make WWAY your homepage  Become a fan on facebook  Follow us on twitter  Receive RSS Newsfeeds  MEMBERS: Register | Login

DWI checkpoint results in 40 charges, 9 arrests

READ MORE:
 

NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC (WWAY) -- 40 charges, and 9 arrests were made over the weekend at a multi-agency DWI checkpoint.

As an active participant in the NC Governor' Highway Safety Program, The New Hanover County Sheriff’s Office S.A.F.E. unit hosted the DWI checking station at US Highway 17 North and the 8700 block of Market Street on Saturday.

Agencies involved include the Brunswick County Sheriff’s Office, Wilmington Police, Carolina Beach Police, UNCW Police, and NC Ports Authority Police.

Results:

7-DWI
1-Underage Possession Alcohol
1-Provisional Licensee
2-Possession of Marijuana
1- Possession of Drug Paraphernalia
6- Driving During Revocation
2- No Operator’s License/ Other License Violations
1-Resist, Delay, Obstruct
7- Expired Registration Violations
1- Safety Inspection Violations
6-Seatbelt Violation
1-Window Tint Violation
1-Fictitious Info to LEO
1-Child Restraint
1-Warrant Served
1-Failure to Obey Traffic Officer

Disclaimer: Comments posted on this, or any story are opinions of those people posting them, and not the views or opinions of WWAY NewsChannel 3, its management or employees. You can view our comment policy here.

»

I hope they caught JUST ONE

I hope they caught JUST ONE smoking one of Them Thar E Cigs...and busted 'em good up and down, and gave 'em down the country too! With any luck...they won't invent E Cigars or Earth will explode!!!!
Some of these comments people have made (including my E Cig remark) make as much sense as "American soldiers can't shoot unless shot at".
Sound familiar???

drunks

more checkpoints=less drunks.
But I find it odd when you call in a drunk driver to 911 they do everything they can to prove the drunk innocent.
Leland needs to step up DWI enforcement-they can start in the Arbors at Westgate development-

Hanson, if you feel like

Hanson, if you feel like these dui checkpoints really are that good you should lead a crusade to get the "state" and the "fed's" out of the alcohol business, why should government promote and profit for an item that is so dangerous for the rest of the public? This is harassment at it's best! And for the record, I do not support drinking and driving, but if a person that has had 2 drinks a danger to the highway then it's time to start pulling a lot of seniors and incompetent drivers license also, the driving in New Hanover and Brunswick county is a joke.

Wilmington Needs More DWI Checkpoints

Drunk drivers leave downtown bars every night of the week. If the police could set up more DWI Checkpoints we would have fewer drunk drivers on our roads and fewer deaths and injuries.

Also, Wilmington is in desperate need of an active MADD chapter (Mothers Against Drunk Drivers).

Let's see if we can't start a MADD here in Wilmington, one of the worst cities in the U.S. for alcohol abuse.

DAMM

What we have here is a failure to communicate. The forming of DAMM....... Drunks Against Mad Mothers...... would be a good start. Only requirement to join DAMM is a valid drivers license and a half gallon of booz

So if it's a DWI checkpoint...

Why all the other charges ?
Just call it what it is, a random round up. Sure it's a good thing to get drunks off the road, no one would argue that point, but why hide behind that when what they really are doing is randomly checking EVERYONE for ANYTHING.
I'm not so sure we would all be so comfortable with that concept. I know I'm not. I'm guessing those old guys who wrote the constitution maybe had a darn good reason for seeking to limit the search and seizure bit. Notice it's pretty high on the list of things the wanted to guard against.

I don't know, maybe they weren't that smart. It's probably something we should get rid of. I'm not doing anything wrong so why should I care ?

The main purpose of the

The main purpose of the checkpoints is to get drunk drivers off of the road. The other violations listed in this report are things that can be obvious to anyone looking on and can be found without an unreasonable search. Should the officers just ignore other violations that are right there in front of their faces? Should they just let the driver go with a child not safely restrained in the car? Should he let the person go who was driving with a revoked license? I know, they should let the minor with alcohol go.

this sounds like a dragnet sweep operation, not DUI safety

since when did DUI check points become a dragnet for any dirt you can dig up?

