Checkpoint by Target
Anyone know what the checkpoint was all about at around 10:30PM on Saturday 8/27? We passed by without being checked, but many other cars were pulled over either in the Hyundai lot for westbound traffic or liquor store lot for east. My wife insists they don't just randomly set up a checkpoint with 10 policemen to check for DWI. She thinks they were looking for something specific.
Poloki 
DT It was a DUI checkpoint. My vehicle was stopped, asked a few questions and I was on my way. The officer even said it was a sobriety checkpoint and that was the reason for the stop and sorry for the inconvenience.
CraftBeerBob 
ScottB 
Darrin Washington PD is the absolute worst! They have that little stretch of 46 covered top to bottom every day. I guess people are on to their regular hiding spots so they have resorted to backing cars into the woods now. So lame.
NoHopeForHumanity I was going through it at 12:30 am. Just glad I passed. I guess they were looking for anything like inspection sticker, seat belts, cell phone use, and DUI's.
Charlene The 2016 "crackdown" is underway. From 8/19/16-9/5/16 expect increased police presence from the New Jersey Division of Highway Safety's Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over campaign. Mount Olive PD has received grants from the federal govt. 164 departments have received a total of $840,000 for this "crackdown."
Be careful out there; especially until 9/5.
http://www.nj.gov/oag/hts/downloads/DSOGPO_08-2016_Grant_Recipients.pdf
InformedCit
Steven Cell phones are not a problem. It's their operators that are.
Good luck trying to legislate common sense. It hasn't worked in the past, dont see it working in the future either. But we will kept trying I suppose...
justintime I agree with justintime.. It is the users fault ! Cause they should not be using them in the first place ! While driving .....
Wonderful USA Wonder if they will post the results of the checkpoint. When I went through there were a couple of cars getting put on wreckers.....
From their FB page:
**Press Release**
On August 27, 2016 at 21.00 Hrs, Washington Township Police in conjunction with the Morris County Prosecutors Office established a DWI Checkpoint on US Rt 46. During this checkpoint three hundred and nineteen random vehicles were selected. A subsequent investigation of these vehicle resulted in eight motor vehicle complaints to be issued along with four criminal arrests and one Driving While Intoxicated arrest. The arrested parties are listed below along with their appropriate charges. All were later released after being transported to Washington Township Police Headquarters and processed. The checkpoint was terminated at 01.00 Hrs.
1) Matthew A. Turcsik 20 yrs old Budd Lake, NJ. Issued Criminal Complaint for Possession of Marijuana (under 50 grams) and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia.
2) Rebecca L. Furman 25 yrs old Newton, NJ. Issued Criminal Complaint for Possession of Marijuana (under 50 grams).
3) Miguel A. Morales 28 yrs old Cartert, NJ. Issued Criminal Complaint for Possession of Marijuana (under 50 grams).
4) Sergey V. Slivinskiy 28 yrs old Rancho Cordova, CA. Issued Criminal Complaint for Possession of Marijuana (under 50 grams) along with Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. Mr. Slivinskiy was also issued the following Motor Vehicle Complaints; DWI, Reckless Driving and Possession of CDS in a motor vehicle.
Beerfan 
1988LJ 
maja2 Pull you over for no reason, illegal stop and whatever they find can't be held against you.
Pull you over for no reason, but under the guise of dui checkpoint, everything is fair game and they throw the book at you.
Look, I know people do stuff wrong so "don't do the crime" as posted above and you won't get in trouble..
How many of the same people who say that statement would be OK with the police just showing up at their house randomly and going through your stuff? Not me, and I have nothing to hide.
These checkpoints should not be legal. Quite simple really- if during the operation of a motor vehicle, you commit an offense related to said operation- speeding, tailgating, swerving, etc.. then pull that person over. If the vehicle is driven properly, valid tag and inspection, all lights working, etc- then 100% it should be allowed to travel unimpeded.
These stops are nothing more than fishing, at the inconvenience of several hundred people to net in this case- a single dwi charge which has yet to see it's day in court. (of course even if said person is found not guilty, they still pay court costs and lost day or work wages but that is another gripe).
I say again- this should not be legal. The fact that stuff like this gets passed and we all just sit back and let it happen is shameful. But add it to the list- tolls that were 'temporary'.. countless things- hell, income tax itself.
I've had 2 occasions where I was stopped with my wife for a checkpoint that disrupted our evening- once for a movie, and once for dinner reservations. Call my selfish, call me pigheaded- but if I did nothing wrong- LEAVE ME ALONE.
Josh 
Aj1 Last time I was in a check point refused to answer all questions . Gave them my license registration insurance card refuse to answer their questions about where I was or where I'm going but they said you have a nice day .
What bad will come of it? Ever read the 4th Amendment? How the contents of a vehicle ever came to not be considered "effects" I don't understand. I know, I know, driving is a privilege and not a right, but how the things I keep in my car (including, from what I understand, the contents of my purse) are not subject to warrants, I don't understand.
What is bad about questioning authority?
Aquarius Yeah, I've seen a lot. I hope I see more. That's still not an answer to why this thread should be closed. I've seen worse on this forum stay open for endless rumor and speculation. I've seen much worse.
Wow, Josh nailed it.
