Lodinews.com

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

DUI/license checkpoint set for this weekend

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Friday, May 20, 2011 12:00 am | Updated: 8:01 am, Fri May 20, 2011.

Between 7:30 p.m. Saturday and 2:30 a.m. Sunday, the Lodi Police Department will be conducting a DUI/driver's license checkpoint at an undisclosed location in town. Officers will be checking drivers for signs of intoxication and for valid driver's licenses at the checkpoint.

Officers will conduct field sobriety tests on drivers they suspect are impaired. Drivers who fail the test will be arrested on suspicion of drunk driving.

Between booking costs, vehicle storage fees, insurance rate increases, DUI classes and other fines, expenses for a driver can exceed $10,000 for a DUI arrest, the police department said in a press release.

Funding for the checkpoints is provided through a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety.

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.

25 comments:

  • Mike Adams posted at 11:24 am on Tue, May 24, 2011.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1271

    Doug: I won't leave you out in the cold here. So I'll play along.
    Time after time, serious studies (not just annecdotal evidence and feel good moments) show that these types of programs to keep kids out of gangs or off drugs (or anyother social ill you can think of) fail drastically. The kids all say they learned a lot and they'll stay off drugs, but in a few years, if inclined to, they will. Not all the kids, but the kids who are predisposed to these kinds of behavior, will become involved.

    I worked for three years in prevention programs for a major school district in the state and I realized 1 year in, that it wasn't making any difference except in putting money in the program's originaters, and facilitators pockets. We had to have these programs and we had to take the money and that offended me that as a taxpayer, I was paying for something that did not work.

     
  • Doug Chaney posted at 10:02 am on Tue, May 24, 2011.

    Doug Chaney Posts: 1232

    oops, wrong article.

     
  • Doug Chaney posted at 10:00 am on Tue, May 24, 2011.

    Doug Chaney Posts: 1232

    Isn't the GREAT program funded to the tune of around $100,000 a year? And there's not enough pocket money to buy those shirts, name tents, small amount of goodies and cupcakes and juice at graduation? You've got to be kidding, aren't you? Are you telling me the parents or teachers, or both, wouldn't be willing to provide the goodies, cupcakes and juice at graduation? I know LPD skims 25% off the top for administration, so where's the other $75,000or so going? Aren't you officers already on LPD payroll? Or is there some of this funding, or all, that goes to the officers or administrators over ad above their LPD earnings? And when will the families training component ever come into play by LPD? Is your program based on the elementary or middle school program? The elementary component is based on 4th or 5th grade while the middle component is based on 6th or 7th grade, I believe.

     
  • Doug Chaney posted at 9:29 am on Tue, May 24, 2011.

    Doug Chaney Posts: 1232

    There was no newspaper follow up on the Saturday night DUI/license checkpoint. Could it be that there were ZERO DUI's and only TWO

     
  • Mike Adams posted at 5:45 pm on Mon, May 23, 2011.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1271

    You should look into this. There is a lot of "concern" over the whole sale impounding of automobiles, particularly when a licensed, un-impaired driver is available. There is also a great deal of discussion over the issue of overtime allotted to officers who man these roadblocks.

    Many jurists cite the ineffectiveness of these roadblocks in snaring drunken drivers.

    You can check it out or not. I don't care.

    I think many of those reading these have their minds made up already. It seems from a month or more of reading these things is that two camps emerge:
    1. people who haven't dealt with the police recently over frivolous infractions
    are all for strict enforcement of all vehicle violations (like carrying 5 trees in
    the back of your pick-up)

    2. People who have dealt with the police and recieved citations over frivolous
    matters.

    A #1 type person could easily become a #2 if his/her brake light went out while
    waiting for a left turn onto Kettleman from Cherokee and recieved the obligatory
    fixit citation, but I doubt you would see few #2's becoming #1's.

    As someone who recently was questioned by local police, I think you came very close to having your car impounded, you placed in cuffs and taken downtown (although I doubt they still beat confessions out of suspect still - I could be wrong) and ultimately released, because the call was absurd but still be liable for tow fees and charges.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 3:02 pm on Mon, May 23, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    Mike... please clarify... since in this case , OPINION was given by GOULD, Circuit Judge:
    We consider a constitutional challenge to the impoundment of a vehicle from the OWNERS DRIVEWAY” after a police officer observed the husband teaching his unlicensed wife how to drive. Plaintiffs Mr. Jorge and Mrs. Irene Miranda
    You cited a case where the persons vehical was already safe from the public on their private property.
    Since the community caretaking doctrine allows the police to impound where necessary to ensure that
    the location or operation of vehicles does not jeopardize the public safety,how can you relate this case to the points of this letter to the editor? Are you saying that the police in Lodi are impounding vehicals other than by the caretaker doctrine? Maybe I just misunderstand... please explain.

