If you want a 100% dragnet, use technology. There is a dangerous trend, of which this is a good example. The tendency is to say, lately, that it's OK to violate civil rights, if you violate everyone's civil rights. You have no presumption of privacy, where the government is concerned, but you can expect the government to not be biased.

Interesting take, but it's not what the Bill of Rights is about.

A search must be conducted at a specific time and place, looking for specific evidence of a crime. The Bill of Rights set out to expressly keep the government from going on fishing expeditions. The public good don't enter into it. ANY fishing expedition is a violation of the spirit of the Bill of Rights, no matter how much the courts interpret it to death.

This is the kind of thing that separates nanny state liberals from progressives.

This is a terrible amendment that must be stopped. The last thing we need is to set a precedent of weakening our constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure for whatever issue is fashionable. Monroe is grandstanding on this to score political points, but it will do long-term damage to the Constitution if it passes. Also, the way this amendment is written, it opens the door for many more sorts of "checkpoints" beyond just drivers in cars -- read the frighteningly wide-open text. People who love state intrusions into their privacy will vote for this. Everyone else should oppose it.

What say me? If you don't drink and drive, you have nothing to worry about.

We wouldn't have to come to this point if people actually were smart enough not to do things that are dangerous. However, our societal culture recognizes that your rights and acting on those rights are more important than using basic common sense to make you safe and civil. That's why we have to legislate common sense (which some call the 'Nanny state way') in order to save ourselves from ourselves.

It's not "Nanny state liberalism", it's forcing the notion of basic common sense back into our society where we need it the most.

"that argument doesn't fly with me very well"

Thats because you don't have any basic common sense (unless it fits your uptight views to futher your points) and you would rather kill yourself while exercising your "rights" than stay alive a long time while using basic common sense.

Kari...driving is a privilage - not a right. If it was a right, the driving app would be next to the voter apps in the post office.

Since driving is a privilage, we have to show we can maintain that privilage with whatever they say we need to keep it. If we need a test to keep our licence, we have to pass it. And if it means having to go through a checkpoint, so be it. The police are just making sure you are maintaining your agreements to keep your privilage.

E-mails are a right. Comparing driving to e-mails are apples to Oranges. There is a difference between a privilage and a right.

This us no different than the NSA scanning all emails for keywords

Thank God you don't work on policy Kari: you're always too quick to pass judgment and message something into oblivion before carefully considering it. Yes, there's a big difference. That is unless you are assuming that cops are going to breathalyze/field test every single driver that goes through a checkpoint and ask them for "Ze Papers!!!". That's not my understanding of how checkpoints work, but I could be wrong.

I'm torn on the issue too Carla, not because it would necessarily be an invasion of privacy (surprisingly for the libertarian inside me), but that it may lead to further/easier abuses of police power (i.e. driving while black/brown/arabic/teen/gay/etc).

Years ago, I lived in Germany where sobriety checkpoints were common and they instilled fear (and a DD) in us young hooligans. They definitely served their purpose, but whenever my Turkish buddy was with us, he was always afraid the white cops would pull him out for extra scrutiny. And having heard stories from black and hispanic friends driving through Central/Eastern Oregon, I'm afraid Oregon is not all that different.

The Oregon Supreme Court has ruled that convicted felony probationers cannot have their effects searched randomly without "reasonable grounds". This includes sex offenders and drug dealers. These are people already convicted! Oregon is one of few states with this craziness. Why don't we address that issue first before randomly stopping innocent drivers who are not even under suspicion let alone under conviction.

They do this all the time in the town where I grew up.

That town, Chico, CA, not coincidentally is home to Chico State, a public university who regularly makes Playboy's top 10 party schools every year or so.

It works like this:

1. Sobriety checks during big drinking times (St. Patties Day, Super Bowl Sunday, Halloween, first weekend of every semester, etc).
2. The sobriety checks are at every major thoroughfare entering and exiting downtown Chico.
3. You are stopped with the officer shining the flashlight in your face.
4. If the smell of alcohol is present, then you will be field tested on the spot.
5. If you fail the field test, then you are taken in for the breathalyzer.
6. If you fail the breathalyzer then you spend a night in jail.

Lets face it, hard economic times hit police departments too. Henceforth, the real motive behind this is $$$. The "protecting the public" spiel is a positive externality.

Personally, I am used to this and I would be in favor of this practice in every city in Oregon. I believe it does cut down on drinking and driving because normal people who would otherwise never be caught drinking and driving get to experience jail time and learn that they never want to go to jail again. This in turn leads them to be more respectful of the law because they have felt the consequences of their illegal actions.

Oh yeah, the police department cordons off the side streets with barriers that will do real damage to your motor vehicle along with police officers directing traffic.

On the other hand, dissenting Justice Stevens countered 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."

or this

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — If you were driving one of the 18,747 vehicles Kansas City police stopped at drunken-driving checkpoints last year, odds are you weren't arrested.

In fact, only 1.6 percent of those drivers were arrested for being drunk.

Police departments around the Kansas City area and the country spend thousands of dollars a year on DUI checkpoints with similar results. While police defend checkpoints as a great public relations tool against drunken driving, there are better ways to catch drunken drivers, experts say.

Take saturation patrols, where police cruise city streets in search of swerving cars that may be driven by drunks. They are cheaper to conduct and more efficient -- for each car that police officers stop, they are almost four times as likely to catch a drunken driver. Source

This isn't the only instance of the 'big sweep' logic gaining popularity in Salem, unfortunately. Via the ACLU of OR:

SB 355 would allow the Oregon Board of Pharmacy to monitor certain prescriptions of millions of law-abiding Oregonians in hopes of identifying a small percentage who may be abusing controlled substances, with little or no consumer protection.

I prefer my civil liberties to whatever incremental extra arrests could be made from random searches without probable cause.

bn

Torridjoe,

Any evidence? Let me retort:

Have you ever done any time in jail? Well, I have and I can tell you that having gone to jail, I never ever want to go back there.

That is my firsthand evidence.

As for statistics, no I do not have them.

Let me know how the statistics work out for you once this bill is made into law and you are pulled over by a cop for drinking and driving, while driving home from the Blitz or whatever Pearl District bar ya'll congregate at after work.

BTW, if this practice is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, then why has the Chico Police Department been able to do this for close to a decade by now?

I would have figured that some underemployed attorney would have made this a case by now?

You tell me.

Looks like the police are asking for another tool to harrass the poor, the dark-skinned, and those with bumper stickers the police don't like.

And it looks like Conservatives...who supposedly seek small, limited, unintrusive government...are all for it.

Surprise, surprise.

How about random stops and cavity searches, too? After all, if you're not smuggling dope in your bunghole, you've got no reason to oppose it, right? Time for all law abiding persons, especially those who look good naked, to proudly line up and take their cavity searches.

But I'm not a big fan of wide-net searches like this. It seems to me a violation of privacy, which should be inherent. Unless there's a probable cause reason to do a sobriety check on an individual, I don't like giving law enforcement this kind of power

It is a violation of the 4th Amendment.

But maybe we should get the Obama Brownshirts to do it.

Brodhead

Ah yes, the conservatives and their Nazi references. Class through and through.

Progressives, tend to be bicycle commuters - so I don't see these sobriety check points as being a threat. But child pornography laws pose a greater threat to Progressives. Bernie Ward & Sam Adams are the first 2 that cum to mind here. Ward Weaver claimed to be a progressive but didn't recycle on a regular basis, so I think he was more of a mainstream dem.

They have been shown to reduce DUII related crashes, much more powerfully than enhanced penalties, etc. I think the life saving opportunities are worth it.

Churchill,

A bike is a motor vehicle according to Oregon law. You too can be stopped and cited for drinking and driving.

The law applies to you too :)

Admiral Naismith,

Believing in small, limited, non-intrusive government is not compatible with 'turning the other cheek' when it comes to breaking the law. I trust law enforcement even after being cuffed and spending my time. Therefore, if the police feel that they need sobriety checks to better enforce the law, then I trust their word.

I am all for giving law enforcement the tools they need to enforce the law in these hard economic times. Of course there are common sense limits that clash with your desire for random stops and full body cavity searches.

Geez, you do have a kinky mind.

Correction, bicycle not "bike."

How about expanding the scope to include people talking on cell phones too, since they are just as dangerous. Makes just as much sense as DUI checkpoints.