There is no way they can justify all that public money spent and all those people inconvenienced for one DUI.
The unconstitutional searches are terrible but at the rate of 1 dui in 319 cars, I simply cannot see how this is a responsible way to spend taxpayers money.
Gee, another name change?
Josh - The rules don't change just because it's a DUI stop.
The same thing happens if you run a light or it's just a routine traffic stop. Smelling alcohol or marijuana is probably cause for a DUI. Once you're arrested for that they can search the car. Surprisingly many people when asked voluntarily open the trunk or let them search what they want even knowing they're going to find something.
As far as cost, compare a couple of officers stationary and checking everyone vs. out on the road and pulling ever car over they can. They get more done with a checkpoint.
GC Sorry. I would rather that the officers use that time, to drive around. I can't tell you how many times a day, I see people driving like maniacs. That behavior ceases, when they see a check point, up ahead. And you can't smell "texting", another one, they miss out on, not to mention cars and homes being broken into, while they are paying 4 cops overtime $50-75 per hour, each, to concentrate in one teeny, tiny cluster. Even with the grants, it's still a burden on the taxes. Doesn't sound like a real bargain, looking at the stats, posted.
sparksjbc1964 GC, I post from my phone. Every time I come on here my phone "forgets" the random name I choose to post with. I suppose I could create an account...
Anyways, state-wide it's an addition $800,000. An ADDITIONAL $800,000. Is this what the people want? I wonder what a poll would reveal.
^^^
your phone doesn't "forget". you either have cookies disabled or are using the "private" tab on your phone.
GC, the difference is running a red light is cause for the police to stop you in the first place. It's a legal stop, at which point they have some leeway in what they can subsequently see/smell.
The mere act of driving a car is not presumption of any violation so it's sketchy how they allow any other evidence to stand based on those stops... (well, except $$$$).
Mark Mc. People always seem to be upset about these checkpoints-until a loved one is killed by a drunk driver. I have no problem being checked or even being late to an event if the checkpoint results in even one life being saved.
So, 1988LJ, you spit on the Constitution and the protections it affords that our brave soldiers have fought and died for? You would surrender freedom for safety? So, are you an atheist or a minority? Get on a boat and get the f!@# out of the country. Only true freedom-loving Americans are allowed to stay, not the fearful little cowards like yourself.
ianimal @GC- "Josh - The rules don't change just because it's a DUI stop."
This wasn't a stop for DUI, this was a stop of innocent people to fish for DUI.
"Ihre Papiere, bitte!"
The rules most certainly most certainly do change, as backed up by Mark above- they state 8 motor vehicle complaints. 1 DUI.
On any other ordinary day, the legal reason they would have for these 8 motor vehicle complaints we won't know as they didn't list them, but I'd bet a paycheck that not all 8 were primary offenses- meaning the right to stop you and ticket. Secondary offense is an offense for which a driver or a passenger can receive a citation but only after a driver has been pulled over for a primary offense. These checkpoints skirt that issue, and bend the legality.
@1988LJ -"People always seem to be upset about these checkpoints-until a loved one is killed by a drunk driver. I have no problem being checked or even being late to an event if the checkpoint results in even one life being saved."
I suggest you read up on Martin Niemöller. While my complaint of missing a dinner reservation or movie time are nowhere near dire (hence my 'call me selfish, call me pigheaded')... the principal remains the same- ever increasing abuse of power, increasing of control, all under the guise of 'safety' in this case.
Also, as I already stated laws are on the books- was the single dui driver swerving, speeding, tailgating, or numerous other offenses? No need to stop HUNDREDS of others, and inconvenience how many countless other hundreds? (traffic backups)
Again- if you have no problem with intense scrutiny for the sake of the greater good, let me know your address and I'll stop by at some point, maybe tomorrow, maybe January, maybe in 3 years.. but I will search your home, your property and call in any infraction I see to the authorities. :)
Oh hell, I will go ahead and post it for you and others-
"Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) was a prominent Protestant pastor who emerged as an outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler and spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps.
Niemöller is perhaps best remembered for the quotation:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."
Agree with everyone except the name change police guy. Gee another contrarian opinion? What a surprise!
Anywho, my favorite issue - Washington Twp. Police harassing people on a tiny sliver of land where barely, if any, of their residents live.
This is equivalent to 'stop and frisk' which I believe was ruled unconstitutional.
Much like the bible, the constitution must be interpreted as a guide. In 1787, there were no drunk drivers or drug smugglers to worry about. It's alright to lose some freedom to be more safe. After all, you can't be free if you're dead.
While I do agree the random checkpoints are an infringement of our right to liberty and happiness, it is somewhat a waste of the officers' time also. Everyone who has had a few takes Waterloo that time of night.
In 1787 do you really think that people were not doing things illegal now? Jesus, you really needed a case against you for murder at the time.
Well then "It's alright to lose some freedom to be more safe. After all, you can't be free if you're dead."
No, it's not alright.
Using your logic cars should be outlawed altogether, seeing that traffic *accidents* are a common cause of death in our society. If you don't want to be dead, pethaps don't get into a car?
1988LJ - I understand your point, but disagree. The first ten amendments of The Constitution aka The Bill of Rights, are just that...my rights and not open to interpretation.
4th amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Commenting is no longer available.