Talk:Koç School and Sobriety checkpoint: Difference between pages

Revision as of 23:16, 18 February 2007

Revision as of 02:07, 12 July 2007

Line 1:

'''Sobriety checkpoints''' or roadblocks involve law enforcement officials stopping every vehicle (or more typically, every ''n''th vehicle) on a public roadway and investigating the possibility that the driver might be impaired to drive. They are often set up late at night or in the very early morning hours and on weekends, at which time the proportion of impaired drivers tends to be the highest.

{{talkheader}}

{{WPTR|class=Start|importance=Med}}

{{reqphotoin|Turkey}}

Upon suspicion, the stopped driver is required to exit the vehicle and take a roadside [[sobriety]] test that requires the demonstration of both mental and balance skills. If the officer determines that the test has not been passed, the driver is then required to take an alcohol breath test (often called a [[Breathalyzer]] test).

= Comments =

==Legality in the United States==

==opinions??==

Article is biased against the school administration although opinions expressed in the article are mostly accurate.

The [[Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution]] states that: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Thus the Constitution would appear to prohibit people from being stopped without a search warrant or at least without probable cause that they have committed a crime.

"domestically it fails repeatedly every year."

This is a biased generalization, which not only lacks detailed desciption of the school policy towards OSS (national examination), but also fails to remember that the school history entails one first place in OSS, with many more first hundred places in every year, an achievement that only a few school can boast about in Turkey. (Oguzhan Atay, The Koc School, 2007)

The Michigan Supreme Court had found sobriety roadblocks to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, in a 6-3 decision, the United States Supreme Court found properly conducted sobriety checkpoints to be constitutional. [http://supreme.justia.com/us/496/444/case.html Michigan Department of State Police vs. Sitz (1990)] Although acknowledging that such checkpoints infringed on a constitutional right, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued that the state interest in reducing drunk driving outweighed this minor infringement.

Dissenting justices argued that the Constitution doesn’t provide exceptions. "That stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving ... is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion", dissenting Justice Brennan insisted.

"The Overseas College Guidance Office has displayed its lack of professionalism many times - for example, by forgetting to sign some of the students' documents, by mixing up applications, by requesting that the students change their teacher recommendations several times throughout the admission process. Needless to say, even though the school has some success with overseas admissions..."

The article is biased. Regarding this excerpt; The Koc School has one of the best overseas college guidance offices, as stated today by the head of admission of Penn State. Many students in Turkey who apply overseas envy The Koç School's guidance for overseas universities.

NOTE: She claimed that it is the best overseas counseling office in the world though it is disputable.

(Denizhan Duran, The Koç School, Class of 2007)

Chief Justice Rehnquist argued that an exception was justified because sobriety roadblocks were effective and necessary. On the other hand, dissenting Justice Stevens countered that "the findings of the trial court, based on an extensive record and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals, indicate that the net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative." And even if roadblocks were effective, the fact that they work wouldn’t justify violating individuals’ constitutional rights, some justices argued.

The article is biased as far as facts are biased. I was a member of this school. My teacher recommendations were changed several times without my consent. My documents were forgotten to be signed. I don't give a fiddler's fart what Penn State admission head says.

-Anlam K.

Although the U.S. Supreme Court has found sobriety checkpoints to be constitutionally permissible, eleven states have found that sobriety roadblocks violate their own state constitutions or have outlawed them.[http://www.madd.org/stats/11002]

"For instance, good technical students easily supersede their teachers in fields such as mathematics and physics and hence get 5s - equivalent of an A in the Turkish system - effortlessly"

The school offers IB and regular classes. The examples given in the article are utterly wrong since mathematics and physics teachers for IB high level courses are one of the best teachers in their fields, not only at the Koc School, but also in Turkey and probably the world. I have not met a single person who "superseded" Mr. Ives and Mr. Kamper, physics and math teachers respectively. (Oguzhan Atay, The Koc School)

The matter is often hotly argued, with some reporting that roving patrols are the more effective way to identify impaired drivers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, after extensive field studies, concluded that "the number of DWI arrests made by the roving patrol program was nearly three times the average number of DWI arrests made by the checkpoint programs". [http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/research/ChekTenn/ChkptTN.html] Others insist that “opponents of sobriety checkpoints tend to be those who drink and drive frequently and are concerned about being caught” ([[Mothers Against Drunk Driving]] (MADD), 2005).

"While the school allegedly puts a lot of effort into extracurricular activities, the only activity that gets solid attention is MUN - "Mun is the most important activity because it advertises the school's name" as the high school's headmaster Fusun Ersoy has said, unwittingly proving the school's shallow insistence on appearance and reputation without much substance"

MUN isn't the only social activity that takes attention; the school adminstration values its sport teams and arts groups as well. Also, Füsun Ersoy, the school's headmaster never claimed that MUN was the most important activity in school, since it's not possible to distinguish between clubs in a very prestigious school. MUN isn't shallow and it isn't only appearance and reputation; the school gains prominence with many awards gained in national or international science or creativity projects. Both these two fallacious comments are bitter for such an important school in Turkey.