This is a terrible idea but it'll probably fly as it has elsewhere. Unless you have bona fide probable cause leave me the hell alone. Then again my interpretation of the framers intent of our constitution doesn't necessarily jibe with that of modern day progressives or right wing nationalists.

Police departments do not run sobriety checks 24/7 365 days a year. That is a misconception from ignorance.

Sobriety checks are put in place during holidays and other periods where law enforcement perceive there is a high enough probable cause to put them in place to enforce the law and protect the greater public.

In my experience, the times when sobriety checks are put in place are known and most of the locals choose to partake at home or at a bar outside the sobriety check area.

I understand why people are up in arms about this. Yet, running your mouth that this is a slippery slope to further intrusions is unfounded. Sobriety checks are commonplace in Chico, CA and my friends and relatives have not been subject to further intrusions into their lives from police.

Why bother? The penalties for DUII in Oregon are absurdly low. Why not pass a law with meaningful sentencing provisions first?

Im really failing to see why Progressives would be against this. This would help you folks identify yet more people with potential alcohol problems to throw on the public 'save us from ourselves' teat

The other point is that law enforcement doesnt see a penny of the fines that are assesed with a citation. So get off the bandwagon of police padding their budgets. I enforce some ORS'S and write Oregon Uniform Citations (same format as traffic tickets) for the State of Oregon.

I too disagree that this is a usable tool for law enforcement. I agree that the penalties are too low to deter anyone for DWI. Taking their car should just the begining. If the car is borrowed then whoever the owner is will easily have a suit against the dumbass they lent their car too. Maybe this 'pay it forward' plan would radiate out to help deter DWI.

Drunk drivers are killers. They should be taken off the road in the most expedient way possible.

I'm glad you wrote this, Carla. So often the political issues are partisan and special intrest oriented, while this one affects all of us and transends party and ideology.

I think SJR 7 is a more than reasonable proposal and no doubt does deter a certain amount of drunk driving. Many of us have been guilty at various times of having a few at a bar or party while telling ourselves that we are below the .08 limit, without knowing for sure. I think that this would be an incentive for many more people to take a cab, mass transit, or whatever it takes, even when they are "sure" they are "ok". We've come a long way in the battle against DD, but still have a long way to go. Alcohol is the main contributing factor in half of 40,000 annual traffic fatalities, not to mention serious injuries, insurance/ legal costs, etc... What do the civil liberty fanatics say in response to that?

Of course there are a certain number of hard core addicts who will always drive drunk until they get in legal trouble and /or quit drinking. The former doesn't always result in the latter I know someone who had something like five or six DUIS within three years (reportedly two were in the same day) and I don't know if he ever quit drinking. Part of the problem might have been that he never did jail time, not more than a few days, anyway. I remember the Salem Statesman Journal had a big series on alcoholism/ drunk driving approx. six years ago , and at the time there was an introduced bill that would have created mandatory prison sentence after, I think, the third, DUI. I'm not sure if it passed.

I would like to see evidence, too, comparing states/cities with and without check points. I'm sure MADD has something available.

I've been doing this for 10+ years and have yet to see checkpoints used effectively. The lack of them isn't a major problem for law enforcement. The earlier commenter is correct - saturation patrols are more effective and less problematic from a civil liberties point of view. All the cops need to stop someone is a traffic infraction. I have yet to meet or read a report where someone who was .08 or above could avoid a traffic infraction for a significant period of time when being tailed by a cop (which they're allowed to do).

I hate to say that it all boils down to money, but it really does here. If you want drunk drivers off the road, start holding bars financially liable for serving drunks and watching them leave with keys in hand. Fund law enforcement DUII saturation patrols. Fund treatment programs for first time offenders. PROHIBIT PROBATION FOR SECOND TIME (or more) OFFENDERS and require substantial incarceration. Eliminate the diversion program or at least require people not to drink while on diversion. (Yes, you can drink on a DUII diversion. Read the statute. It only prohibits drinking in conjunction with the operation of a motor vehicle.)

Most of all, give it a higher price tag. Right now, in my county, this is the effective price tag - 1st offense - diversion 2nd offense - 2 days jail, probation with treatment 3rd offense - a whopping 5 days jail, probation with treatment 4th offense - maybe 30-60 days jail, with probation

What a joke! I'm fine with probation and treatment for first time offenders, but treatment for people who aren't taking it seriously is a waste of money.

