on August 12, 2016, 12:30:06 pm
(they also saw an SUV turn to avoid the checkpoint and chased it down... which seems dubious to me unless the SUV broke traffic laws to avoid the checkpoint).

As per my earlier post, the Supreme Court specifically said motorists should be able to do just that, as part of the justification for mitigating the intrusion of a roadblock.  In practice though, anyone believed to be navigating around the lines leading to a checkpoint gets targeted.

How about all the extra officers standing around at a homicide scene or major crash doing nothing but chattering amongst themselves?
I understand you need a certain amount to secure the scene and direct traffic, but it seems like they end up having many officers milling around who could be out enforcing traffic laws and generating revenue or responding to burglary calls.

If just getting your name on an activity report is what supervisors look for, you take the easy route.  They're just human, after all.


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: cannon_fodder on August 12, 2016, 12:32:33 pm
Yes Patric. My understanding from secondary sources is that as long as you legally avoid the checkpoint you have done nothing wrong. U-turns, stops in traffic, sudden swerving etc. will raise reasonable suspicion. But if you have nothing to hide, why are you exercising your constitutional rights?

Sometimes there's federal grant money available for these "focused" actions. So the department and local taxpayers don't bear the full expense. Still, you'd think some of our elected officials would be complaining about it. It's federal, so it must be evil somehow.

Or, more earnestly, our politicians constantly pretend they believe in small government, the Constitution, and individual liberty --- except when those issues actually come up.

Regulate who you can marry - worth millions of dollars in legal fees!

Stick my religious monument on government property - worth millions in legal fees!

Warantless government checkpoints - lets do it!

Considering making marijuana a personal choice - never!

A rational single scheme to regulate alcohol - the hell you say!  (see what I did there, and the thread is back on tack...)


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: patric on August 12, 2016, 12:42:55 pm
Sometimes there's federal grant money available for these "focused" actions. So the department and local taxpayers don't bear the full expense.

It just hides the source better.  Its our money; it always was.

Lobbyists ask for tax money to fund overtime, unions etc. for a perceived problem.

Cops get paid overtime if they meet "goals" related to the perceived problem.

The sharp rise in arrests are "proof" that more money is needed to combat the new epidemic of the perceived problem.

Catch 22.





A rational single scheme to regulate alcohol - the hell you say!  (see what I did there, and the thread is back on tack...)

...and you do good legwork, too.


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: dioscorides on August 19, 2016, 08:45:02 am
Has anyone heard anything about this?  This is the only mention of it that I can find.

Reversal: ABLE aims to block brewery pint sales

http://www.thirstybeaglebeerblog.com/2016/08/reversal-able-aims-to-block-brewery.html

Just weeks after Oklahoma craft brewers believed they had won assurance they would be able to sell their full-strength beer by the glass at their breweries, the state ABLE Commission today delivered a devastating blow to the industry.

Representatives from the state's craft beer industry met with ABLE officials this afternoon, expecting to find resolution on the issue of sales of growlers of full-strength beer.

Instead, brewers learned that ABLE had reversed course and intends to block the sale of full-strength beer by the glass. The brewers believed such sales would be allowed under Senate Bill 424, which was passed during the most recent legislative session and is set to go into effect on Aug. 26.

Brewers learned today that ABLE believes SB 424 actually does allow growler sales, and sales of bottles and cans, but only for off-premise consumption. The agency's interpretation of the bill suggests that on-premise consumption of full-strength beer -- by the glass, in other words -- is not allowed.

No formal rule has been issued by ABLE on this -- at this point it appears the news delivered to brewers today can only be construed as ABLE's intentions. And it remains unclear what recourse the brewers have. If a rule is formally issued, they may have the ability to challenge or appeal it.

In the interim, sources indicate that brewers will attempt to continue to negotiate with the commission in pursuit of a more favorable determination on SB 424.

One thing that is clear is the state's brewers felt assured by-the-glass sales would be cleared by ABLE. Several brewers had planned elaborate celebration events for Aug. 26; some of them have even begun morphing their business plans to cater to the new law. The announcement from Choc/Prairie of a new brewpub in Automobile Alley is just one example.