(Denizhan Duran, The Koç School, Class of 2007)

Opposition to sobriety roadblocks is generally stronger among civil libertarians, conservatives and libertarians.[http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/DrivingIssues/1103163004.html] In recent years, MADD has been characterized as a [[neo-prohibitionist]] organization by some <ref> http://www.motorists.org/dui/home/anti-drunk-driving-campaign-covert-war-against-drinking/ </ref> <ref> DiLorenzo, T. J. and Bennett, J. T. The U.S is becomming a nanny state. ''U.S.A.Today'', (magazine), 1998 (May), ''126(2636), 12-15. </ref> <ref> Restifo, C. Neoprohibittionism gone mad. ''The Tartan'', September 23, 2003, p.1. </ref>, including the original founder, [[Candy Lightner]].[http://www.alcoholfacts.org/CrashCourseOnMADD.html]

" Also, Füsun Ersoy, the school's headmaster never claimed that MUN was the most important activity in school, since it's not possible to distinguish between clubs in a very prestigious school." This is a factual inaccuracy. Fusun Ersoy said this and if you ask Seda Sengor (assuming she has a memory slightly longer than a year - very dubious), she will confirm what I have written. When she said this, you probably still were wearing your diapers. The comments are not bitter. Whatever emotional content you may see under them is irrelevant. What is important is that they are factually true.

-Anlam K.

[[Image:Polizeikontrolle Rügendamm.jpg|right|160px|thumb|Checkpoints ([[Policing in Germany|German Police]])]]

===Legal guidelines for checkpoint procedures===

In approving "properly conducted" checkpoints, Chief Justice Rehnquist implicitly acknowledged that there must be guidelines in order to avoid becoming overly intrusive. In other words, checkpoints cannot simply be set up when, where and how police officers choose. As often happens in Supreme Court decisions, however, the Chief Justice left it to the states to determine what those minimal safeguards must be, presumably to be reviewed by the courts on a case-by-case basis.

I can see that your (Anlam K.) sources are very reliable and not subject to any debate. Your mind and Seda Sengor's memory (presumably) are the best ways to prove a statement. And I can see that "factually true" means very little to you. Therefore, it is no wonder that you attack anyone or anything in the case of this school which challenges your ideas. And for bitterness, I can only say that your comment about "diapers" --though not directed at me -- is equally neither bitter nor emotional.

It is a pity on the part of this school that the education you have received here has not thought you modesty, factual accuracy or manners. This is the only "fact" which supports your arguments on the low quality of this school. If you do not have the record of anything, you have nothing to base your arguments. Please stop being rude and using "weasel words."

In an effort to provide standards for use by the states, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration subsequently issued a report that reviewed recommended checkpoint procedures in keeping with federal and state legal decisions. ("The Use of Sobriety Checkpoints for Impaired Driving Enforcement", DOT HS-807-656, Nov. 1990) An additional source of guidelines can be found in an earlier decision by the California Supreme Court (''Ingersoll v. Palmer'' (43 Cal.3d 1321 (1987)) wherein the Court set forth what it felt to be necessary standards in planning and administering a sobriety checkpoint:

--Oguzhan Atay, Class of '07 (16 Feb 2007)

*Decision making must be at a supervisory level, rather than by officers in the field.

*A neutral formula must be used to select vehicles to be stopped, such as every vehicle or every third vehicle, rather than leaving it up the officer in the field.

*Primary consideration must be given to public and officer safety.

*The site should be selected by policy-making officials, based upon areas having a high incidence of drunk driving.

*Limitations on when the checkpoint is to be conducted and for how long, bearing in mind both effectiveness and intrusiveness.

*Warning lights and signs should be clearly visible.

*Length of detention of motorists should be minimized.

*Advance publicity is necessary to reduce the intrusiveness of the checkpoint and increase its deterrent effect.

==References==

*Foss, R.D., ''et al''. ''Roadside Surveys in Conjunction with Sobriety Checkpoints''. North Carolina State Highway Safety Research Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC. Shaffer Library of Drug Policy.

*Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Sobriety Checkpoints: Facts and Myths. Mothers Against Drunk Driving website, September 11, 2005..

*Ross, H. L. ''Confronting Drunk Driving''. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1992.

*Simpson, H. M., and Mayhew, D. R. ''The Hard Core Drinking Driver''. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Traffic Safety Research Foundation, 1991.

*Taylor, L. ''Drunk Driving Defense''. New York: Aspen Law and Business, 6th edition, 2006.

==External links==

*[http://www.alcoholinformation.org Alcohol: Problems and Solutions]

[[Category:Law enforcement techniques]]

[[Category:Checkpoints]]

[[de:Kontrollstelle]]