Mobile Site

Home » News Stream » Local »

Robbery Suspect Runs Into Police Checkpoint

Photo
Map

Robbery Suspect Runs Into Police Checkpoint

WKRG.com Related Resources

More –› Related Articles

News –› Alabama

News –› Mobile

Data –› Search Crime Statistics

Discuss this in the forum

By Jamie Burch

M50o93H7pQ09L8X1t49cHY01Z5j4TT91fGfr Robbery Suspect Runs Into Police Checkpoint

Published: Mon, April 28, 2008 - 1:56 pm

Man wanted for robbing an Exxon in West Mobile was arrested when he ran into a police checkpoint.
Police say Greg King walked into the Exxon at 670 Schillinger Road on Saturday, asked for a carton of cigarettes and then told the clerk he was armed. The clerk ran out the back door and King jumped in his car and took off. But he didn't get far.
Police say King ran into a checkpoint where he was arrested. King was booked into Metro Jail on robbery charges.

News Map

Email to a Friend

Printer Friendly

And according to articles I found on here about checkpoints they have be on.
2/20 - 3/7 -3/11 -3/13 -3/17- 3/20- 3/26- 4/12- 4/27

And they have all been called Safety Checkpoints not Sobriety Checkpoints. I think it is a waste of time and resources when you have 10 road block in the first 16 weeks of the year.

Posted by asda on 05/01/08 - 2:21 pm • Report Abuse

BamaBob thank you for that information. I agree with the Supreme Court decision. In the case of Mardi Gras, New Years, Labor Day Weekend. I can see having check points to catch drunk drivers but every weekend the way Mobile is doing in not right and you just proved that.

Posted by asda on 05/01/08 - 2:10 pm • Report Abuse

The following is taken from the Supreme Court decision:

In Delaware v. Prouse, we disapproved random stops made by Delaware Highway Patrol officers in an effort to apprehend unlicensed drivers and unsafe vehicles. We observed that no empirical evidence indicated that such stops would be an effective means of promoting roadway safety and said that ‘’it seems common sense that the percentage of all drivers on the road who are driving without a license is very small and that the number of licensed drivers who will be stopped in order to find one unlicensed operator will be large indeed.’’ We observed that the random stops involved the ‘’kind of standardless and unconstrained discretion [which] is the evil the Court has discerned when in previous cases it has insisted that the discretion of the official in the field be circumscribed, at least to some extent.’’

Posted by BamaBob on 05/01/08 - 2:03 pm • Report Abuse

Checkpoints have undergone a great deal of scrutiny and that took the question all the way to the U. S. Supreme Court. That court addressed the issue under the context of sobriety checkpoints and found that the deviation from our 4th Amendment rights against unlawful search and seizure were justified as being for the overall good. But, the Court issued guidelines for setting up sobriety checkpoints and randomness is of utmost importance.

The Supreme Court waives our individual rights under the 4th amendment in sobriety checkpoints only, because the severity of the problem is of great significance. This same decision found that routine stops for license and safety checks did not meet that high standard.

Posted by BamaBob on 05/01/08 - 1:58 pm • Report Abuse

There have been criminal cases thrown out due to illegal traffic checkpoints. The Supreme Court issued certain guidelines that have to be followed in order to set up traffic checkpoints. If any of those guidelines are not followed, the integrity of the checkpoint is in question and that could be basis for appeal. If the checkpoint is deemed illegal, then any evidence that was gathered during the stop is also illegal and not admissible at trial.

I can see both sides of this issue, but when Friday thru Sunday checkpoints become standard operating procedure it concerns me.

Posted by BamaBob on 05/01/08 - 1:42 pm • Report Abuse

asda… The more I read your post the more I understand your view and have come to realize that we probaly agree on more than we disagree. I think we both want the same thing but by different means.

Posted by Madcap on 05/01/08 - 12:11 pm • Report Abuse

DRIVING IS NOT A RIGHT!
DRIVING IS NOT A RIGHT!
DRIVING IS NOT A RIGHT!
DRIVING IS NOT A RIGHT!
DRIVING IS NOT A RIGHT!
DRIVING IS NOT A RIGHT!

Why is everyone getting so worked up on this?
I’m the one of the only ones who got upset that the police wanted to BAN AN ARTICLE OF CLOTHING, but several people are against road blocks?????? (You’re probably all a bunch of drunk drivers and drug dealers!)

The goverment telling you what to wear is a MUCH BIGGER INFRINGEMENT than perfectly legitimate road blocks!

Posted by KxVx on 05/01/08 - 12:02 pm • Report Abuse

Madcap Thank you for your service overseas. Maybe we will just have to disagree on this one. I am someone who believes that the rights and freedoms we have is what makes the United States a wonderful country and do not like to see those rights and freedoms taken away at any cost.

Posted by asda on 05/01/08 - 11:55 am • Report Abuse

To asds and anybody else that deems me an idiot. I am currently in Iraq doing my part to help defend the freedoms we all enjoy. It is most unfortunate that there are those who choose to break our laws and force our government to take such measures that infringe on our personal lives in ways that make us uncomfortable in our daily lives. I too, don’t like the idea of police roadblocks but that weighed against the police catching, for example, a drunk driver before he hurts someone is a price I am willing to pay. Where is the ACLU if this is so unconstitutional?

Posted by Madcap on 05/01/08 - 11:45 am • Report Abuse

mremann83 - I agree with you. People miss the point of what position the government has. I also think about all the of Men and Women who have served in the Armed Forces to protect our freedoms and rights. I am not defending this guy that got caught. I am saying that the way they are staging these checkpoints as a safety thing is all wrong. ACLU would have a field day with any of these cases. And Madcap if the government decided that you were voting for terrorists and that as a reason of national security you are no longer going to be allowed to vote. What would you say then?

Posted by asda on 05/01/08 - 10:48 am • Report Abuse