1-Fictitious Info to LEO?
1-Child Restraint?
1-Warrant Served? (during a traffic stop!!!???)
1-Failure to Obey Traffic Officer?
1- Possession of Drug Paraphernalia (this is a law?)
1-Resist, Delay, Obstruct (if there was no checkpoint, this wouldn't have happened, so you caused this violation. that's entrapment..)
7- Expired Registration Violations
1- Safety Inspection
6-Seatbelt Violation (is this for real?)
1-Window Tint Violation (WTF? digging deep for this one..)

This is totally unconstitutional and is the type of thing that would have happened in the Soviet Union during Khrushchev, or in communist China.

So,

The guy with the drug paraphernalia and the guy with the warrant you just let go because they are not drunk, logical thinking there...lol!!

entrapment

Before you make a fool of yourself you need to learn the law. Entrapment is when you entice someone to commit a crime that they would not normally commit. Like offering a broke person trying to feed 3 kids (who does not deal drugs) $1000 to get some him drugs.

Sorrells v. United States,[11] unanimously reversed the conviction of a North Carolina factory worker who gave in to an undercover Prohibition officer's repeated entreaties to get him some liquor. It identified the controlling question as "whether the defendant is a person otherwise innocent whom the government is seeking to punish for an alleged offense which is the product of the creative activity of its own officials".[11]

Sherman v. United States,[12] the Court considered a similar case in which one recovering drug addict working with federal agents from the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (a predecessor agency to today's Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)) solicited another to sell him drugs on the premise that his own efforts were failing. Again unanimous, its opinion focused more clearly on the defendant's predisposition to commit the offense, and on that basis overturned Sherman's conviction as well, since although he had two prior drug convictions, the most recent dated back five years. Furthermore, he was attempting to rehabilitate himself, he had made no profit on the sales, and no drugs were found in his apartment when it was searched, suggesting the absence of a predisposition to break drug laws. "To determine whether entrapment has been established," it said, "a line must be drawn between the trap for the unwary innocent and the trap for the unwary criminal

If living in this country is

If living in this country is so terrible & you hate it so much, MOVE! You can not be serious comparing this easy life we have to that of a person living in a communist nation. I've been to countries like that & believe me, death is preferable to the way some of those people have to live.

in favor of this

I'm all in favor of the police getting everyone who is breaking the law. I would not have been ticketed for any of the charges listed and if you are doing the right thing you wouldn't be, either. Wait till someone plows into your car with no license or insurance. You'll sing a different tune, then.

That's funny right there

Are you for real? Please tell me that your post was a joke. I'm assuming you're someone who lives on "the other side of the law." Yep, all these laws are on the books and most of them for good reason. Maybe you should do a little research before posting something that ignorant. I'm quite sorry that you think laws should be selectively enforced but tell me this: What would you do if the unrestrained child was a family member of yours and was later injured or killed in an accident because the officer looked the other way? What would you do if the person who had a warrant wasn't arrested and later assaulted or murdered a family member because the officer looked the other way? Do I need to keep going?

It's a very simple concept. DWI checkpoints are constitutional. If probable cause is developed to investigate and charge for other crimes during a stop at a checkpoint then that is also constitutional. It is absolutely absurd to think that officers should simply ignore evidence of other crimes that occur during a checkpoint. So to summarize: If you don't want to get charged with something at a DWI checkpoint don't do anything illegal or carry anything illegal in your vehicle. But you probably have a pretty big problem with that don't you? I'm sure you think you ought to be able to whatever you want, whenever you want to do it. And comparing this to the Soviet Union or China? I can't even touch that one. Have you ever bothered to actually read history or are you just regurgitating rhetoric that a moronic friend read on a blog somewhere? Unbelievable!

Technically Checkpoints are

Technically Checkpoints are illegal but are pushed through some type of loop hole. The amount of DWI arrests at checkpoints are minimal compared to all other arrest and charges at "DWI" checkpoints. Most drunk drivers are arrested due to patrolling officers and concerned citizens reporting them. Not all state have checkpoints because it is unconstitutional and because most charges can be dropped with the right lawyer. Its the same as you being pulled over while your driving down the road doing the legal speed limit with your seatbelt on and you have up to date tags, license, and registration. It's not right for a officer to just stop you while walking down side walk minding your business and following the law and you get stopped and checked for your ID to make sure you dont have any warrants. You don't have to be on the "other side of the law to enjoy the freedoms and privacy our founding fathers invisioned for America. Our government bend and ammends our constitution so much we might as well rip it up and write a new one. Our existing constitution has so many scratch outs and changes that you'd get a failing grade if you turnes into english class with so much white out and erase marks. It is not right to drive drunk and i am not trying to side with drunks on the road but i will fight for my constitutional rights as a citizen in America that are being taking away from us daily.