The fate of those events and those plans now seems up in the air.

(Blogger's note: I will update this post as more reaction/information becomes available.)

UPDATE!

The Craft Brewers Association of Oklahoma this evening released the following statement on the ABLE/SB 424 situation:

"We are disappointed in today's restrictive informal interpretation by the ABLE Commission relying on the Attorney General's office. The interpretation allows for brewers to sell 'to-go' beer only. 'To-go' beer can be packaged in growlers, six packs, and other original brewery packaging. Brewers will not be permitted to sell beer for consumption on premises, missing the original intent of SB 424 as passed by lawmakers."

Meanwhile, state lawmakers have also weighed in. State Rep. Emily Virgin responded to the controversy on Twitter today, saying "Incredibly disappointing development. Legislative intent to allow on-site consumption has always been clear."

And state Rep. Jason Dunnington said this on Twitter: "Looking into it. Fact is whatever the case we can adjust it legislatively."

Coincidentally, ABLE has a regularly scheduled meeting set for 10 a.m. Friday morning, at 3812 N Santa Fe, Suite 200. Representatives of the CBAO will be in attendance and will continue to attempt to work with ABLE toward a positive resolution.

You can see the agenda for the meeting here. Included are discussion points on State Question 792, Senate Bill 383, and "Discussion on Amendment to Title 37, Section 521(A)." In case you were wondering, Title 37, Section 521(A) is the same thing as SB 424. (Why did they not just call it SB 424 on the agenda?)

There's also a public comment period -- with a three-minute time limit -- so if you attend the meeting and line up to speak, keep it short and keep it classy.

So after a wild day, where do we go from here? Remember, brewers should still be able to sell bottles and cans (and growlers) from the brewery on Aug. 26, so Roughtail's plans for special can releases and American Solera's plans for special bottle release should proceed.

I have not received information on what will happen with all the taproom parties the breweries have scheduled. I think we'll need to wait on tomorrow's meeting, and then the brewers will likely have announcements to make.

One key thing to remember, meanwhile, is that SB 424 was never intended to be the cure for all that ails the state's craft brewers. It was only intended to bridge the gap until voters could (potentially) approve SQ 792, activate SB 383 and move Oklahoma into the post-Prohibition era come October 2018.

(And also remember what Dunnington said; legislators could attempt to make this right next spring in the 2017 legislative session.)

So, while a disruption of the intent of SB 424 is highly discouraging for the brewers, the move by ABLE is not the end of our craft beer industry.

It is disappointing because the brewers clearly were given the impression from ABLE that by-the-glass sales would be allowed, only to see the rug pulled out after they had started making plans and actually enacting business development.

And also disappointing because it could take an industry on the verge of massive development, and set it back by two years.


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: Conan71 on August 19, 2016, 09:59:23 am
My observations:

How did the legislature muck this up so bad that there was still a way for ABLE to mis-interpret the intent of the bill?

Why does by the glass sales create an issue for ABLE when high point beer can be consumed on premises at any number of restaurants and bars across the state?




Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: cannon_fodder on August 19, 2016, 10:30:03 am
LOCAL has issued a statement too:
http://www.localok.org/#!URGENT-ACTION/b1y8m/57b6370d0cf2075995bbe920

Here is the pertinent language. The bill basically inserted language into the existing law, the new language is underlined (sorry it cuts and pastes poorly, but I'm not going to reformat):

Quote
A. A brewer license shall authorize the holder
thereof: To manufacture, bottle, package, and store beer on
licensed premises; to sell beer in this state to holders of Class B
wholesaler licenses and retail licenses and to sell beer out of this
state to qualified persons; to sell beer produced by the licensee to
consumers twenty-one (21) years of age or older on the premises of
the brewery
; and to serve free samples of beer produced by the
licensee to visitors twenty-one (21) years of age or older.

Note, neither the samples nor sales specifically say "for on premises consumption." So the AG is interpreting that as meaning samples are for on premises consumption, but sales are not. Using the exact same words in the same clause to derive two separate meanings. Why not assume the "samples" are for off premises consumption also?

