There's a better-than-average chance that you or someone you care about had a cocktail, a beer or a glass of wine to celebrate Memorial Day and its attendant long weekend. Hopefully, if you were doing your celebrating outside of the walkable zone from your place of residence, you made arrangements to get home without driving yourself. If you live in southern California, some of those arrangements might have involved checking in with a personality that goes by the name of Mr. Checkpoint.

Mr. Checkpoint is the branded handle of entrepreneur Sennett Devermont, who offers a service that will alert you of DUI checkpoints in your area (as long as your area is in SoCal, at least for the time being). Mr. Checkpoint has more than 43,000 followers on Twitter, around 5,000 fans on Facebook and plans for an iPhone app in the next month. Devermont uses those social outlets, along with text messages and his own website, to alert drivers about DUI checkpoint locations. For his part, Devermont believes that Mr. Checkpoint is raising awareness about the dangers of driving under the influence; he's even reported as saying that he made his service free when he learned about the positive impact it was having.

Others, including the executive director of Mothers Against Drunk Driving in Los Angeles, believe that Mr. Checkpoint merely provides a way for potentially dangerous drivers to evade law enforcement officers. You can get the full version of the Mr. Checkpoint story and controversy, but scrolling down to watch the video below. After you do, make sure to vote in our poll on the subject, too.


