Bismarck Tribune - Bismarck News - State receives $127,000 to fight DUIs

State receives $127,000 to fight DUIs

Aug 15, 2008 - 04:06:16 CDT

By CHRIS ROSACKER
Bismarck Tribune

Thanks to additional federal funding, 41 North Dakota law enforcement agencies across the state will receive $127,000 to crack down on alcohol-related driving incidents, especially around Labor Day.

Starting today and lasting through Sept. 1, the campaign will be the most far-reaching enforcement campaign ever in North Dakota, said Linda Butts, deputy director for Driver and Vehicle Services at the North Dakota Department of Transportation.

Butts said rural roads provide unique challenges such as gravel, lighting and weather conditions.

"It is essential that drivers on rural roads drive carefully and vigilantly," she said. "And never drink and drive."

With 20 more law enforcement agencies participating in the Labor Day crackdown than last year, Butts said the message is clear to not drink and drive.

"It is our goal to get off that list," Butts said.

In fiscal year 2007, North Dakota was one of the top 10 states for alcohol-related motor vehicle fatalities qualifying the state for the additional funding. The money will increase enforcement funding by 68 percent over last year and will be used to pay overtime hours, largely in rural areas where accidents are higher.

Of the motor vehicle fatalities in 2007, 63 of 111 or 56.8 percent were alcohol-related and 97 of 111 fatalities occurred on rural roads. In North Dakota, every 9.73 hours there was an alcohol-related crash and 41.4 percent of alcohol-related fatalities had a blood alcohol content over .10.

"A death in a family is always difficult," said Bob Eastgate, owner and director of Parkway and Eastgate Funeral homes. "When the life is cut short by drinking and driving, the emotional and physical stress is overwhelming."

Last year's age group with the highest percentage of drivers in alcohol-related crashes was 21- to 24-year-olds.

"Will what we say make a difference?" Eastgate said. "If one person listens, than yes it does."

Sobriety checkpoint planned

The North Dakota Highway Patrol will conduct a sobriety checkpoint in Morton County today, according to a news release.

“This is an effort to deter impaired driving and apprehend drivers who make the wrong and potentially deadly decision to consume alcohol and drive,” Patrol Sgt. Norman Ruud said.

According to the patrol, there have been 396 fatalities on North Dakota roads since 2004, with 55 percent occurring on state, county and township roads in rural North Dakota. Alcohol has been a contributing factor in more than half of the crashes, the patrol says.

“Alcohol use and not wearing seat belts continue to be key factors in traffic related deaths. Do not drink and drive, and remember to wear your seat belt. This may save your life,” Ruud said.

News > Topnews

Printer friendly version State receives $127,000 to fight DUIs

Comments

verde wrote on Aug 17, 2008 10:31 AM:

" I'm not sure why my post from yesterday morning was rejected, but I'll try this again.
I don't believe the founding fathers of this country had in mind how to leave loop holes for criminals when they drafted it. Too many drunks are screaming about their 4th Amemdment rights, but the supreme court has ruled that it is these checkpoints are acceptable. Driving is a privilege, and privileges are not ment to be abused. Those of us who do not drive impaired should not have to worry about those who believe they should be allowed to. Driving after you have had too much to drink is a crime, and it is so because all too many victims have died a premature and violent death because of them.
Thank you to all law enforcement officers who sacrificed time with their family to work overtime in an effort to keep us safe. "

frustrated wrote on Aug 15, 2008 6:13 PM:

" this is ridiculous, roughly a hundred deaths per year most of them in rural back forty of ND. Those bad apples spoil it for all of us. Now your gonna have officers all around town pulling anyone over for any reason after the bars close. Lisence and registration, ah you swerved with in your lane you been drinking tonite. Meanwhile some who needs the cops for a real crime has to wait 45 mins due to the officer having to write someone up for being .10 great plan. "

Velvet Jones wrote on Aug 15, 2008 6:01 PM:

" "Necessity is the justification of tyrants, it is the creed of slaves."---British PM William Pitt, 1783.

