41 comments:

• Mike Adams posted at 10:09 am on Sun, Mar 27, 2011.

  Posts: 1044

  From what I've read here, the only ones who make out well on these checkpoints are the cops running them. Maybe tow truck drivers. The many minor secondary infractions that otherwise law abiding drivers cited for when it's determined they aren't drunk, or when they divert away from the checkpoints and then are pulled over anyway, would clog our courts.

  Taxpayers aren't getting their money's worth. If the 5000 DUI's cited by Darrell Baumbach is true, and there is no evidence to the contrary, then who is benefiting?
  

  • Link

   

• Darrell Baumbach posted at 2:06 pm on Wed, Mar 23, 2011.

  Posts: 9403

  I did some research and found the following...

  While 5,000 DUI arrests occurred at sobriety checkpoints in 2008, this number is actually small compared to the total number of alcohol related arrests in California. According to the OTS, there were 215,000 DUI arrests in California in 2008, meaning that the number of arrests at sobriety checkpoints accounts for only 2.3 percent of all DUI arrests... Law enforcement spent $14 million in federal grant money to arrest 5,000 people at sobriety checkpoints...

  After reading this, maybe Charles has a good point since the goal is to get the DUI driver off the road. If the benefit does not sipport the cost of potential 4th amendment concerns... maybe better ways could be implemented... Interesting discussion.

  • Link

   

• William Dawes posted at 8:56 am on Wed, Mar 23, 2011.

  Posts: 111

  Sorry but this is America. We don't have to print anything in any language accept English. Not being able to read the disclaimer because it isn't in another language but English is not a legal excuse. It is a "feel good" excuse for the political left who do not feel they have to follow the laws as it is.

  When you get a California license you are basically agreeing with the fact that you can be asked for your license, registration, and proof of insurance at any time for any reason.

  The main issue here is not why they were stopped or questioned, it is the reason for the separation of your property. That's the issue.

  Ever since the Kelo case, which was unconstitutional, the government has decided that they can confiscate property for any reason. Property is a fundamental right, not a right you get from the government. But the government has been trying to take that right away.

  Just ask the oil field workers that will lose their jobs because Obama is allowing U.S. banks to fund the building of Brazilian oil companies instead of funding the building of our own oil companies and creating American jobs. You can't gain property without the money from a job. No job, no money, no property.

  • Link

   

• William Dawes posted at 8:46 am on Wed, Mar 23, 2011.

  Posts: 111

  This is the U.S.A. and the government, including the police, better have a very good reason for separating a person from their property. A DUI is a good reason for that separation. After that reason, I don't see a reason in this article. Everything in here states an infraction or 2, but no confiscation of property.

  The girl was not smart for just driving home. She probably didn't even have to drive very far. The police should be confiscating property ONLY for public safety reasons, in the case of a checkpoint. If an unlicensed driver has no one else in the car that is licensed, I can see losing the car. But if there is a licensed driver that can drive and is not impaired, then it really is just an infraction. Ticket the unlicensed driver, or impound the unlicensed driver but leave the property alone, it isn't yours.

  The Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution both force the government to protect my property not come up with ways to separate it from me for the sake of making MONEY!

  • Link

   

• Doug Chaney posted at 10:10 pm on Tue, Mar 22, 2011.

  Posts: 1232

  Are these checkpoints posted in Spanish in the newspaper or at a listed or approved site on the eastside? Do these checkpoints ay specifically that you'll be asked for a license or insurance? Why so many different tow coWhat are the gigantic profit margins of these tow companies and who are the owners who pocket those profits? Why aren't the names of those whose vehicles are towed and those who are cited listed? Would it point to blatant racial profiling judging by last names? Sentinel, do your job and print the names of those who are being targeted by the DUI checkpoints for violations other than driving impaired.

  • Link

   

• Charles Nelson posted at 7:30 pm on Tue, Mar 22, 2011.

  Posts: 243

  Darrell, why would a bad idea need to be replaced? People have already stated that the local bartenders already game the procedure. Why don't we just go back to the days previous to checkpoints. When police officers kept a diligent eye for those exhibiting compromised driving skills. If we didn't have the police concentrated in the area that the drunks have been warned to avoid, maybe they could catch a few. I would also suggest, that anyone unaware of the checkpoint, is being subject to unreasonable search and seizure, for being detained without probable cause.