     
  • Mike Adams posted at 9:06 am on Mon, May 23, 2011.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1271

    429 F.3d 858
    Jorge MIRANDA; Irene Miranda, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
    v.
    CITY OF CORNELIUS; Acme Towing, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 04-35940.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted September 13, 2005.
    Filed November

    "On the other hand, a decision to impound a vehicle that is not consistent with the police's role as "caretaker" of the streets may be unreasonable. See United States v. Duguay, 93 F.3d 346, 352 (7th Cir.1996). In Duguay, the court held that "impoundment based solely on an arrestee's status as a driver, owner, or passenger is irrational and inconsistent with `caretaking' functions. Under [the police officers'] policies, towing is required any time the arrestee is carted off to jail, regardless of whether another person could have removed the car and readily eliminated any traffic congestion, parking violation, or road hazard." Id. at 353. "The policy of impounding the car without regard to whether the defendant can provide for its removal is patently unreasonable if the ostensible purpose for impoundment is for the `caretaking' of the streets."

     
  • Anthony Marino posted at 9:10 pm on Sun, May 22, 2011.

    Anthony Marino Posts: 10

    Well Said John. Doug whats a matter with towing people who are either driving drunk, un-licenced, un-insured etc? They are still breaking the law. White, black, yellow, brown, it does not matter.

     
  • Doug Chaney posted at 8:12 pm on Sun, May 22, 2011.

    Doug Chaney Posts: 1232

    Stockton PD had a DUI checkpoint Friday night at Hammer and Don which netted 3 DUI's and 5 tow jobs, three of them being those who were arrested for DUI. Why does LPD have no more than 3 DUI arrests, yet 30+ tow jobs? And most tow jobs relate to the minority population of Lodi? HMMMM?

     
  • Robert Jacobs posted at 6:14 pm on Sun, May 22, 2011.

    Robert Jacobs Posts: 298

    Mr. Baumbach, I agree, using the word morons was uncalled for. I regret it. My apologies to everyone....

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 1:22 pm on Sun, May 22, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    Robert Jacobs posted at 6:36 pm...Mr. Doug Chaney said it pertty well. Do you morons get it now?

    Mr Jacobs... I do understand your desire to communicate effectively to people at your level of understanding... but sense no one in this forum are "morans", you may want yo use another venue in order to make your point.

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 8:29 am on Sun, May 22, 2011.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1795

    Mr. Chaney, again you are trying to twist posts into a racial slant. I have a problem with LAW BREAKERS period. Be they Mexicans, caucasian, asian, black, yellow or green. What part of that don't you understand?

     
  • Josh Morgan posted at 6:17 am on Sun, May 22, 2011.

    Josh Morgan Posts: 529

    Are you then suggesting that a DUI check point be limited to DUI's only? If a guy/gal with an arrest warrant comes through (a real idiot) you should let him go because he wasn't drunk? How does law enforcement pick and choose what laws they should enforce at a check point? Felonies will be picked up but misdemeanors get through? Where does the line drawn. Or should a line be drawn at all?

     
  • Bob Kempf posted at 1:45 am on Sun, May 22, 2011.

    Bob Kempf Posts: 41

    Yes, you have the right from unreasonable search and seizure. The Constitution does not give you the right to drive a car, that is a privilege. And so being, the police should be able to stop every car. It would be wrong to us a racial profile for this. But to us an area profile....Just saying. I live on the East Side, I'd like all the cars around me to be obeying the laws.

     
  • Robert Jacobs posted at 6:36 pm on Sat, May 21, 2011.

    Robert Jacobs Posts: 298

    l will explain some things to those of you who obviously cannot see past your noses.

    I will say one thing, the fact is the police "cannot" indiscriminately pull people over, this is why they have DUI check points! There is something in our constitution that says there cannot be unreasonable search and seizure. This is the reason the police call this a DUI check point! Just because you are stupid doesn't change any of the facts!

    Mr. Doug Chaney said it pertty well.

    Do you morons get it now?

     
  • Doug Chaney posted at 5:13 pm on Sat, May 21, 2011.