On behalf of the progressives below the 45th parallel:

Most liberals have already lost their union values. Please don't lose your drinkin values at the same time. A cold one with the window rolled down on spring day is a simple pleasure and a grand testament to what America has to offer--a regular chance at renewal and true freedom. My guess is that my truck wouldn't fit in Monroe's garage and he probably doesn't have a cup holder big enough for my beer.

I visited Greensboro, North Carolina several years ago to visit a friend. We were driving on a Friday night, and ran into one of these checkpoints. I was completely confused as to how this was legal. He treated it like it was perfectly normal. I had never even heard of such a thing.

While I think that drinking and driving is a very serious problem, I would feel very uncomfortable with such a check in Oregon. To me it is blatantly unconstitutional. If public safety officers are concerned as most law abiding citizens are about drunk drivers, they should patrol areas around bars and other events where alcohol is consumed to make sure that people are obeying the law.

MLW - you don't know what you are talking about.

You cannot drink while in diversion in all three counties in the Portland metro area. In fact if you read Diversion rules for first time offenders you cannot drink for the whole year of diversion. AND you have to go to 3 months of weekly or bi-weekly "treatment" (which is really just a way to part you with $50 every time you walk in the door). The "treatment centers" (and I quote them for a reason, these are not legitimate treatment programs they are set up to verify sobriety and take money from DUII folks so they feel the financial pain and don't drive drunk ever again) they have to verify to the courts 90 days of continuous sobriety. How do they do this? Random urine tests every couple of weeks. First time offenders wind up paying about $4000 for their mistake.

I think that is plenty harsh for getting popped at .08.

I am not some advocate of drinking and driving and personally take public transit everywhere I go but I have known folks who have gone through this process hence my detailed knowledge (including 2 folks on bicycles who got popped with DUI's) and it is plenty painful and a serious financial hit as well as a great shame and possible affect on employment opportunities.

IMHO - MADD will not be satisfied until we are at .00 and when that happens I think there are going to be plenty of currently self-righteous legislators out there who will certainly regret not taking a more realistic approach when pulled over after driving home from that fundraiser with a glass of wine in the system. Think I am being hyperbolic? Well in less than 15 years Oregon has gone from .20 to .08 (.04 for CDL license holders) and some states are now considering .04 as the legal limit (that's one beer people).

And as someone has already pointed out - fatigue, cell phone talking, texting etc all directly mimic DUI impairment. What do we do with that?

Kari - it is all about tolerance when it comes to how people react to BAC. Different people absorb and respond to alcohol in different ways. Alot of research has been done on this and some hard core alcoholics can have .40 BAC before they feel anything - this amount would probably kill you and me. .08 to a hard core alcoholic would be like how you feel after taking a single sip of beer.

I am NOT saying that we should raise limits for drunks, just that one person can have 3 IPA's in a hour and be "smashed" and another can the same amount and just feel a little tipsy. The smashed person is alot luckier as a)it's cheaper and b) they hopefully know they shouldn't be behind the wheel of a car. The guy with the higher tolerance (for whatever reason - he drinks alot, genetics, stomach lining etc) will step behind the wheel above .08 and not even know it.

This fact is actually why you can pass a breathalizer and still get a DUI. The legal definition is "impaired". If you get wasted off of one beer, you could blow .04 and still go to jail as you are legally impaired.

Sad to see all the support for invasive, totally suspicionless stops on a list where people went generally berserk over the idea that we should outlaw cell phones while driving, which is the same basic issue (degraded driving ability) carried out on a much wider scale.

Sobriety check points are not a good idea. Don't get me wrong, we should all we can to eliminate impaired drivers from the road. The tragedy of death and injury due to impaired drivers is truly sad.

If it were just a sobriety check point, that would be one matter. But these check points also snare, equipment violations, driver license violation, registration tag violations and other violations, that would not have been triffled with otherwise.

Yes driving is a privilege but the right to free of unreasonable search and seizure is a fourth amendment issue.

Personally I really do not want to talk to a police officer or have a flash light shined in my face. If I headed to the store or where ever, I do not want to be impeded.