  • Link

   

• Larry Johnson posted at 3:11 pm on Tue, Mar 22, 2011.

  Posts: 5

  I should be OK as long as they don't put a checkpoint between my den and my bathroom.

  • Link

   

• Darrell Baumbach posted at 10:46 am on Tue, Mar 22, 2011.

  Posts: 9403

  Charles... that's just it... your constitutional rights are not violated according to the law passed. Technically, if you know that something will happen in advance and you already know that you are subject to search at one location before you go, then you are accepting the consequences. If you were searched at any other location other than the location published, forth amendment would rule..
  May I ask, what would you suggest to replace this procedure? I do share your concern of inappropriate police actions... I'm just not certain in this case and the ends should not justify the means... which is what I perceive you are talking about.

  • Link

   

• Charles Nelson posted at 8:34 am on Tue, Mar 22, 2011.

  Posts: 243

  Darrell, notifying me in advance that if I left my home on a certain night, my constitutional rights will be violated, does not make me feel better about the proceedings.

  • Link

   

• Darrell Baumbach posted at 7:41 am on Tue, Mar 22, 2011.

  Posts: 9403

  Doug, I am wrong many times, but I find it hard to believe that most rich people would subject themselves to personal liability of driving while intoxicated and subjecting their millions to law suites.
  If they go to the drinking events that you describe, it would make sense that most of these rich people would hire others to drive if they were intoxicated or have some family member who did not drink as a designated driver. In your experience, do most of these wealthy people actually drive in these situations? If so, they are not protecting their money very well... I was just curious.

  • Link

   

• Doug Chaney posted at 10:03 pm on Mon, Mar 21, 2011.

  Posts: 1232

  Why aren't they held during the wine events if they are really after drunk drivers? And in the area of the event? So the rich white folks all have drivers' licenses and insurance? Is that the statement LPD is making? So they don't need Dui checkpoints in the immediate area of alcohol driven events? How about college night downtown, a drinking event, with every available officer on the prowl and even guarding the entrances to bars, but not the Rosewood, Feed & Fuel, wine bars and Wine & Roses? This is out and out profiling, both racial and socio-economic. Would an LPD officer be fired for arresting a good old boy or well-connected Lodian for being under the influence? Seems Officer Bradley wasn't afraid to arrest an inebriated Stockton officer in Lodi not too long ago? Why haven't other LPD officers arrested any influential DUI suspects? Taboo?

  • Link

   

• Darrell Baumbach posted at 2:25 pm on Mon, Mar 21, 2011.

  Posts: 9403

  Charles... I think your concern was addressed legally when there is a requirement for the police to publically notify in advance where and when the check points are to be held... please correct me if I miss understand.

  • Link

   

• Charles Nelson posted at 11:51 am on Mon, Mar 21, 2011.

  Posts: 243

  I feel that the checkpoints are a clear violation of the 4th Amendment. The police are admittedly pulling you over for no individually apparent reason and "checking your papers".

  • Link

   

• Ann Freeman posted at 9:46 am on Mon, Mar 21, 2011.

  Posts: 1

  Those of you who don't agree with the impounding of cars of people who are committing "infractions", would it be ok then to change the DUI Checkpoint to Compliance Checkpoint?
  What if the Officer said, oh you are not driving drunk, but you don't have a valid license, which now means that driver is "uninsured", go ahead and be on your way. Suddenly, that driver runs a stop sign and plows into your family car...now what, who is now responsible? I am sure the "Uninsured Driver" will sue the Police Department for letting them drive away. It's not their fault they are driving...the Police Officer knew about it.
  And another thing...if the young lady was too sick to drive, then why leave? She's at her mom's not at a restaurant. No sympathy here....

  • Link

   

• Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:31 am on Mon, Mar 21, 2011.

  Posts: 9403

  These dui checkpoints are important,the idea is to take dangerous drivers off the roads and protect the innocent. So why are these people who ARE NOT drunk getting penalized for it?
  I get the first sentence... but the second is confounding. With this logic, A person stopped for potential DUI … police run a check and find a warrant for the persons arrest... police response... sir... please be on your way... this is a DUI checkpoint... I suggest you drive more carefully as you have a warrant for your arrest... take care... I would think if someone breaks or has broken a law for anything, that the officer would have a responsibility to take action...
  

  • Link

   

• Joe Baxter posted at 6:00 am on Mon, Mar 21, 2011.

  Posts: 1187

  Rdz Family posted, "Yes, these people who are driving without a license are breaking the law but its not by choice." . So, someone held a gun to their head and said "drive or die"? They made a CHOICE and they chose to break the law. What part of that do you not understand?

  • Link

   

• Joe Baxter posted at 6:00 am on Mon, Mar 21, 2011.

  Posts: 1187

  Rdz Family posted, "Yes, these people who are driving without a license are breaking the law but its not by choice." . So, someone held a gun to their head and said "drive or die"? They made a CHOICE and they chose to break the law. What part of that do you not understand?

  • Link

   

• trista aquino posted at 1:00 am on Mon, Mar 21, 2011.

  Posts: 96

  Hey that was the most rational, intelligent and fundamental opinion Ive heard in a long time! (-in response to the RDZ familia)
  
  

  • Link

   

• Rdz Family posted at 9:23 pm on Sun, Mar 20, 2011.

  Posts: 1

  In my opinion, the whole concept of a DUI check point is to find people who are Driving Under The Influence right? Yes, these people who are driving without a license are breaking the law but its not by choice. It never ceases to amaze me how ignorent some people still are, hello its the 21st century these people driving illegally have jobs, families, bills to pay etc. Etc. Theyre just like every other person with a LICENSE and even then they still get discriminated. These dui checkpoints are important,the idea is to take dangerous drivers off the roads and protect the innocent. So why are these people who ARE NOT drunk getting penalized for it? When these are the type of people that should also be protected if theyre not putting anybody in danger. Lodi p.d should be concentrating on more important things like, gang violence, drug dealers , domestic violence, DRUNK drivers and everything else that puts innocent people in danger.

  • Link

   

• Kurt Anderson posted at 8:02 pm on Sun, Mar 20, 2011.

  Posts: 9

  Man - where to even begin with this one.

  The critics who oppose this are the people who operate their vehicles illegally. What type of impartial reporting is this LNS?? How about a story of how many peoples lives are SAVED because of these checkpoints. I'm not opposed to them because I don't break the law and drive drunk, uninsured, or without a license. These checkpoints are funded by GRANT MONEY - so it's not costing the city anything. And for the bartender who shares the checkpoint information with patrons - nice job. Maybe while they are skirting around the checkpoint they will slam into a completely innocent family. Come on.

  Lodi PD - while it may not be popular - keep up the good work. Whether they realize it or not, your efforts could very well save lives.

  And LNS - really? This was as impartial as you can get?

  • Link

   

• daniel hutchins posted at 4:13 pm on Sun, Mar 20, 2011.

  Posts: 1266

  The Magna Carta demands of the king the right to travel on the land free of molestatoin by the King's government officials.

  • Link

   

• Doug Chaney posted at 3:15 pm on Sun, Mar 20, 2011.

  Posts: 1232

  I think the funding for these checkpoints should be suspended until the statistics show that these are DUI checkpoint effective and don't entail asking for any personal information unless there's a suspicion of a driver being impaired. I've written a letter of complaint to CDOT and received a response from their office saying they would be out of the office until Thursday and would respond to my email upon their return. I protested the fact that the checkpoints pointed to out and out racial profiling, profiteering for the tow companies and funding being spent merely as a checkpoint for unlicensed and uninsured drivers and not coinciding the checkpoints with events that the city of Lodi encourages participants to drive from venue to venue to consume alcohol, but on those offnights to avoid the real purpose of the checkpoint, to arrest impaired drivers. When I see 5 or 6 tow trucks stationed to wait their turn to tow vehicles at these checkpoints, I wonder why LPD would expect such a large assembly of them at once unless they were expecting many impaired drivers to be towed. It appears that the tow truck lineup indicates that numerous tow jobs are expected for unlicensed and uninsured drivers instead, meaning big profits for those tow truck operators? And payments on those big, beautiful tow trucks?

  • Link

   

• Lee Gill posted at 12:40 pm on Sun, Mar 20, 2011.

  Posts: 7

  I agree with Kurt Roberts and Doug Chaney. Lodi cops only seem to go after the people on the east side and do think they are above the law! I have never seen a sobriety checkpoint on the west side of the train tracks. I am 34 now but I got my license when I was 20. Just after getting my license me and two friends were headed southbound on Cherokee when a police car driving behind me pulled to just within a foot or two of my back bumper. I mean I felt like he was in my back seat! I'm going 35 mph as I can see the lights on the top of the car in my rear view mirror. I nervously and carefully maintained my speed as I was still a new driver. Not too much longer the cop flashes his lights and I am pulled over. The cop comes up to my window asks for my information and tells me I was going 50 mph! "Really?" I said. "I saw you behind me and was watching my speed." I looked him dead in the eye and said "I know I was going 35." He shined his flashlight on my speedometer and suggested that it may be erroneous even though the car I was driving was less than 5 years old at the time. After they had come up with nothing to cite me for they pulled my friend who had no record out of the car for nothing other than being Mexican and made him lift his shirt so they could see all his tattoo's checking to see if he was gang related. Unfortunately, I was so concerned about not getting a ticket that I did not fight what was happening to us. We were unfairly harassed!

  In this particular case, I think the driver should have been given a ticket and allowed the girl to drive her car or call somebody to pick it up before towing it. At least keep the car for 24 hours and not 30 days as this was a minor citation and not a drunk driving incident.

  • Link

   

• Joey Grace posted at 12:28 pm on Sun, Mar 20, 2011.

  Posts: 9

  I agree with Mr. Costner. People seem to take the mindset of 'if you break the law, you pay the price," and believe in it blindly. The only thing I don't understand is why he's surprised, this is Lodi. A lot of these people are one step away from grabbing their 6 shooters and going after anyone who jaywalks.

  • Link

   

• Darrell Baumbach posted at 9:22 am on Sun, Mar 20, 2011.

  Posts: 9403

  Driving habits of many people endanger the safety and well being of others... I think it is a healthy debate to determine if the current DUI check points are doing what is good. Doug makes a good case that maybe these check points could be more inclusive... I think that these checkpoints are good for our safety but it would not hurt to evaluate and improve the operations. I think the police generally treat the public very well but sometimes are desensitized and like any person, can treat people with less respect than they should. I think all the posts on this thread were respectful and added value, until Mr Costner accused others of being smug and self righteous... then followed his own accusation with the most smug comment of the tread himself.

  • Link

   

• todd jones posted at 9:11 am on Sun, Mar 20, 2011.

  Posts: 6

  You break the law, you pay. I agree with a lot of people on here. Most of the hit and runs are because the driver doesn't have a valid license or warrants out for their arrest. Therefore doesn't want to be caught. I'm not saying this young man is in that category, but it is simple - No license - NO DRIVE. The young girl should of not allowed an unlicensed driver to drive her car, so now she must pay too. There are other ways to get around town. A bus? Taxi? Or perhaps a friend or family member, that is licensed to drive. Good job LPD. Keep the checkpoints coming, even if they save only one life, they're worth it.

  • Link

   

• Tim Costner posted at 12:24 am on Sun, Mar 20, 2011.

  Posts: 10

  Lots of smug, self-righteous comments on this board, as to be expected. If anything, the punishment should fit the crime, and if you can't see the gross disparity here, then there's no point in even debating this issue. If everyone is sober, and there's also a licensed adult in the vehicle, I don't see why a car needs to be impounded for 30 days. Maybe 24 hours and a $250 fine, just to get the point across.

  In Afghanistan under the Taliban, women could be executed for leaving the house without a male escort. Since that was the law, I guess they should have also been prepared to "pay the consequences"? Sometimes the laws themselves aren't just, even here in America.

  • Link

   

• trista aquino posted at 10:57 pm on Sat, Mar 19, 2011.

  Posts: 96

  Well....they can stop building bars in the middle of nowhere, then abolish the public intoxication law for the ones within walking distance

  • Link

   

• Sherry Gutierrez posted at 7:51 pm on Sat, Mar 19, 2011.

  Posts: 4

  I understand that when you break the law you need to pay the price, but what determines the price? I think it is sad that this couple wasn't given a little break. Our police need to be out there building a relationship with our young people, not completely working against them. It seemed as though the police did everything possible in this case to make this couple's life as miserable as possible. Here you have two young people, one with a license, and one without. Why wasn't the better choice to site the unlicensed driver, the one breaking the law, and let the licensed driver take over the driving responsibility. Especially since it was her car. It does not make sense to let the towing companies make this kind of money off a young couple, but it costs the city and tax payers to actually run the DUI checkpoint.

  • Link

   

• Jean Ruby posted at 4:40 pm on Sat, Mar 19, 2011.

  Posts: 4

  Checkpoints started out as DUI check points but revolved to included unlicensed drivers, unregistered cars, and uninsured drivers. Why should a few people obey the laws by registering their cars, carry proof of insurance and not drive while under the influence of anything be held responsible for all the people who drive unlicensed, under the influence or uninsured. I would rather these checkpoints (paid by grant money only) continue to catch all those who do not obey the laws. Getting these types of people away from the cars make for safer roads for our families. Tow companies charge for impounding cars is like an insurance policy, you can rest assured that cars in the impound yards are not being vandelized. Tow companies are regulated by the guidelines from the CHP. That means they cant drive old brokendown tow trucks, the drivers have to have a commerical license and the tow companies carry hugh amount of insurance, more that the average person would even consider.The tow companies have to secure each impounded car in a secure lot which costs considerable amount of money. If the City of Lodi took over the impounding of cars, than they would be in the tow business which is not part of "potecting and serving" the community.

  • Link

   

• Kurt Roberts posted at 3:13 pm on Sat, Mar 19, 2011.

  Posts: 54

  With about half the people thinking that these checkpoints are cost effective, it is no wonder why this state is bankrupt. Ya, let`s lay off half the teachers so we can pay more overtime to the police and basically subsidize the towing companies. real smart...

  • Link

   

• katie kendall posted at 2:36 pm on Sat, Mar 19, 2011.

  Posts: 1

  Sorry, but if you are breaking the law, prepare to pay the consequences. Stop whining about it as if you are above the law. It makes much more sense to keep the DUI checkpoints in place even if it only gets ONE drunk driver off the road. Remember, driving in California is not a RIGHT, its a "privilage". Some people have to learn it the hard way.

  • Link

   

• Joey Grace posted at 2:34 pm on Sat, Mar 19, 2011.

  Posts: 9

  The checkpoints, while well intended, are a waste of money. I'm a downtown Lodi bartender and the second a checkpoint is set up, the location is shared immediately among all local bartenders. Needless to say, the information is passed to customers. Social networking sites also share the locations of these checkpoints. As far as location of the checkpoints go, they are always near Cherokee, an area typically populated with those of a lower socioeconomic status. They are never on lower sac or anywhere near west Lodi. Deduce whatever you want from that but to me it sounds more like a calculated, racial attack. If the cops want to improve their DUI arrest numbers, get out there and patrol an area. You wouldn't sit at a bar in the corner waiting for a girl to walk up to you if you want to get laid, would you? No, you'd get out there and mingle.

  • Link

   

• James Riley posted at 2:27 pm on Sat, Mar 19, 2011.

  Posts: 1

  Nice going Lodi Police Department for taking those unlicensed drivers off the road.
  These checkpoints show how many drivers ignore the law, drive without a valid license or valid insurance. If you scoop up a few DUI's at the same time that's just icing on the cake. People who drive without a license don't bother to pay traffic tickets so taking a vehicle off the road for thirty days should send a message.

  I don't want one of my family involved in an accident with an unlicensed uninsured driver . I have no sympathy for anyone allowing and unlicensed to operate their vehicle. Remember there is a reason these people don't have a license.

  Keep Lodi streets save.

  • Link

   

• Doug Chaney posted at 1:31 pm on Sat, Mar 19, 2011.

  Posts: 1232

  The other problem I have with these DUI checkpoints is the 14 or so officers being paid overtime and then shortly after the checkpoint expires, either go to work on the following 8 or 10 hour shift with little or no sleep. A law enforcement officer should have at least 5 hours of sleep before his shift to be alert and responsive to work those 10 hour patrols, in my opinion. And those tow companies have not too long ago gotten those spiffy, modern, top of the line tow trucks, indicating to me that these DUI checkpoints that net them tow, release and charge outrageous storage fees must be making some nice profits on the checkpoint setups alone. It's time LPD changes their system to include those dates of wine drinking events or implement a saturation system instead of checkpoints that really targest impaired drivers and not just to generate a meager profit for the city and a nifty profit for the tow companies by disguising the DUI checkpoints as drivers license and insurance checkpoints. No wonder the ACLU is monitoring these checkpoints the way Lodi uses them.

