default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
Logout|My Dashboard

Lodi’s interim police chief Ray Samuels talks shop about job

Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Ray Samuels

Posted: Friday, April 29, 2011 12:00 am | Updated: 6:29 am, Sat Apr 30, 2011.

Lodi's interim police chief, Ray Samuels, has a long and varied career in law enforcement that includes patrolling the streets of Vallejo, working as an officer in Concord and serving as chief in the city of Newark, a position from which he retired.

In Lodi, he will oversee the department only until a permanent chief is selected in the coming months. During his stint thus far, the 57-year-old Samuels has earned praise as a stabilizing influence in the department.

Subscription Required

An online service is needed to view this article in its entirety. You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

Have an online subscription?

Login now

Need an online subscription?



You must login to view the full content on this page.

Thank you for reading 20 free articles on our site. You can come back at the end of your 30-day period for another 20 free articles, or you can purchase a subscription at this time and continue to enjoy valuable local news and information. If you need help, please contact our office at 209-369-2761. You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

Have an online subscription?

Login now

Need an online subscription?



More about

More about

More about

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don’t pretend you’re someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don’t threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don’t insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the ‘Report’ link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.
  • 9 Don’t be a troll.
  • 10 Don’t reveal personal information about other commenters. You may reveal your own personal information, but we advise you not to do so.
  • 11 We reserve the right, at our discretion, to monitor, delete or choose not to post any comment. This may include removing or monitoring posts that we believe violate the spirit or letter of these rules, or that we otherwise determine at our discretion needs to be monitored, not posted, or deleted.

Welcome to the discussion.

1 comment:

  • Doug Chaney posted at 2:05 pm on Fri, Apr 29, 2011.

    Doug Chaney Posts: 1232

    Chief Samuels, being one of the principles that attempted to organize a gang intrvention program in 2009, sadly without success, I find in my opinion that LPD is lacking sufficiently in the control of the gang, drug and DUI problem in Lodi. I'm asking that during your interim appointment as chief that someone of your stature and reputation, and being an outsider who is beholden to no one at LPD, that drastic changes should be implemented in those areas aforementioned. If the city 0f Lodi and LPD were so very serious about cracking down on impaired drivers, why are those DUI and license/registration/insurance checkpoints always on nights other than when real tipplers, alcoholics, drunks and wine tasters are out in full force on evenings of the many wine drinking and tasting events held in the city limits. It's well rumored that in the past, and presumably even today, that it's taboo to gear down the DUI checkpoints and DUI saturation patrols on these nights for fear of arresting too many impaired drivers, especially those who are well-connected or out of town interests who have imbibed too heavily and attempt to drive home rather than procure a motel room for the night. The sad insinuation exists that since it's free funded money from CDOT, with officers getting gravy overtime and local tow vehicles and their owners being well compensated for towing usually 20 or more cars for vehicle violations other than DUI or impaired driving, that it's permissable to ignore the DUI checkpoints on evenings when the most DUI or impaired drivers would surely be on the road endangering others' lives, including their own. Why would LPD consider DUI checkpoints effective when they're scheduled strategically to avoid those evenings and areas of the many heavy drinking and wine tasting events? Wouldn't it better serve the taxpayers of Lodi to see, say 10 DUI's and twenty tows rather than one or two DUI's and twenty tows? Where is the justification to DUI checkpoints when the meager (1 to 3) DUI totals versus 20-35 misdemeanor vehicle violation tows? And mostly set up to target the poor and Latino/Pakistani population residents? Any one of us that work with the homeless and poverty stricken population here can attest to the overwhelming crystal meth/black tar heroin problem right now and additional efforts should be taken to address this problem in a serious and consistent manner. The gang problem just keeps festering and it seems like another problem of denial by both LPD and the poor judgement of certain council and management members to admit and avoid this problem and by avoiding newspaper articles and neighborhood awareness information. LPD should be concentrating their gang liaison officers in the elementary schools at the 3rd grade level where saturation into the gang way of life begins, sometime even sooner. Many are already throwing gang signs by 4th grade, studies show. To me, the $100K or so LPD receives could be spent reaching out to those in the earlier grades rather than grades 6 or higher when some are already gang oriented or already jumped in. Chief Samuels, your reputation and results are well documented as being a fair, honest and efficient chief and I'm hoping my suggestions will be at least listened to and appropriate action discussed. The in-house chiefs in the past seem to have been skeptical about the gang and drug problem, leaving more of an impression of looking the other way rather than facing these long festering problems to worsen, all the while concentrating heavily on increasing their wages, benefits and pension plans to a maximum level and creating excess supervisory and desk sergeant type positions.



Popular Stories



Your News

News for the community, by the community.

Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists