Connecting You to Your Community
Lodi, California •

Indexes


February 8th, 2010
February 6th, 2010
February 5th, 2010
February 4th, 2010
February 3rd, 2010
February 2nd, 2010
February 1st, 2010
ADVERTISEMENT

Lodi police arrest 13 on suspicion of DUI during Labor Day weekend

By Layla Bohm
News-Sentinel Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 9, 2009 6:13 AM PDT

Comments (22 comment(s))

More than a dozen suspected drunken drivers were arrested in Lodi over the Labor Day weekend, in which extra officers focused solely on such drivers.

Friday and Sunday nights consisted of placing more officers on patrol in unassigned beats, meaning that they drove the whole city and targeted areas more prone to drunken drivers, said Lodi Police Sgt. Chris Jacobson. On Saturday night, police held a checkpoint to screen all motorists passing through a specific area.

All told, police arrested 13 people on suspicion of drunken driving — five during the checkpoint, five on Friday night and three on Sunday night.

Police also arrested four others — three during the checkpoint — for possession of drugs. Police conducted a total of 22 field sobriety tests, meaning that not all people suspected of driving under the influence were actually violating the law, Jacobson said.

The extra officers were funded through two grants from the California Office of Traffic Safety. One grant, through the "Avoid the 10" program, gives money to all 10 law enforcement agencies in the county. Another one is specifically for the Lodi Police Department.

"We hope to make Lodi a safer place to drive so that people think before drinking and driving," Jacobson said of the extra enforcement, which follows on the heels of several recent DUI operations.

The eight-hour checkpoint was held from 6:30 p.m. Saturday to 2:30 a.m. Sunday in the 500 block of South Cherokee Lane, near Hilborn Street. Officers screened 1,251 vehicles on both directions of the four-lane road.

In addition to the eight arrests there — five for DUI and three for drug possession — police towed seven vehicles that either belonged to those arrested or to people without valid driver's licenses. Police conducted a total of 11 sobriety tests that night.

During the "saturation patrols" on Friday and Sunday nights, officers worked six-hour shifts, one ending at 2 a.m. and a couple others ending at 3 a.m., Jacobson said.

Those extra patrols arrested five suspected drunken drivers on Friday and three on Sunday.

Contact reporter Layla Bohm at layla@lodinews.com.

Reader Feedback

deblaw wrote on Sep 17, 2009 3:23 PM:

" Maybe they will set up a check point at the grape festival, they certainly could snag more that 13 out 1251 detained vehicles... "

Report Abuse

Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Sep 13, 2009 12:37 PM:

" Driving is a privilege; not a right. As such, all of us are subject to the laws and rules that keep our roads safe, including the use of sobriety check points.

I went through the very check point referred to in the article and had no problem answering the question, "Have you had anything to drink tonight?" and then afforded the privilege to go along with my business. I never felt as if my rights nor my privacy were being thwarted. In fact I felt thankful that perhaps I might actually make it home alive believing that the very drunk who was yanked off the road due to police vigilance might have plowed into my car a few blocks down the road. "

Report Abuse

RaiderHater wrote on Sep 11, 2009 6:28 PM:

" Post their names and make an example out of them if they're over 18 !!! "

Report Abuse

SilverSurfer wrote on Sep 10, 2009 2:57 PM:

" Jeff writes: " 1251 cars screened, not pulled over."
-----0000-------
And just exactly how do you "screen" a driver if you don't REQUIRE him to stop and talk to you?

Your "drive elsewhere" suggestion is unrealistic (if not absurd) especially for those who live in Lodi.

And the notion that you can leave the checkpoint if you want to won't work either if you are thinking of offering that one. The police have motorcycle cops and sometimes patrol units positioned outside the parameters of the checkpoint line just for the purpose of following those who leave it. They follow you hoping you'll commit an actual violation so they can find out if you've dodged the line because you're drunk or hiding something else.

