I have been pulled over several times over the years leaving work in the early morning. I was pulled over in 3 different towns, one town twice. The officers always start with the questions where are you coming from ,where are you going. The first couple of times I answered them. After that it became annoying. After being told I was swaying in the lane. I became angry. I was dodging pot holes . I think we go over board when you are suspect just because of the time of day or night . I was tired after working 14 hours, and just wanted to go home with out being hassled . When is enough enough ? When our civil rights and personal privacy are under attack I question it.
Conducting sobriety checkpoints; I don't need to sit in traffic while police rake in the over time.
The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. It was adopted as a response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, which is a type of general search warrant, in the American Revolution.

Not no, but HELL no! We need to do a lot more, and sobriety checkpoints in this day of smart phones are just useless.

Okay, folks, here are my .02 worth.

Hold the enablers accountable.

Repeat after me. Hold the enablers accountable.

If a bartender or party host can be held accountable for someone becoming intoxicated and causing harm by getting behind the wheel of a car, why not hold the people who provided the car to the convicted / suspended license DUI driver as accountable? How are these people with revoked licenses getting vehicles?

STOP THAT.

You're drunk. You totaled your car, your license is suspended with a DUI, you can't drive, and anyone handing you a set of car keys should be just as liable as the person behind the wheel. Period.

And make it against the law for a dealership to sell a vehicle to someone with a suspended or revoked license. No sale.

It just PI__ES ME OFF when I hear someone who has had 10, 12, 19 convictions against them. and they are still able to find a car to drive!!! Little Susie goes through Daddies SUV because she has to party hard at the beach, daddy goes to jail right along with her.

Imagine just how fast our dubious record will improve!

Joseph why must you always go on the attack. Lighten up pal and things will be more better. I suggest that you should join my new group. It is called ICFAT. WE are a group of informed citizens who are out to develop the town like Seekonk and or Middletown and cut unneeded services, but most importantly we desire to put the educators back where they belong. Teaching is a profession in which a bunch of old hens sit around drilling liberalism into the youth while tending them towards drug use and homsexuality. It time to take back the streets ICFAT can do it for you.

I have never lived anywhere where people are allowed to refuse a breath tests and have it, de facto, absolve a DUI. What is so simple about gradually phasing in implied consent with refusal subject to automatic suspension (administrative, therefore no tie up of the courts) and evidence of admisstion to DUI ? It's withstood challenges in every federal appelate circuit and is the law of the land in the most liberal (CA) and conservative (SC) states. The ACLU and the defendant's bar are powerless to stop it. All it takes is for the Democratic Party of RI- the party of the people- to have a little spine.

Once again, for it is not the government but it is the people. From Newport to Woonsocket there are so many establishments where bartenders and waitresses are to lax as they want to jack up the bill. Look in any package store there are "singles" and now there's 22 oz beers for sale, and of course the 1 oz shot bottles at the counter. Then there's the drunks themselves as well as their immediate friends who look the other way. Do we want a police state on Route 24 or the Pell Bridge? Happy Holidays ...

so, let me get this straight...sounds like Joe S. thinks it's ok that we have repeat DUI offenders, and that the State shouldn't do any more than we are already (or not) doing. You don't want to get stuck at a checkpoint? Hey, if it saves lives, I'm all for it. We have too many repeat offenders, and too many deaths and injuries from people driving under the influence. If you're not one of them, then what's the problem? Wouldn't you rather a safer Rhode Island? Rhode Island comes in last in too many instances ... sometimes I really think we're a sorry excuse for a state. But, I digress....the point was, DUI and doing more to stop it! Hell, yes, we need to do more. Perhaps Joe is one of the offenders, and therefore thinks any additional measures would hurt him.

Having lost two cousins to drunk drivers this a sore subject for me. DUI should be a felony. Perhaps someone would think twice if drunk driving could cost them their present and future jobs and their right to vote among other things. Breath or blood tests should be required not voluntary.

This state is way too lenient on drunk drivers. It is a shame and an easy fix. Instead of allowing these people to plea bargain for a lesser charge hold them accountable. Charge them with the crime they committed. Too many people are being arrested and allowed to plea for a lesser charge. By the way when they plea for the lesser charge it allows for them to be charged with DUI 1st offense again when it really should be 2nd 3rd or 4th offense. The system is broken and needs to be fixed. Stop making plea deals and I bet you see less repeat offenders.

E, I don't believe that Joe S. is all that concerned about 'saving lives'. Maybe we should remember that driving is a privilege, not a right! Saving lives should be a top priority, even if it means Joe S. has to lose his two beer buzz while waiting in traffic!!

Lets bring back PROHIBITION....I'm a little foggy here...IT worked..right..??

Drunk driving should be a felony. And if you kill someone while drunk driving, you should be jailed for murder. You don't have a right to drive drunk. A driver's license is a privilege, not a right, and carries with it the responsibility to behave according to laws. If you don't want to be pulled over for random breath testing, then don't drive. As to "unreasonable search". I consider it perfectly reasonable for the police to pull over, question, and breath test, anyone driving erratically, whether it's because they are dodging potholes, texting, chatting to their passengers, eating, or drunk driving. You don't have the right to endanger my life or the life of others just because you have a license and a vehicle. Incidentally, driving tired is a frequent cause of traffic accidents.

The operative phrase being "the rights of ALL citizens", not just the ones who like to drive drunk.

nptresident "After being told I was swaying in the lane." If you can read than try it again. I never left the lane of travel. I have a clean driving record, and I am proud of it. The officer had no reason to pull me over, and I called him on it. Probable cause,look it up. I also have friends who were victims of drunk drivers. I mourn their loss. I am not willing to turn RI into a police state, and either were they.

As I said I never left the lane. The other three times I was driving strait, and at the speed limit. I was let go after they ran my name. I was never asked to leave my truck . They were pulling me over because of the time of night. They call it fishing. Hope to get a bite.That is not how police are suppose to operate.

Not always