Quote
Samples and sales may only be distributed
or consumed between 10:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. Samples and sales of
beer made or served by a brewery under this section shall not be
considered a "sale" of beer within the meaning of Article XXVIII of
the Oklahoma Constitution or Section 506 of this title; however,
such samples and sales of beer shall be considered beer removed or
withdrawn from the brewery for "use or consumption" within the
meaning of Section 542 of this title for excise tax determination
and reporting requirements.

Sample and Sale treated the same again. Recall the 9PM curfew was meant to appease bars as well as neighbors of breweries, in addition to liquor stores.

The whole bill is here:
http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2015-16%20ENR/SB/SB424%20ENR.PDF


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: DTowner on August 19, 2016, 11:07:19 am
While I think ABLE is overreaching to assert its power, the problem is SB424 is silent on the issue of on-premises consumption.  Other statutes in this area often specifically state whether sales are for on or off premises consumption.  For example, 37 O.S. 521, which sets out what acts the holders of various licenses can do, it provides:

“A package store license shall authorize the holder thereof: To purchase alcohol, spirits, beer, and wine in retail containers from the holder of a brewer, wholesaler or Class B wholesaler license and to purchase wine from a winemaker who is permitted and has elected to self-distribute as provided in Section 3 of Article XXVIII of the Oklahoma Constitution and to sell same on the licensed premises in such containers to consumers for off-premises consumption only and not for resale….”

A mixed beverage license holder may:

“purchase alcohol, spirits, beer or wine in retail containers from the holder of a wholesaler or Class B wholesaler license or as specifically provided by law and to sell, offer for sale and possess mixed beverages for on-premises consumption only. . . .”

SB 424 is unusual in that it was intended to allow sales by a licensee for both off and on-premises consumption.  The drafters used silence on the consumption issue to convey that intent.  They should have removed all doubt and specifically said sales could be for on-premises and off-premises consumption - particularly given how ABLE always seems to muck things up.


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: davideinstein on August 19, 2016, 04:59:05 pm
Why are we so anti-business in this state?


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: AquaMan on August 20, 2016, 08:25:42 am
Our anti-business attitude is category specific and religious based: Liquor, sex, marijuana. Otherwise we welcome and encourage businesses that exploit.


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: patric on March 07, 2017, 01:05:06 pm
A lawsuit to be filed Tuesday will allege that two state agencies illegally adopted emergency rules in response to the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s upholding of a ruling that resulted in the inadmissibility of DUI breath tests as evidence.

Edge Law Firm of Tulsa and Hunsucker Legal Group of Oklahoma City announced they plan to file the suit in Oklahoma County. Named as defendants are the Department of Public Safety and the state Board of Tests for Alcohol and Drug Influence, which oversees the breath-testing process.

The two firms in recent years have brought multiple actions against DPS regarding the administration of DUI breath tests. In September, the state Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling that the machine used in these tests was not a properly approved device.

The decision resulted in all breath tests conducted in Oklahoma being inadmissible.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/courts/lawsuit-will-allege-dps-violated-procedures-regarding-inadmissibility-of-breath/article_5e224127-b61a-5529-94f8-ee092df6aaa6.html




Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: Vashta Nerada on March 07, 2017, 07:53:38 pm
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/courts/dui-attorneys-criticize-bill-that-would-criminalize-breath-test-refusals/article_8205e238-ee26-58ca-b080-d785f1c2e9bf.html


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: patric on April 19, 2017, 01:28:38 pm
Several police associations have begun pushing the "no notice" approach since about 2010. The goal, of course, is public safety. But police certainly will see how much of the 4th Amendment they can maneuver around while trying to do their job.  So far, Courts have said that the checkpoints have to be announced, but as the police will point out the Courts have not said they have to tell you where the checkpoint will be ("Well, we announced it, just like they said we have to.").

Drunk driving is a problem. But I disagree with the Supreme Court that drunk driving is such a problem that it overrides the 4th Amendment, which is essentially the current rule. I think the government should intrude on a person's life as little as possible, random governmental checkpoints doesn't seem to fit that line.