Based upon your previous opinion, I assume you have no problem, then, being pulled over on an officer's whim whenever you're out driving just because he wants to see if you "might be" doing something wrong? Why have checkpoints then? Why not just let the cops pull you over whenever, wherever, just because you "might" be breaking the law? Sounds great...you go first. "

Report Abuse

SilverSurfer wrote on Sep 10, 2009 2:05 PM:

" It's fine to give cart blanch to the govt. under the premise that "I don't break the law so I don't have anything to worry about," just don't start whining when you find yourself living in a country that no longer resembles the U.S. as you know it. If you don't think it's happening, you'd better open your eyes.

The procedures at a checkpoint should be nothing more than the officer approaching the car, a short exchange of conversation, a look at your license, and if he determines no alcohol or drug influence symptoms, you should be allowed to leave immediately. It is not a "Seatbelt Checkpoint," an "Insurance Checkpoint," a "Registration Checkpoint, or a "Warrants Checkpoint." They shouldn't be asking your passengers questions about their identities, whether they've been drinking, etc. because that is not what they are designed for.

Unfortunately, officers sometimes take advantage of this "freebie" opportunity to grab a stat. I have been held up for 20 minutes at a couple of these things. That is an inconvenience I shouldn't have to be subjected to. "

Report Abuse

sooziesdad wrote on Sep 10, 2009 1:34 AM:

" dogs4u hit it right on the nail. drunk drivers kill and destroy families. good job LPD. don't stop. "

Report Abuse

dogs4you wrote on Sep 9, 2009 7:41 PM:

" FreeThinker, lay off the Kool-Aid and come to your senses. Give some thought that if one of these drunk drivers happens to hit a friend or family member of yours, I`m sure you would see DUI in a different prospective, and an outstanding reason for check points. A drunk behind the wheel of a 3,400 lb. of steel, glass and plastic is a most dangerous weapon. Well done LPD and all law enforcement looking for the potential deadly driver, who if kills someone due to their reckless driving, as a rule walks away. The streets are a public throughfare and not private. "

Report Abuse

Giovanina wrote on Sep 9, 2009 6:17 PM:

" Driving is not a civil right. What are you like 12? Driving is a privilege and when you get your license, you are saying that you will follow the laws, and the directions of law enforcement. If you don't like it, take the bus. The government doesn't owe you a driver's license. You must be a drunk driver. "

Report Abuse

LodiFreeThinker wrote on Sep 9, 2009 4:54 PM:

" Your right to privacy should not be left behind in your driveway.

Checkpoints are an invasion of privacy.

Of course we want to get drunk drivers off the road, and murderers off the street, and terrorists and child predators and blah blah blah...

We should not be so willing to give up our civil rights.

And 13 people were arrested, in Lodi? On a holiday weekend? That can't have been even 1% of the people driving over the legal limit... Its not about making people safer, its about easy overtime and looking like you care. "

Report Abuse

steve wrote on Sep 9, 2009 3:27 PM:

" Excellent job LPD, just your presence can make a difference. 1257 cars screened lets those who were driving by know law enforcement is taking DUI seriously. Maybe just one driver who was screened will tell someone who might be thinking that it is ok to have a couple and get behind the wheel. Those officers might have stopped someone from hurting themselves or another driver, could possibly even preventing a fatal accident. "

Report Abuse

dogs4you wrote on Sep 9, 2009 3:06 PM:

" If you spend 2-3 or more hours in a bar, and have 3 or more drinks an hour, that could be up to 9 or more and a good chance you could not pass a sobriety test let along drive. Best bet, call a cab or a designated driver and save yourself the possibility of getting a DUI, which these days could run as high as $10,000.

