- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up
- Advertisement -

« News Home

Youngstown police plan license checkpoints

Published: Mon, October 18, 2010 @ 10:00 a.m.

Youngstown police will conduct checkpoints throughout the city on Wednesday, Oct. 26 and 28 specifically checking for motorists who are driving with a suspended license. The checkpoint locations and times will vary.


1bmw525i(19 comments)posted 4 years, 11 months ago

It's about time, this needs to be done more often . I believe everyone can agree I do not want my vehicle torn up by someone without a license .

Suggest removal:

2walter_sobchak(2323 comments)posted 4 years, 11 months ago

I had a Magistrate and a State Trooper both relate to me that the State of Ohio estimates that about 75% of the people driving on Youngstown streets are driving their vehicle without a valid operator's license.

Suggest removal:

3TeresaB(82 comments)posted 4 years, 11 months ago

I highly doubt the figure is 75%. That is just blatant exaggeration

Suggest removal:

4walter_sobchak(2323 comments)posted 4 years, 11 months ago

Yeah, you know how those law enforcement people lie. Let's say they are off by a factor of 3. Does it make you feel any better that 25% of the drivers have no license?

Suggest removal:

5boots109(81 comments)posted 4 years, 11 months ago

another waste of money on a show..the public demands a stop to the shootings/so what do they get a lic.check stop..so they get someone driving with no lic..then what..go to court.pay a fine..back on the street driving again..nothing will change..a waste of tax money..

Suggest removal:

6TeresaB(82 comments)posted 4 years, 11 months ago

In all honesty, while i applaud their intentions, I am not happy about the checkpoint. As a licensed and Insured resident of the city of Youngstown, I do not appreciate the government intruding when the benefit is so little. For DUI's the inconvenience to citizens is minimal *usually conducted at night, less people on their way to work, etc* and the benefits to society are greater *one drunk off the road is potentially one life saved*. However, in this case, your going to inconvenience law abiding, tax paying citizens, in order to catch a few people without licenses. If they simply patrol the roads more, use their eyes to find *probable cause*, then they target the correct audience and leave the remaining *good citizens* alone.
In short, it just seems like a short-cut to undermining probable clause and the lazy way to get the job done.

Suggest removal:

7boots109(81 comments)posted 4 years, 11 months ago

nickels and dimes..forget the small timers..police..go after the big boys..make some major drug busts..does a vice squad still exist..

Suggest removal:

8ValleyNative(174 comments)posted 4 years, 11 months ago

Will they fine anyone without a front license plate while they are at it? That would bring in a few thousand, easily. I have noticed more and more that front plates are treated as an option. Come on folks, this is OH, not PA

Suggest removal:

9boots109(81 comments)posted 4 years, 11 months ago

truth is the police get extra money from the state and pay allot of overtime..the last writer is correct..cops can pull over people left and right everyday and find violations without stopping drivers that obey the law..

Suggest removal:

10boots109(81 comments)posted 4 years, 11 months ago

crime will increase..those busted will pay fines.pay towing costs,and have to sell mors drugs or rob more people,or break into more homes to pay for it all...

Suggest removal:

11TeresaB(82 comments)posted 4 years, 11 months ago

Exaggerating only serves to discredit everything said after it. I highly doubt either of those figures are correct. In order to get your point across it is better to not exaggerate. People generally take exaggerated statements and those who make them with the grain of salt they require... ya know?

Suggest removal:

12boots109(81 comments)posted 4 years, 11 months ago

ya follow the mayor..if he was or is so right..y-town would not need any check points..it would be under control..but the mayor likes crime..it means more federal money to stop it..its a racket..crime is a business..

Suggest removal:

13TeresaB(82 comments)posted 4 years, 11 months ago

For once, you and I agree completely. I am not certain if they can "legally" put the checkpoints in high crime areas only. I think they could be "accused" of racism, since the high crime areas in this town happen to be minority communities.

Suggest removal:

14TeresaB(82 comments)posted 4 years, 11 months ago

I agree it is not racism, but certainly someone will call it that. The problems of this city reside in a few select blocks (my guess 12 blocks in the city are the "main problem). That's not to say that the other areas don't have problems but they are more in proportion of what you would find in any neighborhood *suburban or otherwise*

I live on the upper west side and my neighborhood is great. Most of my immediate neighbors have been here 40 plus years and the streets behind me are nice as well (deputy sheriff immediately behind me). So, it is not ALL OF YOUNGSTOWN, as some would like to say. I feel safe to take long walks in this neighborhood and the biggest crime on my street, is the @#@ kids and their loud car stereos... lol

Suggest removal:

15Stan(9923 comments)posted 4 years, 11 months ago

There is no money targeting those in the hood as they have no jobs to garnish wages . These areas will not targeted . All this is a show to appease the critics . If crime was the issue there would be citywide sweeps of the drugs houses and the major dealers would be rounded up . This however would be politically incorrect .

Suggest removal:

16AKAFR1(322 comments)posted 4 years, 11 months ago

Zero tolerance or random check points will have no effect unless there is prison space to lock habitual offenders people up. To often these people who re "ticketed" continue to drive without a license because there is not consequence,

Suggest removal:

17peggz54(2 comments)posted 4 years, 11 months ago

When they do get a person for drugs they get off too easy. I know for a fact. someone I know only did 90 days in prison. that person didnt learn a thing. back out already. get tougher laws and have judges stick to them.

Suggest removal:

18clickelliott(4 comments)posted 4 years, 11 months ago

"...on Wednesday, Oct. 26 and 28..." Neither the 26th nor 28th is a Wednesday. Two sentences in this whole article, and the first makes no sense.