San Diego, California News Station - KFMB Channel 8 - cbs8.com


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 99 Comments
      Jm
      • 1 Year Ago
      They are actually made public. So if this guy is just repeating public information how can you fault him. He may not be your best friend, but he shouldn't be heckled. Also I think a lot of us know how DUI CHECKPOINTS are ABUSED by cops who use them to harass people. If POLICE didn't TREAT US LIKE ****, people wouldn't go AROUND TWEETING this type information.
        superchan7
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Jm
        If people aren't driving buzzed or drunk, checkpoints would become a waste of time. But since the police think people ARE drinking and driving, what else are they going to bust you for? If I'm sober, why would I care?
          Pj Taintz
          • 1 Year Ago
          @superchan7
          right and if you got nothing to hide, you will let me into your bedroom to take a look around right?
          oRenj9
          • 1 Year Ago
          @superchan7
          Because you're being treated like a potential criminal for no reason other than happening to be driving on a particular road at a particular time.
          • 1 Year Ago
          @superchan7
          [blocked]
      Ryan
      • 1 Year Ago
      While I am against drunk driving, checkpoints are unconstitutional as they detain law-abiding citizens without cause. Without probable cause, no citizen should be detained by law enforcement. That goes for so-called border check points miles away from borders too. To learn more about his nation's constitution and how messed up our current laws are and how restricted our liberty has become and is becoming, check out http://online.hillsdale.edu. They have great, free, online classes you take at your own pace.
      buckfeverjohnson
      • 1 Year Ago
      Ah what we do to feel safe. In my state you can't pull over a car without probable cause and I am thankful for that. And while I know several people that have been affected by drunk drivers, I still feel a presumption of guilt is a slippery slope. And if you believe that checkpoints keep you safe, feel free to submit fingerprints and a DNA sample to the feds so they can eliminate you from all crime scenes. Then you will have the opportunity to defend yourself from false-positives, and the very government you fund will throw all its resources at you. Best wishes.
      DC
      • 1 Year Ago
      This guy is perfectly within his right to tell anyone where a DUI checkpoint is going to be. Its published in the paper by law (which is where he probably gets his information). What is sad is that the paper is the worst place to publish where and when DUI Check points and law enforcement knows that. This guy is just alerting people the right way. If law enforcement had an app they wouldent be able to capture the maximim amount of revenue. MADD not supoorting free speach and peoples rights to be informed really makes them look like they support entrapment.
      Maxximtl
      • 1 Year Ago
      One could argue that a sober driver would benefit from this information by planning an alternate route to avoid the traffic hold up. Its not much different than getting any other traffic alert. Personally, if I had a couple drinks and got an alert about a DUI checkpoint, it might make me think twice about driving period......regardless of the route I chose. I say let the program live.
        superchan7
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Maxximtl
        To be honest, I don't think I have ever lost significant time or gotten really angry about a DUI checkpoint. I don't drink and drive, and if the police found that everyone else did as I do, they would stop checking. The only people who hate on this are the ones who think they can drive buzzed.
          SaabStory
          • 1 Year Ago
          @superchan7
          You've never been in LA traffic then. I don't drink at all and I want to know where the checkpoints are so I can avoid them. A true traffic nightmare in LA!!
          • 1 Year Ago
          @superchan7
          [blocked]
      Rob K
      • 1 Year Ago
      I live in SoCal. I don\'t know what MADD is getting so bent out of shape about. Police Departements are required by law to give at least a 24 hour notice of any sobriety checkpoint. I have a friend who is a criminal-defense lawyer (sepcializes in DUI) and he posts upcoming checkpoints in his town on his Facebook page all the time. MADD and this article are making a mountain out of a mole hill.
      Feurig
      • 1 Year Ago
      A little mixed. If someone understands the threat of being caught with a DUI (through the tweeter), then they are less likely to do it. Often times, the reason people drive drunk is because they don't understand that they could get caught. DUIs can destroy people's lives and careers.
        Schwy
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Feurig
        This is a good point, I wonder how many people choose not to drink and drive or go out drinking at all just for the fact that there is a checkpoint out there that particular night? Or better yet stop them from drinking too much when the receive the information that there will be a checkpoint on the drive home.
      Solji
      • 1 Year Ago
      Its just like Escort Live. Im in favor of it. 1st ammendment and the info is free anyways. They just have it in one location
      • 1 Year Ago
      [blocked]
      David Peterson
      • 1 Year Ago
      This is not just about revealing the checkpoint locations. If you had told anyone that peeing in a cup would be a requisite to employment in 1970, they would have laughed at the absurdity. I am for anything that curbs governmental intrusion on individuals. I cannot quote Ben Franklin, but the gist that sacrificing liberty for security is more relevant today than ever before. I hope that in 100 years, they deride our paranoia the same way we condemn the internment camps of WWII. When I first received my driver's license, 50,000+ died annually. The population was 180,000,000. Now we have less than 40,000 fatalities with 40% more people and I'm sure just as many more vehicles and miles driven. I do not devalue any human losses, especially due to an easily corrected error, but I'm not sure throwing out the baby with the bathwater has ever been a solution. To take these assumptions to their logical conclusion, why not include an interlock on all vehicles? Where do you draw the line? When does the value of safety and security reach the point of absurdity? If you really are threatened by the miniscule possibility of harm from a drunk driver, why drive? Our lives in two ton speeding vehicles or forty ton trains or aloft in an airliner are all risk propositions balanced by probability. It reminds me of the rush to pass drug law enhancements. That sure worked, didn't it?
        superchan7
        • 1 Year Ago
        @David Peterson
        I have not really been inconvenienced by a DUI checkpoint to the effect of missing work, missing personal time...or feeling violated. If a single person gets caught by a setup, it helped road safety. Someone could have been killed because Li'l Hardcore thought his driving is good enough to get to his after-afterparty.
          Noah
          • 1 Year Ago
          @superchan7
          You pretty off-base with this comment. ~30,000 lives annually would be saved by not driving. ~70,000 lives annually would be saved by not drinking alcohol. ~1,500 lives annually would be saved by eliminating the mining industry. I could go on and on. You have not factored cost / benefit. A single person getting caught means nothing to anyone.
        Winnie Jenkems
        • 1 Year Ago
        @David Peterson
        I wish I could send you a trophy for this comment
        Typesbad
        • 1 Year Ago
        @David Peterson
        " If you really are threatened by the miniscule possibility of harm from a drunk driver, why drive?" Do I really have to answer here on Autoblog, of all places: Why drive? Clearly this is a question from someone who has never lost anyone to a drunk driver. I've lost three. One, a friend of mine 15 minutes after dropping him off to his car. Another, a father of four coming home from a night shift of wrenching aircraft, and third, the 14-year old little sister of a girlfriend who, it's worth pointing out, was not in a car at the time. In all three cases, the perpetrator lived. So yes, I'm concerned about my miniscule chance of harm by a drunk driver, plus my wife's miniscule chance, plus my 17-year-old son's, my daughter's when she drives (or maybe before), my brother, sister, in-laws, friends, co-workers and so on. I don't want to lose any more of them to someone's preventable bout of irresponsibility. Take them all into account and the odds are not so miniscule anymore. Check points are admittedly an inefficient method of DUI detection but there are few other options for stopping someone before an incident occurs. I'm all for another option. We all value freedom, but most of us recognize that one's freedom does not extend to the harm of others. Where exactly that line should be drawn will be argued for eternity I suspect. But the line exists. It is the price of a civil society. Always has been.
        brucec039
        • 1 Year Ago
        @David Peterson
        Oh yeah. In my 40\'s. Stopped at a checkpoint exactly TWICE. Oh the humanity.
        brucec039
        • 1 Year Ago
        @David Peterson
        Employers are private individuals and you do not have to work for those who require it. This negates your example. If you want to smoke pot, that\'s fine. Just realize not every employer thinks it\'s so great.
      Moreno636
      • 1 Year Ago
      This guys is a POS. No rationale human being can be in favour of allowing drunk driving to go unchecked.
        Noah
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Moreno636
        No rational human being can be in favor of allowing the police to go driving around unchecked. The public has a right to know what the police are doing at all times.
        Noah
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Moreno636
        No rational human being can be in favor of allowing the police to go driving around unchecked. The public has a right to know what the police are doing at all times.
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Moreno636
        [blocked]
      jf.bouchard
      • 1 Year Ago
      Awesome, +1 for American freedom. Now drunk drivers can go on with their business of driving dangerously and enjoy the freedom to wreck people's lives on public roads.
        jf.bouchard
        • 1 Year Ago
        @jf.bouchard
        I like how the guy says that he condemns drunk driving. That's like those websites that publish software serial numbers for "educational purposes" only, and not for illegal use *wink*.
        Pj Taintz
        • 1 Year Ago
        @jf.bouchard
        in NY anyway its law that when they set up checkpoints, it be posting in the paper in advance, ,so i dont see the issue
        Cross
        • 1 Year Ago
        @jf.bouchard
        I bet, more than half the people agreeing to this, in the poll, will most likely take advantage to avoid being caught driving drunk.
        Jarda
        • 1 Year Ago
        @jf.bouchard
        anything to say in response to the fatalities related to DUI going down by 20pct?
          Cross
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Jarda
          Anything to say about how many got away with drunk driving? Oh wait... wheres the stats for that? None?maybe because they got away!
          Pj Taintz
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Jarda
          not for nothing but if they got away (made it home safe) whats the issue?
          Cross
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Jarda
          The issue is the high potential of hurting or killing someone while driving drunk. They may have done it once and got away with it, but what about the second, third, fourth or fifth time and so on?
        Jm
        • 1 Year Ago
        @jf.bouchard
        Actually I watch these just to avoid the police. I have a modified car that meets legal requirements, but cops still BREAK THE LAW and treat me like crap. I don't want to have to deal with it coming home late, but I never drink more than 1 drink and drive. I think people trying to get away with drinking and driving are shitbags, but so are 75% of the cops so....
    • Load More Comments