Consider this: recent DUI checkpoints in Tulsa have a "success rate" of about 3%. Meaning the vast majority of people stopped and searched by the government with no suspicion have not done the thing they have been stopped for. Of the 3-4% that are arrested, only some will actually be convicted of drunk driving. And nationwide this is considered an amazing success rate - many areas have a 1% success rate or less. Yes, they do catch criminals - but so would warrantless door to door searches. Some success does not end the debate.

What DUI checkpoints are fairly good at is generating tickets and conducting warrantless searches for other things. Though the May checkpoint only generated 8 arrests for DUI, it fined 134 citizens for other offenses and caught a few outstanding warrants (they also saw an SUV turn to avoid the checkpoint and chased it down... which seems dubious to me unless the SUV broke traffic laws to avoid the checkpoint). But writing tickets and warrant checks are not a justification to ignore the 4th Amendment, so we have to pretend our real concern is drunk driving. Tellingly, many advocates point to the "return on investment" of DUI checkpoints, which they have to, because...

DUI checkpoints are expensive. They take how many officers hours and hours, often on overtime? Several sources have indicated that the total cost of a DUI checkpoint is $10k. Hard to believe, but with a $101mil budget supporting 750 officers - taking a good number of them away for hours costs money. Every officer sitting at a DUI checkpoint waiting to find a drunk driver is an officer that isn't doing other things.

Roving drunk driver patrols have been shown in studies to be much more effective than checkpoints at actually catching drunk drivers. (http://www.nhtsa.gov/links/statedocs/FY09/FY09ARs/CA_FY09AnnualReport.pdf) The roving patrols stopped far fewer people, but caught drunk drivers at a rate that was 35 times higher than government checkpoints. While the arrest rate is much, much higher - the "return on investment" is lower.

12 States ban DUI checkpoints as an unnecessary governmental intrusion. While I can believe that a governmental checkpoint is the most effective way of catching criminals, it doesn't seem American to me. Officer: "Pull over, show your papers."  Citizen: "What did I do wrong?" Officer: "I don't know, you tell me." Citizen: "Am I being detained?" Officer: "Show your papers. If you just comply you can go."

Anyone know the officer's opinion on DUI checkpoints?

April DUI checkpoint results:
http://www.newson6.com/story/31802022/tulsa-brookside-dui-checkpoint-nets-8-arrests

May DUI checkpoint results:
http://www.newson6.com/story/31977785/tulsa-police-arrest-10-in-dui-checkpoint



...and yet they seem to be immune from the budget cuts that OHP and DPS have been whining about for months.  
3% success rate? Lets do it again and again the same way and unrealistically expect some sort of success.  If the goal is revenue collection maybe, but even Smoot went on record as saying "we know we dont make a difference" in accomplishing their stated goal of "ending DUI" so why are they still blowing tax dollars driving around the Winnebago-billboard?

Today's Whirled:  (DPS) will conduct the checkpoint from 10 p.m. Saturday to 3 a.m. Sunday at an undisclosed downtown location...to raise awareness about the dangers caused by alcohol and drug-impaired drivers.

Some of that awareness may have been true when they were more aligned with the courts orders to publicize the location.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/downtown-tulsa-to-feature-dui-checkpoint-this-saturday/article_3c0f76a6-05f9-5fc8-8f0c-52201a7a8c2d.html


Title: Re: They are ABLE!
Post by: patric on May 31, 2017, 10:27:03 am
DPS announced a DUI roadblock "south of East 11th Street and west of South Sheridan Road" which is the entire Riverside precinct.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/tulsa-police-to-set-up-dui-checkpoint-for-memorial-day/article_66892fb4-2cfa-595f-b7b5-349c448e1fec.html
but actually had it in the middle of Brookside at 41st & Peoria.  Im guessing this agency was involved:

Affidavit: Tulsa County deputy shows up for work intoxicated
http://ktul.com/news/local/affidavit-tulsa-county-deputy-shows-up-for-work-intoxicated

Probably not what they were expecting from the "let them come to you" tact.


So far the only Memorial Day weekend DUI fatality I have read was an innocent motorist killed as the result of a head-on crash during a police chase.