HUGE DUI CHECKPOINT ON RT320 and RT 3

[BimmerJon]

What a joke...

Backed up traffic for miles and consisted of no less than 30 cops....

What a waste of taxpayer money.

My car got pulled over, probably because I was shaking my head in disbelief at the cops of how stupid of a spectacle this was...

Literally backed up traffic for miles...

[glocking26]

I'm with you brother. Pa. is starting to become just like NJ with this shit.

[vetter3006]

With the State not giving money to the locals as much am seeing more and more aggresive cops pulling people over. I also seen they installed the new system I forget the name that calculates your speed between two points on Burmont road. Glad I did not go that way yesterday as I also would have been pissed to sit in traffic for that.

[NS145]

That system you are referring to is enradd.

Just waiting for the day when Munis can use radar. It will happen. Then we will all be in for a headache.

[64Jeeper]

(in your best Russian accent)

"Papers please?"

[mrjam2jab]

Sitting in a line like that....start honking horn....hopefully others will do it to...so it's not just you. Call it a "silent" protest.

[BimmerJon]

That system you are referring to is enradd.

Just waiting for the day when Munis can use radar. It will happen. Then we will all be in for a headache.

vascar

........

[NS145]

vascar

........

vascar is the stopwatch. enradd is the device I think he is talking about. A lot of PA police departments received grants for "traffic calming" that included the POS speed timing device.

From http://enradd.com

What Exactly Is Enradd?

ENRADD is short for "Electronic Non Radar Device." This device has become a very popular speed timing device for law enforcement officers. This device is especially popular in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The reason it appears as if Pennsylvania is using ENRADD more than other states is because ALL police officers (both local and state) are permitted to use it. The device is approved for use and is recognized by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as an official electronic speed timing device. ENRADD was created by the YIS Cowden Group out of Pennsylvania. This company, which has a very good reputation, builds, tests and services this device as well as many other forms of speed enforcement equipment. This company also assists police departments on how to properly use these devices.

How Does ENRADD Work?

ENRADD accurately detects the speed of a vehicle by using two small metal half square like shaped bars which are placed on the shoulders of the roadway directly across from one another. The first bar has two transmitters and the second bar has two receivers. The transmitters send two invisible infrared beams of light into the two receivers. The beams of light, which extend several feet across the roadway, are manufactured exactly three feet apart from one another on each bar.

As a vehicle passes through these invisible beams of light, the device automatically calculates the elapsed time it took the vehicle to pass through both of these invisible infrared beams and instantaneously calculates the speed of the vehicle. The system is able to do this by using the mathematical formula of S=D divided by T. (Speed = Distance Divided By Time) The distance of three feet divided by the amount of time (milliseconds) it took the vehicle to pass both of the beams of light will produce a speed in mph.

Example: A vehicle traveling at 50 MPH is traveling 58.64 feet per second. The machine calculates the amount of time the vehicle took to traverse through its three foot infrared span and calculates the speed. It is the same mathematical formula and concept used in many other forms of speed timing equipment, but done through a calibrated, tested and fully automated electronic and wireless machine which is not effected by human error reaction time.

After the device calculates the speed, it sends a wireless signal to the ENRADD monitor which is located in the police car. The monitor inside of the police car will display the vehicle's speed as the vehicle passes the device. This allows the officer to clearly track and identify the vehicle in question.

Prior to beginning enforcement, an officer will typically set the machine to "Lock-In" vehicles at a certain speed.

Example: If the speed limit is 35 MPH and the officer sets the Lock-In speed at 50 MPH, the machine will only Lock-In and alert the officer to vehicles traveling at 50 MPH or greater. The machine will still display the speed of each passing vehicle, but will not Lock-In a vehicle traveling under 50 MPH. In this case, upon a vehicle passing the machine at 50 MPH or greater, the ENRADD monitor inside of the police car will sound an alarm and the speed displayed will be Locked-In, thus allowing the officer to have a positive Lock-In speed on the vehicle in violation. Upon the officer who is operating this device either stopping the speeding vehicle or radioing ahead to waiting officers, he or she will then reset the device and resume monitoring traffic. The machine is able to be set to lock in speeds from 20 MPH - 120 MPH.
(50 MPH used above was just an example.)

[MrBi11]

gotta love it in Michigan, even if the SCotUS doesn't respect the Constitution there are still a few people in Goberment that have some brain cells left...

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/09/921.asp

Opinion: Why Are DUI Sobriety Checkpoints Constitutional?
Attorney Lawrence Taylor explains the constitutionality of DUI roadblocks.

Lawrence TaylorHave you ever wondered how police can stop you at a DUI roadblock (aka "sobriety checkpoint")? Doesn't the Constitution require them to have "probable cause before stopping you"? Yes and no.

The Constitution of the United States clearly says that police can't just stop someone and conduct an investigation unless there are "articulable facts" indicating possible criminal activity. So how can they do exactly that with drunk driving roadblocks? Good question. And it was raised in the case of Michigan v. Sitz, in which the Michigan Supreme Court striking down DUI roadblocks as unconstitutional. In a 6-3 decision, however, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Michigan court, holding that they were constitutionally permissible.

Chief Justice Rehnquist began his majority opinion by admitting that DUI sobriety checkpoints do, in fact, constitute a "seizure" within the language of the Fourth Amendment. In other words, yes, it appears to be a blatant violation of the Constitution. However, he continued, it's only a little one, and something has to be done about the "carnage" on the highways caused by drunk drivers. The "minimal intrusion on individual liberties," Rehnquist wrote, must be "weighed" against the need for -- and effectiveness of -- DUI roadblocks. In other words, the ends justify the means.

The dissenting justices pointed out that the Constitution doesn't make exceptions: The sole question is whether the police had probable cause to stop the individual driver. As Justice Brennan wrote, "That stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving... is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion... The most disturbing aspect of the Court's decision today is that it appears to give no weight to the citizen's interest in freedom from suspicionless investigatory seizures."

Rehnquist's justification for ignoring the Constitution rested on the assumption that DUI roadblocks were "necessary" and "effective." Are they? As Justice Stevens wrote in another dissenting opinion, the Michigan court had already reviewed the statistics on DUI sobriety checkpoints/roadblocks: "The findings of the trial court, based on an extensive record and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals," he wrote, "indicate that the net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative."

The case was sent back to the Michigan Supreme Court to change its decision accordingly. But the Michigan Supreme Court sidestepped Rehnquist by holding that DUI checkpoints, though now permissible under the U.S. Constitution, were not permissible under the Michigan State Constitution, and ruled again in favor of the defendant -- in effect saying to Rehnquist, "If you won't protect our citizens, we will." A small number of states have since followed Michigan's example.

Mr. Taylor is an attorney with the Law Offices of Lawrence Taylor and author of the standard text on DUI litigation, Drunk Driving Defense, 6th edition.

[Smalls]

So as long as you clear it at above 120 your golden.






*Stunts were preformed by professionals, do not attempt to recreate this on your own.