If we are truly to be serious about eliminating impaired driving, then we would make the BAC .00% instead of .08%

It is a cruel trick to for our society to say it's ok to drive with a BAC of less than .08%. People are impaired after BAC of much less than the legal limit. But we tell people you can have a cocktail or a glass of wine and then drive? Why not take the guess work out of it?

Sobriety check are inefficient too. It takes a team of officers and resources to block the road, direct traffic and run the check point. If it takes six officer to handle a checkpoint without excessive delays, handle field sobriety tests, potential transports to the jail, etc. I would much rather have those six officers assigned to patrolling the streets.

As someone who lives in a town where several people have been arrested while driving clean and sober I can personally attest to the fact that, yes you do have something to worry about even if you are innocent and completely obeying the law while driving in the state of Oregon.

The truth is that in Oregon you can be issued a DUI ticket for a BAC well under .08% if you cannot pass what amounts to a try out for a gymnastics team; the prejudicially named, "Field Sobriety Test."

One only needs to look at the career of one 'award winning Officer Cox of Corvallis' to see how laws seen as 'reasonable' can be manipulated by someone vested with enormous power under our legal system.

No one is in favor of drunk driving but these are the tactics of a police state and should not be tolerated.

No to Sobriety checkpoints for Oregon. Yes to stiffer penalties for DUI convictions and yes to decriminalizing marijuana possession.

Egads! I can´t believe Sen. Monroe is seriously proposing this. I wish I had worked harder for Jesse Cornett.

As a rule, I'm not comfortable with blanket searches/checks like this. But I would support it in the absence of anything else because, right now, the situation is intolerable. It isn't just the penalties for DUII that are weak, it's the penalties for any instances of reckless driving, especially when those instances result in injury or death. In a perfect world, we should be able to trust that people of legal driving age will be able to judge whether they are capable of negotiating public spaces in a 3000 lb. vehicle while talking on a cell phone, tweeting on their Blackberry, applying make-up, or regardless of how much they've had to drink or how many tokes they've taken off a joint. We don't live in such a world. Just as an example: the garbage truck driver who killed bicyclist Brett Jarolimek had numerous prior speeding violations, a felony conviction for possession, a prior civil lawsuit filed against him for his reckless driving, and a previous revocation of his license (which had been restored before the time of the murder) on his record. And this guy was allowed to drive an enormous vehicle. His may be an extreme example, but it's a demonstration of how far we have to go to make the public safe from rogue drivers. Instead, the Obama (aka Bush III) administration is using taxpayer money to bail out the automakers (once again, because it worked so well for Chrysler the first time we did it), directing billions of taxpayer "stimulus" dollars to building yet more freeways and highways and sprawl, and now talking about tax incentives for Americans to purchase yet more carbon-spewing death machines. Here in Portland, we're about to have a 12-lane mega-bridge shoved down our throats, all thanks to union-beholden Democrats in charge of our state and local governments.

In light of all that, I say bring on the checkpoints. We have to do something to make people realize that driving is a privilege. Handing out licenses like candy isn't working, making all of us (including those of us who don't drive) subsidize drivers' lifestyles isn't working, kid-glove treatment by our judicial system isn't working. Checkpoints can only help.

This is an example of the kind of stupidity that is hurting the Democratic Party in Oregon. We also have the juvenile, poorly thought out tobacco witch hunt by the same small cohort of Democratic legislators. We are going to see a raft of idiotic legislation like this, more of it from Democrats than Republican, because they lack the ability to deal with the actual economic problems we face right now and have ego problems or other character problems that make them truly dysfunctional in their role. They are enabled because an large enough minority of Democratic voters in the state are more childish, uninformed, yet have inflated self-importance in this state than Republicans (just like at the addle-brained incoherent blather on Blue Oregon on balance for objective proof.) We need to clean house in the Party and the legislature to replace Democratic representatives and senators like Monroe.

By the way, I'll bet a lot of you thought this uncivil, paternalistic ignornamus Monroe was just great when he sponsored other big brother legislation, mainly because he was a legislation. He's the kind of bad actor we don't need in our Party or our government, but who glad-handing Blue Oregonians defend, and criticize other Democrats for not being total Party loyalists rather than judge each candidate on their merit and integrity.

Call up whatever "D" in the legislature you support and ask him or her if they back Monroe's bill. Be prepared for at best seething, resentful, "no comment" from their fawning office staff at the temerity of an informed, knowledgable citizen calling up and challenging the values, integrity of their incompetent, egotistical boss (which frequently is their spouse).

Call up our clueless incompetent party chair Meredith Woods-Smith and incompetent Executive Director Trent Lutz and ask them if they personally support Monroe's legislation and, as Party leaders authorized to speak for the Party, if the Party supports Monroe's legislation. Be prepared when they tell you that their only job is to get "Democrats" elected, but are utterly incapable of explaining how legislation like this and representatives like Monroe represent Democratic Party values.

I can't believe I am saying this, but I agree with Ms Axtman. Just wait until we put "sobriety" checkpoints in "known" trouble parts of town with high-minority or high-gang concentrations.

I think Mr Monroe hit too many branches when he fell out of the stupid tree on this one.

Ok I agree with you! LOL

It seems whenever the economy takes a down turn, State entities seek to punish the citizens for it, whether it be roadblocks or radar guns.

MADD supports road blocks!

Its a sensitive issue!

Members of the Supreme Court have differing positions on it!

I failsafe to: it violates my 4th amendment rights! The less police state the better!

I wonder what my German grandfather would think about roadblocks? He spent several months in Dachau Concentration Camp for telling the police state to shove the "Hitler Oath!"

Even the most advanced societies can revert to control tactics in a down economy! Do we want this to be the norm!

The less police state the better!

Just dont drink and drive!

www.StephanAndrewBrodheadForCongress.com

Instead of having the debate about the constitutionality of sobriety check points, how about while we're retooling the auto industry, we require a breathalyzer in order to start every new car? If you blow anything greater than a .05 your car doesn't start. Over the years we've added requirements to auto manufacturing for safety such as headlights, taillights, turn signals, bumpers, airbags, seat belts, child car seats, etc. Why not a breathalyzer?

While we are at it we can add a road rage device! If you are pissed off that day, you just have to walk to work.

How about a device that asks you where you are going and if it is really necessary?

A nice little voice ask you, " have you thought about your carbon footprint today?"

Then there could be the Obama Edition: "It will cost you 3 Cap and Trade credits to go to the store, may we charge this to your Obama Change card?"

So some of you propose that you should give the police the right to stop me and interfere with me on the basis of the day of the week or time of day? Not on the basis of any behavior of mine? I do no like being interfered with, certainly not capriciously.

Do those of you who advocate this seriously believe that the BuschCo interferences with your rights sprung full blown from their pin sized intellects? No, it was a steady progression made on the same basis you propose, you are asses if you think it stops there in the face of all previous evidence.

At 21 years clean and sober I'm real sure I'm not promoting driving under the influence. This is another appeal to authoritarianism which is neither left nor right, but simply that.

I sense that the very idea of sobriety checkpoints would have been appalling to most of us prior to the abuses of power of the Bush admin....the Patriot Act, signing statements, renditioning. All that. We're inured; jaded. Really folks, have we all been brainwashed into thinking personal freedom and an expectation of just a little privacy went out the window with the coming of the computer age? And that it's Okay? As much as I admire Obama, I'm disappointed he hasn't rushed to restore some of our personal freedoms, repeal the Patriot Act, stop the NSA's spyingh on Americans..... as quickly as he acted on the Guantanamo travasty.

Why are we so eager to sign off on our own rights? Slippery slope. I have visions the old black & white movies where the Nazi guards coldly say "Pay-pahs pleesze"...only now it will be a municipal cop saying "Now I will scan your chip, and draw some blood."

No, simply put this is unreasonable search and seizure. Unfortunately this is the next logical step in a police state that already makes one darn near strip dowm in order to get to the terminal gate at an airport.

I am no fan of drunk driving or "impaired driving". Rather than a witch hunt and road blocks at night I advocate for real legal teeth in existing drunk driving laws and mandatory license revocation after the second conviction.

Why not just assiduously observe the existing laws, and ensure that offenders are inserted into programming at an early stage in offense, and held to it?

Oregon engages in subtle profiling. Black friends of mine speak often of movign back to the south, where at least you know what you've got.

Lake Oswego profiles and targets people driving vehicles that are battered - I was pulled over and looked over when driving a crunched truck, tho I was a freaking local.

