Sobriety Checkpoint Leads to 22 Charges

Article Tools

Share This +

Wednesday, April 8, 2009

The Loudoun County Sheriff's Office conducted a sobriety checkpoint Saturday evening on Route 9 near Waterford.

The checkpoint was held in the area of Old Stage Place and saw 864 vehicles pass through. Of those 864, eight vehicles were further screened. There were no arrests for DUI, but two people were charged with drug-related offenses and 20 motorists were charged with traffic violations, a majority of them for driving without a license.

The Sheriff's Office currently conducts one checkpoint per month throughout the year, and holds additional checkpoints during the holidays.

Members of the Sheriff's Office Auxiliary Unit and volunteers from the Loudoun Chapter of MADD assisted with the checkpoint.

Tagged: Checkpoint, Loudoun Sheriff's Office, Waterford

Comments:

Note: LoudounExtra.com does not necessarily agree with comments posted below — responsibility lies with the relevant reader alone. Peruse our reader agreement and privacy policy

Any charges resulting from a Sheriff checkpoint held on Monday at the intersection of Beech Rd and Lincoln Ave?

Posted by kpschroe (anonymous) on April 8, 2009 at 12:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Any charges resulting from a Sheriff checkpoint held on Monday at the intersection of Beech Rd and Lincoln Ave?"

Posted by mitlen (anonymous) on April 8, 2009 at 6:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

There is always a risk of harm to motorists when police create a checkpoint. There are rear-end collisions from people not expecting to stop and inconvenience from being delayed that encourages people drive faster after leaving the checkpoint to make up for lost time. We accept this increased risk because the improved safety of removing drunk drivers from the road offsets the enforcement risk.

For the past several checkpoints we have not had any impaired drivers and the focus has been on enforcing the requirement that a driver have their license with them.
Failure to have your license with you is not a motor safety issue and we should not endanger lives by having checkpoints to check for non-safety violations.

Police: checkpoints should only be used for safety enforcement and not administrative enforcement. There are safer ways to do that.

Posted by EdwardMyers (anonymous) on April 9, 2009 at 7:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I would like to see the number of personnel, vehicles and how much we spent on overtime pay alongside the numbers of tickets...

Posted by scm (anonymous) on April 9, 2009 at 12:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Seems to me that the use of a Sobriety Checkpoint is a ruse for other activites. What was the selection criteria used for "fuuther screening" ? Profiling? Hmmm... How were the two arrested on drug offenses unless the evidence was in clear sight of the officers? Was an illegal search performed? Any "seat belt" violations! Yippppeeee!

Posted by herb.jordan (anonymous) on April 9, 2009 at 1:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm happy about the checkpoints. Whether you're caught w a safety violation or not having your license or it's suspended, etc., it's good for the community. One never knows what may turn up during one of these exercises. Driving while high is no better than drunk driving. When I was 20, there were entire stretches of I-5 that I couldn't remember driving.

Posted by ms1234 (anonymous) on April 10, 2009 at 10:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I would have been caught in the checkpoint for not having a LC Decal, I could not pay my car taxes or get it inspected because I have to paid the increse in my property taxes. Now I am selling my car.

Posted by Funnyguyva (anonymous) on April 10, 2009 at 11:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I am glad they are doing the checkpoints and hope they continue to do them! so what if they catch other people for small violations, there are reasons for those laws too and if your wrong your wrong suck it up and take the ticket. my sister was killed by a drunk driver, i completely encourage anything to stop drunk/impaired drivers, and when you lose a friend relative because of it you will too.

Posted by amylwhite12 (anonymous) on April 11, 2009 at 7:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I hope Mr. Myers read this story... http://loudounextra.washingtonpost.com/n.... I have never heard that checkpoints cause rear-end collisions, but I do see that they take violent criminals off the streets.

Posted by truthseekerva (anonymous) on April 13, 2009 at 8:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dont have an account? Sign up!