Username or Email
Mike Adams: Robert: You can legally avoid a DUI checkpoint by turning off the street before you get to it, but be aware that police departments routinely have traffic officers located near the most likely detours and these officers will most likely pull you over for some violation (even if you don't think you committed one....MVC is thick with laws, you are almost always violating some provision) and you will be under closer scrutiney as a result.
Also, most of these are paid through state or federal programs. Cities hardly get a dime of any fines. The only ones who do well are the police officers taking part in the checkpoint as they all get overtime. Pretty sweet deal don't you think?
Monday, January 7, 2013, 11:36 am
Doug Chaney: One DUI and 21 citations pretty well explains the purpose for these checkpoints, in my view. I assume the 11 citations issued for driving an unlicensed vehicle or driving with a suspended or revoked license and the other 10 citations issued for minor traffic violations (?) resulted in at least one tow or impound? The information in this article is very vague, as it always seems to be when the paper even bothers to publish the results, failing to reveal just how many vehicles were towed, how many were released to someone with a valid drivers' license and insurance or what the other 10 citations were for? Were they for defective equipment, brake or headlights with a burned out bulb, bald tires, etc. and were they regular citations or fix-it citations? And why the need for a catering truck to feed the troops?
Sunday, January 6, 2013, 5:35 pm
Robert Jacobs: I usually don't answer a post directed at me especially someone who takes a shot at me. When you said "Robert, I know I won't convince you, since you are from the "nazi police state authorities are out to get us" camp"
The above is simply not true. But I think you know that. I guess you didn't have an original thought to express so you resorted to attacking! Usually people who attack others just because of their opinions or in the case "fact" are insecure at best.
I don't hate law enforcement at all. I hate those in law enforcement who don't follow the rules when they demand we follow them! When they took an oath to follow the law every law and at all times!
What I said was true,the police are making an end run around the law to do what they want to do! The fact is check points glean very few drunk drivers. What is does do is catch everyone and everything else and that my friend is what the police are really after when they set up these so-called DUI check points!
And people who blanket the police as being right if they arrest someone because they must be guilty if they were arrested camp, are just asking to lose their rights! I have rights and I will exercise them when I think they need to be exercised! People who aren't aware of their rights put the rest of us at risk!
This country (not all) allowed congress to create a large document called The Patriot Act which is contrary to the constitution in every way! Yet not very many people said a word. And they also never said anything when they re-newed that document!
Losing your rights starts at a local level. The local police are the testing grounds. If you don't insist that your rights be protect at all times and raise up when they aren't you're going to lose them, you and I both! When people such as yourself stand up for the police (in this instance) when they are clearly over stepping then you and those like you put everyone at risk of losing those rights!
The police should be held to a higher standard at all times! After all they are policing us, they are supposed to be the example, and how can they tell me I'm doing wrong if they do wrong even once! And I'm speaking about deliberate action not accidental wrong.... Those DUI check points are a deliberate action for other ends not just catching DUI drivers!
We need law enforcement, but we need a law enforcement community that has integrity and does the right thing all the time, not just when it feels like it!
Anything short of that we don't need!
Sunday, January 6, 2013, 4:22 pm
Doug Chaney: Mr. Jacobs, I'll bet you y house that between 75 and 90% of those cited for minor traffic violations are mostly Hispanic. Since none of those arrested or cited are noted in the LPD daily log, maybe it would be a great idea for an assembly bill to require that these license/dui checkpoints release the names of those who were cited or arrested and what the charges were?
Thursday, January 3, 2013, 9:41 pm
Dave Raines: Robert, I know I won't convince you, since you are from the "nazi police state authorities are out to get us" camp, but perhaps I can shed some light for the rest.
The often stated and above-board reason for checkpoints is not to catch a lot of drunks, but to save a lot of lives. Checkpoints are highly visible, highly publicized events meant to deter drinking and driving in the first place.
DUI street patrols have little deterrent value, but high enforcement value. Checkpoints have been shown to have the potential to lower DUI fatality rates by up to 26 percent by virtue of their deterrence. People go through them, drive past them, hear about them via police generated publicity and multiple grapevines and get the ongoing impression that drunk driving is dangerous, socially unacceptable, and that law enforcement is actively looking for it.
