I don't want to put words in your mouth but are you saying you'd have less of an objection to an automatic mandatory breathalyzer for every driver coming through the checkpoint than you do with our system where the officer has to be able to articulate why they think you're impaired before they can ask you to step out and perform field sobriety tests and/or submit to a breathalyzer? In other words, going straight to a chemical documentation of how much alcohol you've ingested without first seeing signs that you're physically impaired? That seems a little unfair to me.

I don't mean to insult you but that position seems to be inconsistent with what you said above and I suspect you're just being argumentative because your previous comment about how other countries do it turned out to be inaccurate because the legal protections in other Anglosphere countries are actually much more limited than the US of A.

Technically they're doing neither because this has been litigated and ruled completely permissible under Mass law. You may disagree with it, but your opinion has no impact on the facts.

I care very much about the rights of both lawful citizens and anyone else residing here, all of whom have equal protection under our laws.

I don't know which countries you're referring to but I think the most reasonable countries to compare us to as far as legal systems would be the UK, Australia and New Zealand.

For instance, in the UK the police don't need any reason to pull you over at all, unlike here in Massachusetts.

https://www.gov.uk/stopped-by-police-while-driving-your-rights#:~:text=The%20police%20can%20stop%20a,if%20you%20do%20not%20stop.

In Australia, the police can ask anyone who is driving, is about to drive or has recently driven a car to take a breath test, and it's a criminal offense to refuse. The Australian BAC limit is also .05, lower than our .08.

https://breathalysers-australia.com.au/breath-test/#:~:text=Australian%20Police%20have%20used%20random,seat%20of%20a%20stationary%20vehicle.

Technically you're driving up to them. You seem angry. Everything okay?

I'm not being sarcastic but that's the one I already mentioned and is very well known and was handled appropriately.

Thanks. I think the first one is the turnpike overtime case, I'd forgotten about the second and Dukhan and Farak should have gotten more jail time than they did.

I think that's a tiny bit of overstatement.

I'm not saying you're wrong but can you link some articles?

They aren't really leaving, it's more that they aren't being replaced in sustainable numbers. It's also not a great agency to work for and a bunch of city departments pay more and have a better culture.

Besides the turnpike overtime scandal (glad they got caught and feel zero sympathy for them) I can't think of anything large scale. It's entirely possible that there have been others that I've forgotten.

There's like 2,000 of them. Statistically, some will be scumbags.

God forbid you be slightly inconvenienced. Happy motoring.

Friendly reminder that drunk driving causes a shitload of deaths every year and if you don't do it you don't have to worry about sobriety checkpoints.

Like almost every police force in Massachusetts, the State Police are way short on manpower now. Last year they were taking people out of the detective units (homicide and drugs) and sending them back to the road. That has only gotten worse.

They are a call for all of the above.

Operation Northwoods never actually happened, which is an inconvenient fact to the people that cite it all the time.

Wow.

He's probably a tourist.