Stop and search every vehicle looking for drunk drivers.
Arrest 5% of those for drunk driving. After review, plea deals, and thrown out charges - convict ~2.5% of actual drunk driving.
Or to put it another way, 95+% of warrant-less government searches resulted in a failure to find what they purportedly were looking for - but we are all safer, right comrades?
I really dont like drunk drivers, but the legitimacy of ENDUI-like tactics is very questionable.
Police Charge Man With DUI Despite Testing Positive Only For Caffeine
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2016/12/28/police-charge-man-with-dui-despite-testing-positive-only-for-caffeine/That SCOTUS requirement to publicize the location? The ABLE website has since taken down the claim that it was a good deterrent, but I found this in a related search:
It seems counterproductive: every year police step up enforcement of suspected drunken driving around holidays like Thanksgiving and Christmas.
They initiate roving road patrols. They plan DUI checkpoints at locations throughout the state.
But then they announce exactly what they’re doing — down to where and when the patrols and checkpoints will take place — seemingly giving advance notice to anyone thinking of driving drunk.
Why?
“Because the United State Supreme Court made a ruling and said we were obligated to do so,” Lt. J. Paul Vance, a state police spokesman, said Tuesday. “We’re obligated to follow the law like anybody else does.”
“We never used to announce them,” he said. “It was ‘Surprise!’”
That changed after a 1990 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a case out of Michigan.
In that case the court ruled 6-3 that such checkpoints were constitutional. But in doing so, they implicitly acknowledged that certain guidelines — like publicizing the checkpoints ahead of time — were necessary.
If a person is driving, a police officer needs a reason to pull them over, or the stop would be illegal. Police advertise checkpoints as a way of giving fair notice to the general public.
“It’s required because otherwise it would be considered a detention without reasonable suspicion, which is a violation of the Fourth Amendment,” said John Williams, a New Haven defense lawyer.
As amendments go, the fourth — which protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures, and requires police to (in most cases) convince a judge to sign a warrant to search citizens — is a pretty important one.
In the 1990 case, the Michigan appeals court had ruled that DUI checkpoints violated the Fourth Amendment before the U.S. Supreme Court overruled, using a balancing act to determine that the dangers posed by drunk driving outweighed the Fourth Amendment intrusion.
NHTSA.GOV Guidelines issued by the NHTSA also instruct police departments to publicize checkpoints aggressively.
Williams said that in cases regarding the constitutionality of DUI checkpoints, courts hold that announcing them ahead of time helps police satisfy constitutionality requirements.
“If they didn’t announce it they would definitely be in trouble and they wouldn’t be able to use any of the results,” Williams said.
Vance said that despite the requirements to announce the checkpoints and patrols ahead of time, state police still arrest drunk drivers.
“It doesn’t impact our ability to enforce,” Vance said, pointing out that state police charged 65 people with drunken driving over the Thanksgiving weekend last year. “That’s pretty significant for one holiday.”http://valley.newhavenindependent.org/archives/entry/Why_Do_Police_Announce_DUI_CheckpointsSo basically the ten or so DUI arrests might just be un-prosecutable window dressing for the hundreds of "other" citations?