  • Link

   

• Doug Chaney posted at 1:18 pm on Sat, Mar 19, 2011.

  Posts: 1232

  Again, the so-called DUI checkpoints are meant to target impaired drivers, either under the influence of drugs, including those prescribed by one's phisician and alcohol. These chheckpoints are never scheduled to coincide with any of the many wine tasting events, especially those that require motorists to travel from one winery to the other after tasting samples. As one who's poured many events in the 90's, those "samples are about 4 ounces or so. There are "spit buckets" provided for those who are real wine conisseurs and very seldom will you see the bottom even covered in those buckets. I find these events attract more attendees with party intentions and getting buzzed than really tasting the various varietals. The smart and well intentioned attendees will use either a limo or include a designated driver. Those smart parties are few and far between. You don't have to be a .08 to be arrested for DUI if your driving skills are taking you all over the road or uncontrollable. Why aren't these DUI checkpoints on the nights and in the areas of these wine tasting tours and parties instead of in areas where LPD should be checking for criminal and gang problems and not unlicensed or uninsured minorities, mainly Mexican to be blunt, and setting up checkpoints when the drinking events are in progress around the Grape Festival grounds during tasting events, Hutchins street square, Wine & Roses and Lodi Lake during these events? Chances are if you don't have many DUI arrests there, you'll have just as many citations and tows as on the eastside, where the names of those cited for violations other than DUI point to plain racial profiling.

  • Link

   

• Ann Smith posted at 12:34 pm on Sat, Mar 19, 2011.

  Posts: 23

  These check points need to be what they were originally meant to be, to catch drunk drivers. They need to be cut back to the holidays as when they started. Setting up these check points is taking much needed police prescense(sp) from areas that need them.
  I also agree, if the city doesnt make more than $100 per impounded vehicle then it is a waste to do these more often and impound cars. Let the city get their $100 fee but release the car to the owner, in this case, or a licensed driver. Otherwise fix it so the city gets the money for impounding the cars, not the tow company.

  • Link

   

• Laura Rouzer posted at 12:34 pm on Sat, Mar 19, 2011.

  Posts: 54

  So he was approaching a checkpoint knowing he was unlicensed and didn't see a problem with that?! Sorry but if my only option to get home from my mom's house is to let an unlicensed driver operate my car, I'm going stay the night at my mom's house, simple as that.
  I'm all for the checkpoints. If you are following the laws, then you can drive up to a checkpoint without having to worry.

  • Link

   

• Kurt Roberts posted at 12:15 pm on Sat, Mar 19, 2011.

  Posts: 54

  If the registered owner is in the car, ticket the driver and let the owner drive the car home. It is ridiculous to make these people lose their car for 30 days and pay $1,700 in fees. All this does is enrichen the towing companies. And where is the state getting the money for these grants? Isn`t the state suffering from a $28 BILLION deficit? So we`re adding to that debt while paying our officers overtime, which then further pads their pensions. And it seems that towing companies all up and down the state are making money hand over fist while the claims of making the roads safer are dubious at best. This whole program needs to be reassessed as to if this is the best way to spend taxpayer dollars. I vote no.

  • Link

   

• Bob Kempf posted at 11:39 am on Sat, Mar 19, 2011.

  Posts: 41

  If you are breaking the law and get caught, I'm supposed to feel sorry for you? It's real simple, drive legally. I agree with Joe Baxter all the way, keep the check points coming. Those people driving without licenses are the people who are responsible for most of the hit and runs, take the cars and maybe the number of hit and runs will go down.

  • Link

   

• Joe Baxter posted at 7:27 am on Sat, Mar 19, 2011.

  Posts: 1187

  Let me get this straight. She was feeling so "sick to her stomach" she couldn't drive but she was still out and about late at night. Ok,sounds like an excuse to me. People who break the law and then whine when they suffer the consequences should just shut up and obey the laws. No excuse for driving without a license period. Keep the check points coming. I hope they catch a ton of unlicensed, uninsured and impared drivers.

  • Link