Ok then...

First, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that your response was submitted using a phone or other mobile device. If not, please don't admit otherwise. There were so many grammatical, punctuation and spelling errors in it that it was almost comical, especially given your statement about getting a failing grade in English class. That part actually made me chuckle.

Second, I applaud your disapproval of drinking and driving in general and agree with you to a certain extent about being able to enjoy our constitutional freedoms. But I think your comparison here is a little misguided.

So, to respond to your comment about checkpoints being illegal please follow this link at your earliest convenience:

http://www.ncsheriffs.org/documents/Motor-Vehicle-Checkpoints.pdf

Not only are sobriety checkpoints specifically authorized by statute in North Carolina, the US Supreme Court has even upheld them. So please explain how they're illegal.

Also, think about this: DWI is an implied consent offense. If you're not sure what that means please utilize the always handy-dandy Mr. Google. Having a driver's license is not a constitutional right, it is a privilege granted by individual states. No one's constitutional rights were violated here.

Thanks for your time!

Privilege?

"Having a driver's license is not a constitutional right, it is a privilege granted by individual states." I've heard this a million times and it's BS. We have a right to right to obtain a Drivers License based upon testing of our driving abilities. Once we pass the test we get our license, and that license can be suspended or revoked based upon criminal laws that have been proven to be violated, or we become medically unfit. But it is not a "privilege" granted upon us by any local, state or federal government. We are not subjects of the government, they work for us, and it is a their privilege, granted by us, that we allow them to administer driving licenses.

Why 17N at nearly Pender County line

Must not have wanted to bother the good citizens of NHC with invasion of their 4th Amendment rights...lol

Well stated.

Well stated.

Constitutional Right.

Still looking through the constitution and I don't see any amendments that guarantee anyone the right to obtain a drivers license.

Show me,

where in the constitution it says you have a "right" to drive. LOL!! The roads are state and federally owned so yes it is a privilege to drive. Learn your laws!!

Show You?

It doesn't have to show you where it says you have a right to drive in the constitution anymore than it says you have a right to use the toilet. The roads are owned by us and managed by the Federal and State government on our behalf. Stop being a serf.

Show You?

It doesn't have to show you where it says you have a right to drive in the constitution anymore than it says you have a right to use the toilet. The roads are owned by us and managed by the Federal and State government on our behalf. Stop being such a surf.

once again

You do not have the right to use a toilet, how ever if you decide to pee in public expect to be charged. We are still waiting on you to show documented proof of these "rights" you claim.

back it up

Please show where driving is a guaranteed right because I can show you where it is a privilege to be licensed.

OK

Show me.

The right to travel cannot be taken

For those asking the supreme court ruled long ago that no state can make a law subduing your right to travel unless you contract with the state. If you have a license in your wallet you have contracted with the state and agree to abide by their rules. Once again if you must ask permission then you are not free.
A citizen's right to interstate travel has long been recognized as a fundamental right, grounded upon the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2, of the United States Constitution. Edwards v. People of State of California, 314 U.S. 160, 173, 62 S.Ct. 164 (1941).

Travel

That says "travel", not "drive a motor vehicle." You can't stop him from taking a train, bus, plane, bike, horse, boat or even walk to go out of state. Nowhere does it say you have the right to "drive a motor vehicle."

From NC DMV handbook

verbatim from the DMV handbook:
Chapter 1
Your License
Driving is a legal privilege and responsibility.

DMV Handbook

I guess because the almighty DMV handbook says that it must be so. You pass the tests, don't break the rules, and it's your right. You don't have to go to the DMV with your hat in your hand and say "Please, may I have the privilege of a Drivers License?" then go sit in the corner like a little mouse with a piece of cheese while they decide. You have the right to come and go, and if that involves jumping through a few required hoops then so be it, but you don't have to thank anyone for the privilege.

Oh my...

Does anyone bother to read laws or statutes or even the NC or US constitution before posting on here? Aren't you embarrassed to post such drivel without any supporting documentation or facts?

BS indeed! I could't have said it better myself. Good day to you.