.

Hazlet's DWI Checkpoint on Route 36 Rained Out

It was Hazlet's first DWI checkpoint in 15 years, according to police.

A  DWI checkpoint operated by the Hazlet Township Police Department and the Monmouth County Sheriff's Office had to be abandoned due to heavy storms on Friday night after only 30 minutes. 

The public was notified that every car passing on the eastbound side of Route 36 would be diverted to the Holy Family Elementary School parking lot between 11 p.m. and 3 a.m. According to Police Lt. Al Lynch, it would be Hazlet PD's first DWI checkpoint in 15 years; and was made possible by a $4,000 state grant to cover police overtime. 

A dozen uniformed officers were on the scene, as well as a state-of-the-art county Mobile Command Center Unit used to efficiently run license plates and drivers licenses through the state DMV and law enforcement databases to check for outstanding warrants and validity of drivers' licenses, registration and proof of insurance.

But instead of plates, the Mobile Unit was needed to pull up Doppler radar weather scans. With evidence there would be no let-up in the rain, Hazlet Lt. David Cohen decided to abort the DWI checkpoint out of concern for public safety. His decision was supported by DWI Task Force Commander, Brielle Police Chief Michael Palmer. 

The officers got in cars and performed "rover patrols" until 3 a.m. No summonses were issued during the brief DWI checkpoint. The results of the subsequent roaming DWI patrols were not immediately available from the police department. 

Working with Lt. Cohen in the DWI checkpoint were Hazlet Police Chief James Broderick; Patrol Officers William Agar Jr, Kevin Geoghan, Chris Acevedo and Michael Tristao. From the county DWI Task Force was Brielle's Chief Michael Palmer, Ptl. Dave Buckle and Sgt. James Seidel; Monmouth County Sheriff's Officer Theresa Mayer; a representative of the IDRC Intoxicated Driving Resource Center (IDRC) and the Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office DWI task force.




BobDee August 19, 2012 at 04:56 PM
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall NOT be violated..."....Oh well who cares, right.
thelostone August 20, 2012 at 05:29 AM
To quote from at the bottom of page: http://www.nj.gov/oag/hts/youlose_smallscale.html "The U.S. Supreme Court in 1990 (Michigan v. Sitz) upheld the constitutionality of sobriety checkpoints. The Court held that the interest in reducing alcohol-impaired driving was sufficient to justify the brief intrusion of a sobriety checkpoint. If conducted properly, sobriety checkpoints do not constitute illegal search and seizure in most states." Do some research before you automatically start crying unconstitutional.
Martin B. Brilliant August 20, 2012 at 01:06 PM
I know that the Supreme Court has on many occasions stated that some public interest or other justifies nullification of a clear provision of the Constitution. By such means the Court could virtually amend the Constitution any way it chooses, and there's no recourse, because the Court has the sole authority to tell us what the Constitution says. When did the Court get this authority? It isn't in the Constitution. The Court asserted its own authority in 1803, in Marbury vs. Madison. The Court could say we are in a perpetual state of war on terror, or war on drugs, and in such circumstances no search or seizure is unreasonable, and any search may be conducted without a warrant. Any rational person would say that's not what the Constitution means, but if the Court says so, there's no denying it. Maybe the best we can say is "Oh well who cares, right."
James Iacouzzi August 21, 2012 at 09:59 AM
what about the innocent people that could be killed by a intoxicated driver ? where are those people rights ? James
Martin B. Brilliant August 21, 2012 at 06:46 PM
Sorry, James. The right to fewer accidents is not in the Constitution. You might say it's included in the "other rights" in the Ninth Amendment. But the Constitution does not mandate that the government do anything to protect my rights, only that it not do anything that infringes on them. If it says they may not search without probable cause, and there's no probable cause -- no evidence -- that I'm intoxicated, they're not allowed to search me to find out. Of course, if you want the Court to rewrite the Constitution, bypassing the amendment process, ...

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »