Lodinews.com

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

Saturation patrol nets 7 DUI arrests

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Saturday, June 4, 2011 12:00 am | Updated: 1:08 pm, Sat Jun 4, 2011.

The Lodi Police Department's saturation patrol during Memorial Day weekend produced seven DUI arrests, said Sgt. Chris Jacobson of the Lodi Police Department.

The weekend's patrols featured two officers searching for intoxicated drivers each night during the three-day weekend, Jacobson said. Officers stopped 66 vehicles and conducted 14 field sobriety tests during the patrol. Four vehicles were impounded, two drivers were found operating a vehicle with a suspended license and one motorist was arrested for reckless driving, Jacobson said.

Officers also conducted a motorcycle safety patrol on May 28, but only one stop was made due to the heavy winds and rains that day, Jacobson said.

In all, the weekend's patrols were successful, he said.

"There were no fatal accidents, and that's most important thing," Jacobson said. "That's what we're trying to accomplish."

The saturation patrol was funded by a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety, through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Contact reporter Jordan Guinn at jordang@lodinews.com.

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.

Welcome to the discussion.

14 comments:

  • Doug Chaney posted at 10:24 pm on Mon, Jun 6, 2011.

    Doug Chaney Posts: 1232

    And, offramp, you must either be a great computer geek or have some heavy connections at the News-Sentinel to finagle your way onto these comments without a first and last name?

     
  • Doug Chaney posted at 10:21 pm on Mon, Jun 6, 2011.

    Doug Chaney Posts: 1232

    offramp, don't you have a listed name like everyone else? Are you in law enforcement? Why don't you post your name so we can see who you are? Maybe you're one of the News-Sentinel elite or one of their pets? I'm all for DUI checkoints when they are used on the proper days and not scheduled away from the many alcohol involved events in Lodi. I've been sober many years and I think it's great that impaired drivers are being taken off of our roads. I'm just concerned the big wine events here seem to constantly avoid being scheduled when they last well into the evening, and then the site chosen is far from any major avenues or streets that most will drive to venture either to the next tasting stop, freeway or home before they do kill someone. The last checkpoint was on a wine tasting event that ended at 6PM. Go figure? Who are you, by the way?

     
  • Doug Chaney posted at 2:54 pm on Mon, Jun 6, 2011.

    Doug Chaney Posts: 1232

    I also find that at the last DUI/license checkpoint on Lodi Ave., the arrests of many of those listed offenders were not at the announced location, having other street names and addresses and others out of the time frame for this checkpoint? The LPD logs confirm this, if you research. So is LPD allowed to report these additional statistics as being related to the checkpoint to bolster their paltry numbers?

     
  • Doug Chaney posted at 2:51 pm on Mon, Jun 6, 2011.

    Doug Chaney Posts: 1232

    Good points, offramp. Checkpoints could be the best deterrent if used properly and every vehicle that passes through should be contacted with handouts explaining the purpose for the checkpoint and the consequences that will come if you are driving while DUI/drugimpaired, medical precsriptions no exception. With checkpoints only checking every certain number vehicle, 4th for example, what is the real purpose other than getting amazingly lucky that any one of those 25% stopped will be impaired? Looking at the statistics in Lodi, saturation patrols are netting more impaired drivers than the checkpoint. But the DUI checkpoint has now turned into a DUI/license check checkpoint, with as many as thirty+ tows for one DUI. Californians have been complaining about this fact and that is why legislation is being introduced in Sacramento to eliminate the license check aspect and make them DUI checkpoints, as they were originally intended to be. Have any of these little tow companies had 30 towaways in a whole month or more? Just look who owns these tow trucks and companies they're with and you see good old boys written all over it. And DUI checkpoints should be mandatorily set up on evenings of the big alcohol events, or where alcohol is dispensed at any large gathering that requires participants to drive from one venue to another. And set up at locations coinciding with the event, not at some Cherokee Lane or some other location to nab Lodians, mostly eastside minorities, for violations other than impaired driving. And sometimes not only a tow job, but impoundment for as long as thirty days. This new legislation will make DUI checkpoints that will only check for impaired drivers and nothing else, their original intention. I've been through checkpoints in four different states and always given handouts from the law enforcement agency that was conducting them and have never had a DUI, negligent driving, open container or impaired violation. In Lodi, when back in the line or seeing one coming up ahead, I take the first legal turn and go around the checkpoint to carry on with my personal business. It's not mandatory that you continue through a checkpoint as long as there is a venue to make a legal turn to bypass it.

     
  • Doug Chaney posted at 2:49 pm on Mon, Jun 6, 2011.

    Doug Chaney Posts: 1232

    Good points, offramp. Checkpoints could be the best deterrent if used properly and every vehicle that passes through should be contacted with handouts explaining the purpose for the checkpoint and the consequences that will come if you are driving while DUI/drugimpaired, medical precsriptions no exception. With checkpoints only checking every certain number vehicle, 4th for example, what is the real purpose other than getting amazingly lucky that any one of those 25% stopped will be impaired? Looking at the statistics in Lodi, saturation patrols are netting more impaired drivers than the checkpoint. But the DUI checkpoint has now turned into a DUI/license check checkpoint, with as many as thirty+ tows for one DUI. Californians have been complaining about this fact and that is why legislation is being introduced in Sacramento to eliminate the license check aspect and make them DUI checkpoints, as they were originally intended to be. Have any of these little tow companies had 30 towaways in a whole month or more? Just look who owns these tow trucks and companies they're with and you see good old boys written all over it. And DUI checkpoints should be mandatorily set up on evenings of the big alcohol events, or where alcohol is dispensed at any large gathering that requires participants to drive from one venue to another. And set up at locations coinciding with the event, not at some Cherokee Lane or some other location to nab Lodians, mostly eastside minorities, for violations other than impaired driving. And sometimes not only a tow job, but impoundment for as long as thirty days. This new legislation will make DUI checkpoints that will only check for impaired drivers and nothing else, their original intention. I've been through checkpoints in four different states and always given handouts from the law enforcement agency that was conducting them and have never had a DUI, negligent driving, open container or impaired violation. In Lodi, when back in the line or seeing one coming up ahead, I take the first legal turn and go around the checkpoint to carry on with my personal business. It's not mandatory that you continue through a checkpoint as long as there is a venue to make a legal turn to bypass it.

     
  • Tim Whiteside posted at 7:18 am on Mon, Jun 6, 2011.

    Tim Whiteside Posts: 2

    Sorry Ryan! I'm new to posting on here. I really couldn't believe that anyone could complain about the police taking drunk drivers off the road. Peace!

     
  • Josh Morgan posted at 3:11 pm on Sun, Jun 5, 2011.

    Josh Morgan Posts: 529

    For those of you interested, I have been appointed by the LPD to issue tags to Lodi's GOB's that will allow you to pass through DUI check points unfettered. They will also be good for free passes on saturation nights. You must submit your current balance statement and have a net worth over $2,000,000 or be a member of the City Council or Planning Commission. It allows you to have a LPD officer drive you home for free and have your car delivered to your driveway. If you do not with to submit your real name please feel free to apply under the name of your LLC.

     
  • Doug Chaney posted at 12:26 pm on Sun, Jun 5, 2011.