Having observed firsthand how Beaverton cops act towards a distressed teen-of-colour who has no idea he simply looks big, imposing and Coloured.... I would not encourage that we open the door to potentially profiling the marginalized.

I'm disappointed he hasn't rushed to restore some of our personal freedoms, repeal the Patriot Act, stop the NSA's spyingh on Americans..... as quickly as he acted on the Guantanamo travasty

Great call!

We allow a million illegals to cross our borders while spying on legal tax payers? I have to admit that George Bush did more to take away our right to privacy than any other president in history! Its ok its St. Josephs aspirin, Saint Josephs

Well we could just adopt Kulongoskis GPS tracking system! Whenever you sit in a bar for more than 3 hours, it sends a message to the police department and your insurance company. We could install little nanogyros on the wrists of all beer drinkers to see how many chugs they do! It would have 4 settings: Bud,Microbrew, shots, and Ripple! Better yet lets tax people for personal energy use. Young people could be taxed much more than seniors. A basket ball game would cost you 10 bucks while a trip to the proctologist would just be covered by Medicare!

ACORN members would get a discount and first shot at stimulus contracts!

We allow a million illegals to cross our borders

Do you care that you invaded their borders and created the ones they're violating at gunpoint?

Perhaps we should have have them set up a few 'checkpoints' in Eugene on Ducks home football game days and see how popular they are?

Perhaps we should have have them set up a few 'checkpoints' in Eugene on Ducks home football game days and see how popular they are?

We could get the ATF involved complete with paramilitary midlife crisis uniforms and black helmets. We could fence off the stadium and play really loud Hip Hop music. Maybe have a few half tracks in the background for posterity. Anyone that fails a breath test leaving the stadium has to take a summer class in College Algebra and differential equasions! Its just a thought!

Kevin,

This is not a racial thing! Its a legal issue. My Uncle is a several generations Tex Mex. All legal immigrants are cherished in this country. My mother was an immigrant. We will need immigrants from around the world to enrich our society and pay the taxes. Throughout our history we have used legal immigranst to kickstart huge endeavors etc.

Manifest Destiny is a good thing!

"Just a little concerned" - Actually, I do know what I'm talking about. Local jurisdictions have the authority to prohibit drinking for people on diversions, and some do, but some do not. Read ORS 813.200 et seq and you will see this is true. You will also see that treatment is only required if indicated by a "diagnostic assessment". Since the only inputs to the diagnostic assessment are given the by the offender, would you care to guess what percentage of defendants I see who are not required to complete any meaningful treatment? Do we really expect alcoholics to give us honest answers about their alcohol abuse? The program is a joke.

How the HELL can you liberals be in favor of this unjust seizure of our rights as free citizens..

This goes against everything we're fighting for.. are you f'in kidding me!

checkpoints.. IM ACTUALLY READING DEMOCRATS WHO W A N T CHECKPOINTS..

ARE YOU SERIOUS.

Let's meet up because you need to get your head corrected.

"Just a little concerned" - Read ORS 813.200. It does not require a "no alcohol" condition on diversions. Local courts sometimes do, but sometimes do not.

Worse, treatment is only required if recommended by the evaluator. The evaluator gets all of his/her information from the defendant. The defendant rarely admits the scope of their addiction.

Bottom line - the diversion program is a joke.

OPEN LETTER TO ROD MONROE, OREGON STATE SENATOR Email: [email protected]

Dear Senator Monroe,

It deeply disturbs me that you sponsor legislation to allow Sobriety Checkpoints in the State of Oregon. Our Oregon Constitution was written to protect our sacred privacy and civil liberties. The thought of broadening police powers and giving them even more authority to intrude on our privacy is repulsive. In a post-Bush era where the American Citizen lost so many of our civil rights, you should be ashamed of yourself.

You were elected by your constituents to represent them and to protect them. While drunk driving is a serious issue, this legislation is DEAD WRONG. Sobriety Checkpoints are about as effective in stopping drunk driving, as it would be to randomly give chemotherapy to undiagnosed patients to battle cancer..

In a culture where we verge on living in a police state, hiring more law enforcement is NOT in the interest of protection... The police motto is no longer "To Protect and to Serve", it should be: "To Harass and to Fleece"...

Please re-think your position, as you may find you no longer have the support from your voters...

Sincerely,

David Schrom