And deblaw, though the chances are slim at best, perhaps one of those drivers that were pulled over for screening might have hit your car, slim chance but you never know. You get a DUI in Russia and it`s off to the Gulag. "

Report Abuse

Lynn wrote on Sep 9, 2009 2:11 PM:

" dtbussowner: You make an excellent point about the private citizens involvement. You could have citizens sit in front of Rosewood, Ollie's, Gary's, Lodi Brewery and all the wine bars downtown and watch customers walk to their cars. Then call the cops on the ones who are a little tipsy. Problem solved. "

Report Abuse

Jeff wrote on Sep 9, 2009 1:07 PM:

" 'The extra uniforms on the street would also provide a measure of deterrent. So it may deter that person from ever getting behind the wheel.'

Isn't that what they just did? "

Report Abuse

dtbussowner wrote on Sep 9, 2009 12:44 PM:

" Lynn,I understand this argument. If that were the case, truly the case, why not have 50 check points around Lodi 365/7/24. So over an 8 hour period they arrested 8 drivers out of 1251 stops. Then the extra patrols arrested 5 additional. Not sure how many officers were assigned assume 4 and/or more plus lighting and other set up. And still only less than 20 drivers were picked out city wide. So from a fiscal point of view, I assume this wasn't very successful. I am sure there are a million ways to find impared drivers other than check points. Possibly a public education and reporting campaign. The populace is trained to spot impaired drivers and report. Teach a person to fish philosophy. Then the extra police offices on the street would respond much sooner. The extra uniforms on the street would also provide a measure of deterrent. So it may deter that person from ever getting behind the wheel. But we chose to lose personal freedoms for a false sense of security. Makes for great headlines, not real public safety improvement. "

Report Abuse

lynn wrote on Sep 9, 2009 11:38 AM:

" dtbussowner: Why would you be against getting drunks off the road? I would be for getting rid of DUI checkpoints if the penalty was an automatic 90 days in jail, $10,000.00 fine and loss of drivers license for one year. That would make people think twice before getting behind the wheel impaired. "

Report Abuse

dtbussowner wrote on Sep 9, 2009 10:41 AM:

" I totally support Lodi PD as they have been there for me many times. With that said, I believe there is just something wrong with check points in this country for any reason other than a man hunt. Check Points just aren't right in this country for random checks. I can't give any reason why I disagree with them..just doesn't feel right. I feel it goes against personal freedoms. "

Report Abuse

Jeff wrote on Sep 9, 2009 10:40 AM:

" no, usa. as someone who champions privacy, i believe that driving up to a sobriety check point is not an invasion of privacy. you want to keep you and your car private, keep it off the public roads. "

Report Abuse

deblaw wrote on Sep 9, 2009 10:29 AM:

" Jeff, Russia? "

Report Abuse

Journey wrote on Sep 9, 2009 8:37 AM:

" Many newspapers list the names of those arrested for DUI, prostitution (along with the Johns), etc. I assume this would act as a deterrent in a small town. I wonder why Lodi News chooses not to. "

Report Abuse

Jeff wrote on Sep 9, 2009 8:33 AM:

" 1251 cars screened, not pulled over. It was at a dui check point, an extra stop in the road. don't like it, drive elsewhere. "

Report Abuse

deblaw wrote on Sep 9, 2009 8:22 AM:

" 1257 cars pulled over.. Do all these cars fall under "probable cause" ? If not, are their rights not violated? When did we move to Russia? I would really be ticked off if I was pulled over for no apparent reason other than "I might be" without any probable cause... "

Report Abuse

pooreastside wrote on Sep 9, 2009 7:30 AM:

" why not post their names? "

Report Abuse

Comments on this story are now closed.

Special Sections

Sentinel Silver 2010

Photo Reprints

Find Ads




Services

Contact Us

Office

125 N. Church St.
P.O. Box 1360
Lodi, CA 95241
(209) 369-2761
Fax: (209) 369-1084

Newsroom

E-mail

(209) 369-7035
Fax: (209) 369-6706

Subscriptions

Subscribe

Problems with your subscription?
(209) 333-1400

Advertising

E-mail

(209) 369-2761
Fax: (209) 369-1084

Classifieds

Place an ad E-mail

(209) 333-1111
Fax: (209) 369-1084