    Doug Chaney Posts: 1232

    What is it I said, Ryan? Saturation patrols always net mor DUI's in Lodi than the DUI/license checkpoints according to statistics. I think 7 is a great figure for one evening in Lodi. So why aren't more saturation patrols used to deter impaired drivers? My last response to this issue stated that when DUI/license checkpoints are only generating only one or two average DUI arrests and some over 30 tow aways for unrelated minor traffic violations to enrich Lodi, LPD and the tow companies owners coffers, that the consensus is that DUI/license checkpoints are not doing the job they are intended to do, stop and arrest impaired drivers. As long as LPD shows no preference for the dignitaries and good old boys of Lodi, next of kin and friends, then saturation patrols should be used every weekend, especially on the nights of the wine drinking events, not away from those dates, as they appear to be at present. The new senate bill being introduced for legislation points out the fact that DUI/license checkpoints in many cities and towns are generating minor traffic violations and tow aways at a 20-1 basis. The argument is that the DUI arrests are so low the police agencies are merely using these DUI/license checkpoints to tow vehicles other than the few DUI arrests that are made at these checkpoints. This new legislation will make these checkpoints mandatory DUI/impaired checkpoints only. I thought the primary purpose of the checkpoints was to issue handouts to every vehicle that passes through and not just stop every 3rd or 4th vehicle? Seems like in a small town like Lodi, the officers should stop EVERY vehicle and present a handout on drinking/drug impaired driving and the consequences if you are a violator. If the check every 4th random vehicle, or whatever their MO is, couldn't they just wave through "special customers" without having them roll down their windows? It's pretty much a wash to opt for saturation patrols every weekend than the checkpoints, which have shown few, sometimes no arrests, and the saturation patrol that can find 7 DUI's? Oh, but how will all of these spiffy new tow truck owners pay for all this new equipment that has suddenly invadaded Lodi in the last year? Did they really speculate that there were going to be so many unneeded tows at the original DUI checkpoints, or were they given that privileged inside Wall streeter information?

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 2:52 pm on Sat, Jun 4, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    Ryan.. you cant fool me... I know the first post was the real you... that second post was a good comeback... you are just mad cus the mayor took your lunch money... so obvious.

     
  • Laura Rouzer posted at 12:06 pm on Sat, Jun 4, 2011.

    Laura Rouzer Posts: 55

    Good job LPD!! I'm glad they are out there making the streets safer for everyone. As far as the drunk drivers go, whatever penalty they get it's not severe enough.

     
  • Ryan Jameson posted at 11:08 am on Sat, Jun 4, 2011.

    Ryan Jameson Posts: 195

    Tim; you take my comments out of context. Trust me, speaking from experience I support law enforcement 100%. I was making a sarcastic gesture about another person who frequently posts on this site. If you spend any amount of time reading the opinion eds you will find a gentlemen by the name of Doug Chaney, I was mocking him with my comments as what I wrote is typically something you would see Mr. Chaney chime in with.

     
  • Tim Whiteside posted at 10:54 am on Sat, Jun 4, 2011.

    Tim Whiteside Posts: 2

    Wow! Regarding Mr. Jameson's comment: Did you even think about what you wrote? The police here are only trying to keep the streets safe for our fellow citizens. It's not a personal indictment against you. (Unless you're one of the scumbags that got caught) If you really think it's that bad, perhaps you should go live in Stockton. Or, instead of breaking that pill in half........ take the whole thing.

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 9:25 am on Sat, Jun 4, 2011.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1798

    EXCELLENT, I am always pleased when drunk drivers get caught, especially BEFORE they hurt or kill anyone including themselves. Thank you LPD for being pro-active against DUI.

     
  • Ryan Jameson posted at 6:47 am on Sat, Jun 4, 2011.

    Ryan Jameson Posts: 195

    I would again like to take this opportunity to opine on behalf of Doug Chaney;

    "Looks like the conspiracy to arrest criminals is alive and well at LPD. Those cops just love to violate criminals rights. I even saw the mayor and city manager driving around in a police car! They were stealing lunch money from the poor east side residents. Them good ol' boys are at it again!"

    As always, thank you for your opinion Doug.

     

Video

Popular Stories

Poll

Should graduations return to the Grape Bowl?

Lodi Unified leaders are moving Lodi and Tokay high school graduations from the Grape Bowl to the Spanos Center at UOP in Stockton. They cite limited seating, costs and unpredictable weather at the Grape Bowl. But others say graduations at the Grape Bowl are an important Lodi tradition, and one reason many supported renovating the stadium. What do you think?

Total Votes: 187

Loading…

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