    Doug Chaney Posts: 1232

    Mr. Baxter, the last DUI checkpoint on Cherokee netted 2 or 3 DUI's, yet generated over30 tow jobs for the lucky and well connected tow company owners. Since these so called checkpoints are for the primary purpose of removing impaired drivers from the roads (DUI) and the entrapment and racial profiling of mostly poor eastside Hispanics for minor vehicle code violations using the license check show the statistics being rather one sided when you have 30 vehicles towed for code violations and only 2 or 3, and sometimes only 1 DUI don't seem to justify spending taxpayers' money on these combination entrapment and racial profiling checkpoints. Why not conduct license checkpoints as a stand alone event? It's more than likely illegal to do so and I doubt CDOT would fund them. And wouldn't they have to be set up other than the eastside to prevent racial profiling? Maybe that's why the license bs has been added to the DUI checkpoint, isn't it? Every officer in Lodi can conduct a license check any time they're on duty, except they need a reason to pull a vehicle over, don't they? Then why does LPD have the right to ask any vehicle operator for a license at these DUI / license check "tow traps" if they haven't committed a traffic offense or show no signs of being inebriated or high? judging by some of your past posts, Mr. Baxter, you give me the impression of not being very tolerant of Lodi's majority minority population, especially Mexicans.

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 12:54 pm on Sat, May 21, 2011.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1795

    Doug Chaney, as usual, you try to make this all about the poor eastside people. When I go fishing I try to go where I am most likely to catch fish. Ya think the LPD might have the same philosophy? I think so......spend the time in the area of the crime.

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 12:16 pm on Sat, May 21, 2011.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1795

    Bob Kempf, I agree with you. Obey the laws and don't worry. Evidently Mr Jacobs has no problem with unlicensed, unregistered and uninsured vehicles sharing the same roads as he does. He had better hope that none of these idiots runs into him. No recourse to offset loss of his car or pay his medical bills. Perhaps then he will change his mind? As for his "truth" from law enforcement, I wonder exactly what he means. Sounds to me he has an ax to grind with local cops.

     
  • Ryan Jameson posted at 12:06 pm on Sat, May 21, 2011.

    Ryan Jameson Posts: 195

    Robert Jacobs, you wouldn't know the truth if it hit you in the head with a hammer.

     
  • Robert Jacobs posted at 11:44 am on Sat, May 21, 2011.

    Robert Jacobs Posts: 298

    The fact is most of the arrests are from restricted licenses, no license, expired tags, warrants not related to DUI's, etc... The truth? Most people arrested at these stops are not DUI's. This is just a way for the city and county to generate revenue and to conduct these stops because it would otherwise be illegal!

    You people in law enforcement aren't even truthful about what you are doing, and you're going to lecture or tell me what I should be doing?

    Not everyone out here doesn't think for him or herself. Some of us actually have brains and and do not necessarily believe what you law enforcement people say just because you say it. And especially the media who wouldn't know the truth if it fell on them from the top of a 50 story building, as a matter of fact the media are last people I would believe as telling the truth.

    The media consistently and constantly give law enforcement a break when it comes to holding them responsible for their actions. The rest of us are fair game, but not the police!

    All I can say is sell it someone who is buying...

     
  • Bob Kempf posted at 1:39 am on Sat, May 21, 2011.

    Bob Kempf Posts: 41

    I live on the East Side, and don't mind the check points, but I have nothing to hide. There have been several check points on the West Side and one at Stockton and Kettleman. The last one I went through was on Kettleman...No big deal.

    Drive without a license or if you are drunk....Good bye car....Too bad.

     
  • Doug Chaney posted at 10:06 pm on Fri, May 20, 2011.

    Doug Chaney Posts: 1232

    There was a saturation patrol for DUI's this past Saturday evening, the night of the Zinfest at Lodi Lake. After checking the arrest and call records I found 2 DUI's,one at 1:11 in the afternoon and one at 11:07 later in the evening, both at 1300 S. Mills and only 1 towing job that day and evening. I would assume it will probably be another on or near Cherokee Lane, on the eastside once again, where the license and insurance violations will result in at least 2 or 3 times many more towing jobs than DUI violations, with 5 or 6 tow trucks once again waiting their turn in line like vultures waiting to eat for the presumed 30 or so tow jobs.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 8:55 pm on Fri, May 20, 2011.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4306

    I think that drunks will drive drunk regardless - that's why they are drunks driving - they lack the ability to reason, let alone read the newspaper.

     
  • Anthony Marino posted at 8:05 pm on Fri, May 20, 2011.

    Anthony Marino Posts: 10

    The purpose of the Dui checkpoints and the reason for announcing the check points is to prevent people from driving drunk in the first place. If people know that there is a check point in advance they will be less apt to drive drunk. Which is the whole purpose of the check point. PREVENTION.

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 1:00 pm on Fri, May 20, 2011.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1795

    Excellent, love to see this published every time. Go LPD, book'em.

     

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: 66

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