We've all heard this before. Following your logic the constitution is worthless. Saving a single life can be used to justify any abuse, as long as the abuser can claim a noble cause. "

Mike wrote on Aug 15, 2008 3:54 PM:

" Prep: On a average about 4 drivers are arrested at each check point. Whether you agree its constitutional or not, its just my opinion that a human life is more valuble than any rights I have as a citizen. "

Mike wrote on Aug 15, 2008 3:46 PM:

" We should have the freedom to be out driving without the chance that some bozo that has been drinking gets behind the wheel & runs into me. If these checkpoints reduce that likelihood, then they are protecting my freedom & I'm all for them. If you aren't breaking the law, you have nothing to worry about. My freedom is just as important as everyone elses. Velvet we are a free country and you are entitled to your opinion just like I am but for anyone who is opposed to checkpoints because of your 4th amendment rights. . . Does your job require drug testing before you get hired or random drug testing while you are employed? What do you do about that to protect your 4th Amendment rights? Do you support drug testing for the pilots that are flying you to another destination or a surgeon who will do a surgery on you? My work has random drug tests. I really don't care for them, but guess what if I want to feed my family and keep this job; I have to sign the consent form. If you are following the law what do you have to worry about? Atleast with the checkpoints, they are announced and I can choose to go another direction and avoid the delay I'm for the checkpoints because if you are that drunk to get caught in a checkpoint, then you definitely need to get arrested. You are concerned about your rights being violated but what about the rights of all those people that are getting killed by these drunks on the road, they have the same freedom and rights as you and me do, only difference is we are still alive and they are dead because of a drunk bozo. Go tell the wife that lost a husband or a mother that lost a child that we shouldnt do this because your 4th Amendment rights are being violated and enlighten us all as to what they said. "

Prep wrote on Aug 15, 2008 3:12 PM:

" I definitely have to agree with Velvet Jones. Checkpoints are a violation of the constitution amendment which protects us from unlawful search and seizures, but the public wants nothing more than people arrested even at the expense of taking away our protected freedoms. Checkpoints are absolutely worthless as far as arresting DUI offenders. I don't know the exact figures, but I would say as an educated guess from prior stats that I have seen, roughly 95% (maybe more) drivers going through a checkpoint will not result in an arrest. Checkpoints do nothing put concentrate police manpower in one tiny location, all the while everyone is going out of their way to avoid them. Even though they don't announce the exact location, within an hour all of the bars in town know the checkpoint location from people phoning in and then everyone in the bar knows, and they start calling their friends, etc, etc. And this article does not even announce the "general location", they said Morton County. How is that even a general location, it could be anywhere in the county, how do we even know it will be in the Bis-Man area? "

Velvet Jones wrote on Aug 15, 2008 1:32 PM:

" To "To "Adolph" Mike:

I'm glad you think check points are such a "great idea". I bet you think gulags and fire squads are also just peachy. But, given your stunning ignorance and apparently love a totalitarianism, you wonder why they have to announce the check point location, the answer is simple. The SCOTUS has ruled that in order for check points to be considered even remotely legal they must be announced ahead of time and the general location be given. That way the police can claim that it is a "consented search" if a driver happens to drive thru one, as the general public is aware of the road block. This of course is complete rubbish and anyone who has every even glanced at the Bill Of Rights should shudder at the thought, but as longs as the majority of sheeple are like Mike, things will remain as they are. . "

jim wrote on Aug 15, 2008 11:16 AM:

" a law enforcement agency in and around bismarck can arrest all sorts of drunks for dui, but as long as the liberal judges in bismarck mandan fine them the minimal amount, what good does the arrest do? in fargo if convicted of dui the fine is $650+ compared to bismarck mandan where the fine is $250!

the coffee's brewin', can you smell lit? "

Bar wrote on Aug 15, 2008 9:37 AM:

" How much money are the drunks getting to fight sober driving? "

Mike wrote on Aug 15, 2008 9:12 AM:

" Having a Sobriety checkpoint is a great idea but why are we telling people which county we are having a checkpoint and when? Isnt the purpose of this that we suprise people that drink and drive and catch them and save lives? "

Hog Man wrote on Aug 15, 2008 8:34 AM:

" Great use of the additional funds! I hope the sweep is successful and some people get a needed wake-up call. My hat goes off to the LEO's who will be putting in the extra hours. Thanks, folks! "

Post Your Own Comment

All online comments are limited to 350 words total.
Comments are reviewed for taste, tone and language before posting.
Some comments may be used in the Tribune's print edition.
We value and respect your privacy, but The Bismarck Tribune might
disclose certain information to governmental entities if served with subpoena.