Where Will Police Stop You on St. Patrick's Day? They're Not Telling
No-Refusal Weekend: Kane County State's Attorney Joe Mahon: “I will not say which municipalities will participate. I only will announce when we will have the No-Refusal operation."
Want to know where police will be doing random stops on St. Patrick's Day weekend?
You might get a Breathalyzer test, but don't hold your breath waiting for an answer to that one.
Kane County law-enforcement agencies will work with the Kane County State’s Attorney’s Office on a No-Refusal operation during the upcoming St. Patrick’s Day weekend.
“This office has a responsibility to prosecute DUI offenders, and to educate the public not to drive when they drink,” Kane County State’s Attorney Joe McMahon said. “As has been our practice, I will not say which municipalities will participate. I only will announce when we will have the No-Refusal operation.
“We believe that in past No-Refusal operations, prior publicity has helped to reduce drunken driving. Our goal is to keep Kane County roads safe. Have fun, but don’t drive drunk,” McMahon said.
The initiative is designed to thwart suspected drunken drivers who refuse to submit to a breath test after a DUI arrest. Through the No Refusal strategy, police officers are able to expedite the DUI booking process. With guidance from an assistant state’s attorney, police officers can quickly obtain a search warrant to compel a DUI suspect to submit to a lawfully requested blood or breath test as required by Illinois’ Implied Consent statute.
Illinois courts have consistently held that there is no right to refuse chemical testing when probable cause exists. Anyone who declines to submit to chemical testing after a search warrant has been obtained could face additional charges.
The operation will be the 12th No-Refusal since the Kane County State’s Attorney’s Office began the program in 2008. In the 11 prior No-Refusals, 105 drivers have been charged. Most have pleaded guilty to DUI, although many cases are pending.
It will be the third No-Refusal held in conjunction with St. Patrick’s Day. In 2009, three drivers were charged in the operation held March 14 and March 17 in St. Charles. In 2012, 22 drivers were charged in the operation held March 16-17 in Aurora, Batavia, Carpentersville, East Dundee, Elgin, Geneva, Gilberts, Montgomery, St. Charles, South Elgin, and West Dundee, with assistance from Illinois State Police District 2 and the Kane County Sheriff.
SOURCE: Kane County State's Attorney's Office
Chad Baker
9:35 am on Sunday, March 10, 2013
Their traps will be available on Trapster as well as many other smartphone apps before they even have them fully setup. People update these databases constantly. You can even buy a radar detector that updates speed traps on the Internet live.
Derek
9:54 am on Sunday, March 10, 2013
Why don't we try this option: If you plan on drinking heavily, plan on taking a taxi. It will save you the possibility of a DUI, set a good example for following the law of not drinking and driving, give some local merchants (taxi drivers) some business, and allow you to have as much fun as you want. If you can afford 10 pints of beer and a few shots of Jack Daniels then you can afford a taxi. Nobody can afford a DUI.
Beth
2:27 pm on Sunday, March 10, 2013
Well said, Derek!
Jim Radecki
12:58 pm on Sunday, March 10, 2013
There is a much broader debate to be had here. Of course nobody supports drunk driving but to what extent will you allow your rights to be trampled with its enforcement? First we have allowed the police to stop you with no cause and now we let the judicial side manipulate due process. Those are not the tactics I support to deal with the drunk driving problem. Freedom seems to be dying the death of a thousand cuts.
G.Ryan
9:38 pm on Sunday, March 10, 2013
I agree Mr. Radecki. It seems like this is a form of entrapment to me. I am curious where this money they collect for each DUI goes too? I have heard it is and can cost up to $10,000 for a DUI now.And us taxpayers pay for their salaries and pensions! I remember the case where a women was driving at speeds up to 100 mph in a stolen vehicle last year which ended in the loss of an innocent young life but yet the police called off their pursuit but yet did not institute any roadblocks to stop her or stop traffic in harms way on the roadways.It is all about revenue with them.
John Hanses
11:25 pm on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
You have a right of travel, not a right to drive. If you do not want to obey the law then there are consequences. If you want to fight it get drunk get a dui that way you will have standing standing with the court. But that is a lot of money to find out that you are wrong.
Julie
7:08 am on Monday, March 11, 2013
Yeah, entrapment when you're foolish enough to drink and then get behind the wheel of a car. Perhaps your views would change if you learned just how many impaired people are taken off the street before they kill themselves...or worse...someone you know and love. Bring on the entrapment if it will save someone's life. As for DUI costs....I don't know about the fees, but I'm pretty sure a large portion of it goes to the lawyer's and courts, correct? St. Patrick's Day is one of the most dangerous days to be on the road due to excessive drinking.
G.Ryan
8:33 pm on Monday, March 11, 2013
Julie you need to wake up to reality. Police officers have quotas to make each month. "St. Patrick's Day is one of the most dangerous days to be on the road due to excessive drinking?"Please provide the data on that? The issue here is no-refusal roadblocks which is a form of entrapment. They are stopping citizens with no probable cause or suspicion.
Jim Radecki
11:51 am on Monday, March 11, 2013
Julie, this is not a borderline entrapment question but rather a disregard for search and seizure laws as well as due process. Your statement to bring it on if it will save a life is scary. With that logic why not expand it to your home. The police could go door to door with no cause and search your home for weapons, drugs etc and hide behind the it will save a life argument. And it probably would save a life or two. But at what cost to freedom? I could care less how much a DUI costs or who gets the money. There is a much bigger issue with roadblocks that have now evolved to include no refusal. What's next?
Dave
12:26 pm on Monday, March 11, 2013
If one refuses to take a breathalyzer during a 'no refusal' roadblock - the suspect can be physically restrained while a government employee forcibly removes a blood sample.
What's next, indeed