Washington County Sheriff’s Office Sets Dates For DWI Crackdown

This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.

The Washington County Sheriff’s Office announced on Friday (June 27) the dates on which it will join a state-wide initiative to crack down on impaired driving and speeding violations, according to a news release.

The campaign will include sobriety checkpoints and extra patrols looking for drivers violating traffic laws, the release states.

Everything will start on Saturday (June 28) and will go until Monday (July 14). During that time period, deputies will target drunk drivers and speeders, according to the release.

The Washington County Sheriff’s Office has said that decreasing impaired drivers and making roads safer is a goal of the sheriff’s office, the release states.


  • adam

    Sobriety checkpoints? Prohibiting the travel of free citizens on public access without reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed is completely unconstitutional.

    • Vencil Nutsakitch

      Still not worth the violation of constitutional rights of law abiding individuals…total bulls***!

  • matt

    Money, Money, Money, for the wannabe cops. They can go back to west fork and be the first to sit in the dodge charger for a day.

  • Leten Uno

    Adam, Every 90 seconds someone is injured because of alcohol and motor vehicles. Ever 51 minutes someone dies. 3 times as many people die annually from alcohol motor vehicle deaths as died in the World trade Center Attacks of 9/11/01. Twice as many die ANNUALLY in alcohol motor vehicle events as the number of US Soldiers who died in the entire 13 year Iraq war.
    You have to stop at stop signs and stop lights. You have to yield to emergency vesicles. Your rights are not violated when you traverse a checkpoint. The Supreme court has ruled your travel is not being prohibited. You are asked to stop, show you license and move on. When you get a drivers license and into a car you grant Law enforcement the right to pull you over and ask for license and insurance. Those are the rules. If you don’t like them take the bus or walk.

    • John

      And twice as many folks die from sober drivers. Also, “alcohol-related” accidents, according to MADD, includes a drunk pedestrian being hit or any amount of alcohol over .02 being involved- notice the statistic is not alcohol-caused accidents. Why isn’t texting while driving prosecuted with the same vigor? Or driving while drowsy?

    • Adam

      Leten,let me be clear here. The reality is that I am a non drinker with a parent who was killed by a drunk driver. He was a police officer actually traveling in a funeral procession to bury is best friend who had been shot and killed in the line of duty just a few days earlier. Here’s the story if you’re interested (http://newsok.com/4-officers-killed-en-route-to-troopers-funeral/article/2073864) I was 5. The driver of the 18 wheeler killed 4 officer in that collision that day. He was drunk. He received a year in jail. I assure you I am qualified to chime in on this issue. Attempting to lecture to me about the consequences of alcohol related deaths is laughable. I am exactly the type of “emotional statistic” that is put into play when citizens are being convinced that having their rights violated is okay. This isn’t about that. This is about civil rights.

      The Department of Transportation released a report stating the roving patrols are ten times more effective than sobriety checkpoints. TEN TIMES!! Ask a police officer. They will tell you the same. Checkpoints are also no unconstitutional. A traffic sign or light are simply the guidelines by which we must traverse freely about our business in order to maintain driving order. They do not question me, ask me to present papers, or disrupt my progress for more than a few seconds. Comparing the two is silly. The supreme court actually ruled that these type of “suspicionless investigatory seizures” do in fact fall within the boundaries of the 4th amendment. 11 states prohibit them currently with more states introducing legislation to do so as well. So no, they did not rule that checkpoints were okay. They simply left it up to each state to decide. Also, having a license and driving a car does in fact NOT give authorities the right to pull you over without reasonable suspicion that you are committing a crime. If you are willing to agree to those sort of right violations then Nazi Germany would have gladly had you as a citizen of their country during that era.

  • Blessed mess

    This is not right. W. County needs a new sheriff is the present one thinks its just okey dokey to violate our constitutionally protected rights. Any law enforcement agency that willfully violate the constitution becomes null and void.

  • Get Real

    It’s not rocket science people. Don’t want a DUI, don’t drive under the influence of drugs or alcohol. You have no Constitutional right to drive drunk, and if you get caught at DUI checkpoint, be ready for the consequences. As a sign at the Texas border reads, “DUI? You can’t afford it.” If more drunk drivers were locked up with vehicle forfeiture, there would be far fewer incidents involving them.

    • adam

      Who said anything about driving drunk? This is not about avoiding a dui. I’m not a drinker. I’m a free citizen of the United States of America. What is so hard to understand about this? The law very specifically prohibits the harassment of its law abiding free citizens. This is unquestionably a violation of the 4th amendment to the Constitution. I would love nothing more than for ALL drunk drivers to be caught and taught a lesson. However my civil rights should not be violated in order to achieve a very minimally effective goal. Roving patrols are statistically proven to be more effective. They also take less man power, and no free citizens would be treated guilty until they can prove their sober innocence. There is zero arguable difference between law officers randomly searching homes in the hopes that they may find a meth lab and this sort of bully behavior where large nets are cast to MAYBE catch a bad fish without regard for civil freedom. I am shocked that there are so many so willing to hand over their freedom.

      • Get Real

        Usually, a DWI checkpoint is to identify and arrest drunk/impaired drivers. Since driving is a privilege, not a right, it is hardly a violation of the 4th Amendment. There is a great difference between randomly searching homes and a DWI checkpoint. Seldom do you observe a home traveling down a public roadway while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, endangering others. Courts have differentiated between a search of a home and that of a vehicle, rightly so. One’s freedom to drive under the influence ends where the rights of others to be safe begins.

      • Chad

        I agree man. I would love to see all drunk drivers busted, but certian methods are just not the right approach. Citizens willing to give up liberty/freedom for security/safety will have neither. What we need is a country with more honest people willing to stand up for, and defend what’s right. Roving patrols looking for drunk drivers, And citizens willing to look out for one another and report some wild card on the road. If a person is willing to drive drunk, I don’t feel bad calling them in. In fact I don’t trust many sober ppl anymore! Every week in NW Arkansas I encounter ppl who apparently hav NO understanding (or completely disregard)road laws and right of way. I, my wife and several friends ride motorcycles, and it’s like 150% constant defensive driving just to avoid the oblivious drivers. Aside from that rant, I understand your thought process here. Having rights violated for a innefective blanket method to even a good end is still innefective and a violation of rights.
        And this example kills flow of traffic horribly. As for Anyone else that feels they need to convince me otherwise, don’t waste your time. I’m simply agreeing with adam and won’t take the time out of my day to argue with someone over this. It’s simple really.

  • James

    If people would abide by the laws and not drive under the influence, then law abiding citizens constitutional rights would not be violated. This a small inconvenience to get these law breakers off the streets to make it safe for all of us. What aggravates me is some of these law enforcement officers are as guilty of the crime as the people they catch at these checks. It’s hypocritical! But, if they are caught, it is a buddy/buddy deal it happens more often than people know.

  • Mike

    They use to do it all the time on the east side of Bartlesville. Now they only do it when they get money from the Fed’s. When I call one in on my road in the country. A deputy will not even come out and check. Just about the money they get grants to do it.

Comments are closed.