They are both good tactics and both should be in the arsenal of DUI combating tactics, along with others. In terms of catching drunks, nothing beats patrols. In terms of saving lives, nothing beats checkpoints.
The courts have not outlawed all other types of checkpoints. There are just very few of them being done, and none with state or federal grant funding, with the exception of commercial vehicle safety checkpoints run by the CHP.
The reason other violations than DUI are cited at checkpoints is that officers cannot ignore a vilation once they see it. Plus, it is openly advertised that they will also be checking the validity of licenses.
DUI checkpoints have been okayed by the U.S. Supreme Court. In the twenty plus years that they have been unequivically legal, the restrctions that courts have put on them have been getting more and more, tighter and tighter. Police can do much less today than thirty years ago. Your rights have actually been strengthened, not "steadily taken away" as you put it.
Wednesday, January 2, 2013, 11:12 am
Robert Jacobs: Officers screened 750 vehicles that night, with three drivers being given a field sobriety test, Griffin said. In addition to the two arrests, 11 drivers were cited for operating an unlicensed
vehicle or driving with a suspended or revoked license, Griffin said. Ten other citations were issued.
The above is the main reason that the police conduct these check points! And its all for money and anyone else they can catch doing something illegal!
However, the courts have ruled that "any other kind of check point" is "illegal" thus the reason the police call this a DUI check point! The police in their zeal are breaking the law and they know it. They are to abide by all laws, not just the laws they choose to enforce but all laws. I believe law enforcement takes an oath to that fact!
Yet still, law enforcement are doing exactly what they want to do and this is just an end run in order to get around the law!
If they will do this, what else might they do? If the police are allowed to do what they think is right in an instance like this; what would make anyone think they wouldn't break the law in order to do what they think is right in other cases where the courts say they cannot?
It's amazing to me that law enforcement continues to do as they please unchecked and no one says a word while your rights are steadily being take away. Once they are gone there is no getting them back!
You do not have to go through a DUI check point. If you see one you can legally turn your car around; if you can do it without breaking any traffic laws. If you get stuck at a DUI check point, you do NOT have to answer "any" personal questions about where you've been or where you're going. You do NOT have to answer any questions at all with the exception of those that are related to your drivers license, registration and proof of insurance. When producing the above documents you only need roll your window down far enough to pass them along to the officer. The officer CANNOT cross the plane of your window including alcohol detecting flash lights, or any part of the officers body. If the officer asks you any questions NOT related to the above documents such as where were you coming from or where you are going, you can refuse to answer, just tell the officer I do not feel comfortable answering personal questions. If the officer asks why, or what do you have to hide, just politely repeat the above.
Wednesday, January 2, 2013, 9:30 am
Doug Chaney: Ms. Mirfield, those citations and tows will soon become next to none as AB2129 was passed that allows certain undocumented immigrants, 400,000 or so, in California to apply and obtain a valid California drivers' license. Should be some new, fancy tow trucks up for repossession or sale soon. And if that lucky tow truck owner also has an impound lot, you might see some of these companies closing their doors and foreclosing on that not so valuable chunk of property that will no longer be needed . With six Lodi tow companies on the "preferred" list, City Wide, Geweke, J&D, Pacific,Sam Berry heavyhaul and P.T.A.G or Plummer, towing and auto collision repair should become very competitive and more reasonably priced if some of these businesses want to survive.
Tuesday, January 1, 2013, 5:48 pm
Doug Chaney: What was wrong with holding the license/checkpoint on Monday night, when every possible partier would be out celebrating? On new year's eve? Or why not on Lodi Avenue near downtown? You could even cite those who frequent the wine bars, lounges and restaurant/bars that accomodate alcohol/drug users outside on the sidewalk at those establishments, owned by mostly the well connected and good old boys? Sounds like LPD is still afraid to arrest the wrong person in Lodi for fear of losing their job, especially the costly DUI?
Tuesday, January 1, 2013, 5:36 pm
Shannon Mirfield: So, no cars were towed?[huh]
Tuesday, January 1, 2013, 8:48 am
Signing in from multiple locations may be the cause.