Suggest removal:

19Silence_Dogood(1527 comments)posted 4 years, 11 months ago

No license , no insurance, no car!
If those that are pulled over can't prove that they have both they should not be allowed to get thier car back untill thay can prove that thet have BOTH. I am all for this program, great idea.

Suggest removal:

20masonbm(1 comment)posted 4 years, 11 months ago

There isnt any pull over check points on this i belive. All they got to do now is sit and let you pass and the scanner on thier cars will run your tag, the Sheriff's Dept does this all the time in Columbiana County. It will alert them if you have a susp driver licence ,ect. I as a law abiding citizen have no problem with this as long as they do it without interfearing into peoples time by stopping us. The ones who should worry are the people who dont have a licence or have something else to worry about

Suggest removal:

21KLibecco(84 comments)posted 4 years, 11 months ago

@ClickElliot: There will be three separate dates: Wednesday (Oct. 20), then again on Oct. 26 and Oct. 28. Hope that helps clear up some of the confusion.
Katie Libecco
Vindy.com/The Vindicator

Suggest removal:

22TeresaB(82 comments)posted 4 years, 11 months ago

I am very aware that my neighbors are what keeps this neighborhood nice and strong and that when they leave, it is all up to chance. Personally, my goal is to be out of Youngstown (and hopefully Ohio) within the next 3-4 years. Honestly, this city is making a Republican out of me (lol). Seriously though, I am starting to realize that subsidizing people's lives only leads to problems for the rest of society. What is that they say about "idle time". I am with Stan, if they really wanted to clean this area up, they would raid the drug houses. Heck, I have no druggie friends and even I know where some of the drug dens are. You can't tell me they don't have enough knowledge to raid these houses. Thats what they did 4 years ago with the zero tolerance, they raided the $##$ out of the dope houses. Problem was, they stopped and now they are all back and running.

Now here is something some of you many not agree with, but it is only my opinion. The prosecutors office is very very low on "courtroom skills" right now; they are losing cases in the courtroom, pleading out to ridiculously low charges (sentences, as well) and getting their convictions overturned at an astronomical rate (compared to similar jurisdictions). I think a great deal of the problem with the revolving door of justice in mahoning county has to do with the lack of talent at the prosecutors office. Gains needs to go and they need more money to hire better attorneys. Just my opinion.

Suggest removal:

23Freeatlast(1991 comments)posted 4 years, 11 months ago


Suggest removal:

24dreamcatcher52(140 comments)posted 4 years, 11 months ago

I believe this violates the 4th amendment. Although the Supreme Court did uphold DUI checkpoints on the basis of a "compelling societal interest" or something like that. So if they want to do this, they will have to call them DUI checkpoints. Personally, I feel we may as well throw the 4th amendment out because so many people are willing to allow the police to stop and search whenever they want. Many figure if you are law-abiding and have nothing to hide, don't worry. I just worry about what it could lead to in the future. But then, maybe I'm just a little paranoid.

Suggest removal:

25pacer(68 comments)posted 4 years, 11 months ago

Anyone caught at a checkpoint without license or insurance need to be sent walking. The police need to confiscate the auto and send it to the auto action and use the money to fund more checkpoints. Same with drug houses.

Suggest removal:

26TeresaB(82 comments)posted 4 years, 11 months ago

I still don't like the intrusion that this checkpoint represents. As another poster noted, it possibly violates the 4th amendment. Not to mention, they have announced it in advance (as I believe they are required to do so). Therefore, most of those stopped will be the law abiding citizens. What a waste. They should spend this time and MONEY doing investigations and shutting down drug houses. This is a poor waste of resources, in my opinion.

Suggest removal:

27seminole(476 comments)posted 4 years, 11 months ago

Bottom line: if you are not going to have an issue, ie you have insurance and a license, then fear not. Those that oppose are the trash rolling w/o license and/or insurance, probably shoplifted merchandise in the trunk, weed under he seat, all the good things that go ignored each and every day that put the law abiding citizens at risk and raise our insurance rates.

Suggest removal:

28TeresaB(82 comments)posted 4 years, 11 months ago

I have an issue with this and I DO HAVE a license/insurance. I think it is an inefficient way to stop crime. Yesterday they pulled over 400 cars (at an additional cost of 2k in overtime, not to mention all the manpower that was not available to patrol the other sides of town) and I have yet to hear they arrested 200 people (Chief's estimate 50% without a license) for driving under suspension or any other violation.
In addition, not only are they checking licenses at these checkpoints, but they are also checking each individual for warrants. Again, I or noone I know has warrants. But this appears to be a slippery slope infringing on our rights and the 4th amendment. As a citizen, I am furious they are taking this cowardly and inefficient route.

Suggest removal:

29TeresaB(82 comments)posted 4 years, 11 months ago

In fact the Supreme Court has already ruled these checkpoints violate the 4th amendment. See the following link for the case against the City of Indianapolis.

Suggest removal:

30ytownsteelman(670 comments)posted 4 years, 11 months ago


You may want to actually read the case that you have cited. I did, and after about four paragraphs found that this is in fact constitutional:

(a) The rule that a search or seizure is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment absent individualized suspicion of wrongdoing has limited exceptions. For example, this Court has upheld brief, suspicionless seizures at a fixed checkpoint designed to intercept illegal aliens, United States v. Martinez&nbhyph;Fuerte, 428 U. S. 543, and at a sobriety checkpoint aimed at removing drunk drivers from the road, Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U. S. 444. The Court has also suggested that a similar roadblock to verify drivers' licenses and registrations would be permissible to serve a highway safety interest. Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U. S. 648, 663. However, the Court has never approved a checkpoint program whose primary purpose was to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing. Pp. 3-7.

Suggest removal:


HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2015 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes