Warning, Sebastopol Police Targeting Hopmonk Customers

[George Orwell]

This is a warning to patrons of the parking lot by the Hopmonk Tavern. The Sebastopol Police are now targeting anyone driving out of this parking lot, stopping them, claiming there is a valid reason for a traffic stop, and then administering sobriety tests.

This has happened to several people that I know, who may have come out of the Hopmonk or who have just parked there.

The reasons the police gave for stopping my friends have been flimsy, "you rolled that stop sign", or "your license plate light is out". My friends were not intoxicated when they were stopped, but instead felt harassed and profiled, as they were only stopped because they came out of that parking lot. In one case, the police car was waiting in the parking lot and drove to anyone who was walking out of the Hopmonk and waited til they got in their car to follow them.

Of course no one condones drunk driving, but harassment is another thing. This will only hurt our local businesses, if it becomes apparent that the Sebastopol Police are profiling and harassing it's residents. Who will go to the Hopmonk if they think they might get arrested for having one beer and then leaving?

So beware, and if you are going to the Hopmonk, perhaps park away from the venue and look around before you get into your car. Just wait them out if you see a police car waiting for you to drive. Their intention is now very clear, they are stopping everyone they can.

If our city council is reading this, perhaps you could intervene and let the police chief know that we are aware of this profiling and respond. Is this an effort to create revenue for the city through DIU fines?

[Skook]

While I'm no advocate of profiling, you're making some extreme statements that border on ridiculous. It seems very unlikely they stop 'anyone driving out of this parking lot', that would keep all the Seb police occupied full time.

I've been driving for decades, much of that in and through Sebastopol and I've never been given a sobriety test in my life. I don't drink and drive. Do you think there might be a connection between the two?

[George Orwell]

Extreme, perhaps, but not ridiculous. When they are giving sobriety tests to drivers who have not drank alcohol, what do you call that?

Why don't you go down to the Hopmonk tonight around 9pm and see for yourself?

Yes, they are doing it late afternoon or later at night, perhaps more on weekends. Yes, they don't do "everyone", but what I meant was they are stopping people for no other reason than that they were parked in that parking lot. These drivers broke no laws, were not swerving, speeding or driving erratically. Yet they were stopped because they came out of that parking lot. And they were not given citations for their supposed reason they were stopped.

Do you want our local businesses to suffer? Perhaps they should just post a cop by the exits of the parking lot and make you blow into a breathalyzer before you leave? That would be great for business, don't you think?


While I'm no advocate of profiling, you're making some extreme statements that border on ridiculous. It seems very unlikely they stop 'anyone driving out of this parking lot', that would keep all the Seb police occupied full time.

I've been driving for decades, much of that in and through Sebastopol and I've never been given a sobriety test in my life. I don't drink and drive. Do you think there might be a connection between the two?

[Skook]

Pardon me for being skeptical, but what you say just doesn't jive. There's plenty of idiots out there every night driving after drinking, the police don't need or want to waste their time giving sobriety tests to people who don't have alcohol on their breath. That would reduce revenues, not increase them.


Extreme, perhaps, but not ridiculous. When they are giving sobriety tests to drivers who have not drank alcohol, what do you call that?

Why don't you go down to the Hopmonk tonight around 9pm and see for yourself?

Yes, they are doing it late afternoon or later at night, perhaps more on weekends. Yes, they don't do "everyone", but what I meant was they are stopping people for no other reason than that they were parked in that parking lot. These drivers broke no laws, were not swerving, speeding or driving erratically. Yet they were stopped because they came out of that parking lot. And they were not given citations for their supposed reason they were stopped.

Do you want our local businesses to suffer? Perhaps they should just post a cop by the exits of the parking lot and make you blow into a breathalyzer before you leave? That would be great for business, don't you think?

[George Orwell]

And what reason would I have for lying?

I'm relating exactly what happened. I honestly don't care what you think or if you think I'm lying.

Of course the police would want an easy way to create a " DUI checkpoint", they use the Hopmonk parking lot now, and it's not even marked as most DUI checkpoints are. And what an easy way for lazy police to troll for DUI suspects? They wait in the parking lot for you to get in car, follow you for a block or so and then pull you over. Is this the town we want to live in? The police work for us and are paid by our taxes.

Any others on Wacco been stopped recently leaving the Hopmonk?


Pardon me for being skeptical, but what you say just doesn't jive. There's plenty of idiots out there every night driving after drinking, the police don't need or want to waste their time giving sobriety tests to people who don't have alcohol on their breath. That would reduce revenues, not increase them.

[Skook]

Actually, it sounds like you are relating second hand what your friends claim happened.

Your friends could stagger out of Hopmonk drunk and as long as they have a sober driver, they have nothing to fear.



And what reason would I have for lying?

I'm relating exactly what happened. I honestly don't care what you think or if you think I'm lying.

Of course the police would want an easy way to create a " DUI checkpoint", they use the Hopmonk parking lot now, and it's not even marked as most DUI checkpoints are. And what an easy way for lazy police to troll for DUI suspects? They wait in the parking lot for you to get in car, follow you for a block or so and then pull you over. Is this the town we want to live in? The police work for us and are paid by our taxes.

Any others on Wacco been stopped recently leaving the Hopmonk?

[George Orwell]

Well, then I'll end this by simply stating, it appears you don't mind living in a police state and you don't mind if our local businesses fail, while I do. The Hopmonk is a brew pub, it will lose customers if the police intimidate those who go to it.




Actually, it sounds like you are relating second hand what your friends claim happened.

Your friends could stagger out of Hopmonk drunk and as long as they have a sober driver, they have nothing to fear.

[Skook]

Actually, I think we need a revolution, but on this issue, you sound very naive.


Well, then I'll end this by simply stating, it appears you don't mind living in a police state and you don't mind if our local businesses fail, while I do. The Hopmonk is a brew pub, it will lose customers if the police intimidate those who go to it.

[Barry]

Any others on Wacco been stopped recently leaving the Hopmonk?

I noticed a lot of police activity around the Hopmonk last weekend. And sure enough a friend of mine was stopped coming out of the Hopmonk for a license plate bulb being out. She was asked if she drank anything, etc.

[Tars]

I've been driving for decades, much of that in and through Sebastopol and I've never been given a sobriety test in my life.

Then it's obvious you don't drive around Sebastopol after 10pm very much. Cops here, like everywhere, play the odds. If a person is driving around downtown Sebastopol at a later hour, odds are much higher that they have alcohol in their system.


I don't drink and drive. Do you think there might be a connection between the two?

Yes. Also, odds are you're less likely to frequent places where alcohol is served, such as the Hopmonk. But if you did, go to the Hopmonk for an alcohol-free evening, your odds are as high as anyone else's, to be pulled over and given a sobriety test.

You don't need to be intoxicated or driving weird. Just have to be in the wrong place at the wrong time - like the Hopmonk parking lot.

[Skook]

In the 15 years I lived in Sebastopol, I was stopped many times, including late at night, for minor technical infractions. Yes, I resented getting fix-it tickets, but in every case, I knew I was at risk for while driving. And yes, they sometimes check to see if I'd been drinking, and I'm grateful for it, having lost a family member to someone drunk on his way home from his favorite pub.

Thousands of people die awful, horrifically violent deaths every year due to people drinking and driving. Do you have any suggestions how the police could more effectively reduce the carnage?

(I'm on my way out, so I won't be able to respond until tomorrow).

[bodegahead]

I didn`t read or see this post before I made my post (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/general-community/50604-legal-me-sleep-my-car-sebastopol.html#post85454) about what to do after Hop Monk. This is very informative, I just can`t drive and see at night. The old Dead Days we`d get 10 people in a room at the Holiday in for 10 bucks each. What about walking to that campgrond up the road from Monk and sitting under a tree for awhile?

[Veeja]

I didn`t read or see this post before I made my post(sleeping in car) about what to do after Hop Monk. This is very informative, I just can`t drive and see at night. The old Dead Days we`d get 10 people in a room at the Holiday in for 10 bucks each. What about walking to that campgrond up the road from Monk and sitting under a tree for awhile?

Whatever you do, don't sleep in your car (Don't drink and drive either) They can give you a DUI sleeping in car, sitting in your car. You can get a dui riding your bicycle. Make sure you have a back light and a front light on your bicycle thats the law. I use to live in Saint Helena and they use to follow people. If a police car is following you, it can make you nervous whether youve been drinking or not and you can make mistakes. I don't want people driving drunk. But harrasment is harassment. What will they do next?

[bodegahead]

I believe no one should drive drunk, but as much as I love a good smoke, truely a good smoke could be just as detrimental to driving in the dark as a couple of beers over a few hours. I can`t see when I`m driving west county at night without even drinking or smoking anything. It`s interesting how reasonable the Sebastopol Police have been regarding overnight parking after some Community Center events, tho that might have been in designated lots only.

[Deborah]

Well, then I'll end this by simply stating, it appears you don't mind living in a police state and you don't mind if our local businesses fail, while I do. The Hopmonk is a brew pub, it will lose customers if the police intimidate those who go to it.
I never go out and never drink and drive. I did however go to HopMonk with a friend for an appetizer on St. Patricks evening around 5:30 and couldn't help but ber entertained by the very obvious, very young policeman hovering in the parking lot, circling every 3 minutes. I also saw him when I walked to my car across the street again circling.

[alanora]

I have often wondered why the police do not set up shop right in the parking lots of drinking establishments, as the odds are much better there of finding persons who've consumed alcohol and who are about to drive, than most sites. If our society does not condone drinking and driving, why are there brew pubs and bars lining the roads? There ought be an established service for such commutes instead of ticketing. I would consider providing such if I could drive in the dark.

I was at Frizelle Enos shopping the morning after a concert I wished I'd heard at hop monk. I witnessed multiple towings of vehicles that had been left there presumably by concert goers from the night before. There is evidence that some folks are not driving while drinking but are having a negative effect on local business nonetheless, while providing revenue for the tow trucks and impounds etc. Life as balancing act.


I never go out and never drink and drive. I did however go to HopMonk with a friend for an appetizer on St. Patricks evening around 5:30 and couldn't help but ber entertained by the very obvious, very young policeman hovering in the parking lot, circling every 3 minutes. I also saw him when I walked to my car across the street again circling.

[photolite]

Somewhere in this thread the idea of responsible beverage service should be discussed. The law states that one can not serve an individual who is inebriated. In most cases this is clearly a judgment call yet how often have any of us honestly witnessed a bartender or waitperson exercise this rule except in the most extreme cases. Typically, it isn't until somebody is one toke over the line that they are cut off and that's one toke too much.

Perhaps if our culture developed higher expectations of our publicans in this regard, and let them know it, the police wouldn't feel the need for over vigilance and certainly lives would be saved.

Photo

[Deborah]

Somewhere in this thread the idea of responsible beverage service should be discussed. The law states that one can not serve an individual who is inebriated. In most cases this is clearly a judgment call yet how often have any of us honestly witnessed a bartender or waitperson exercise this rule except in the most extreme cases. Typically, it isn't until somebody is one toke over the line that they are cut off and that's one toke too much.

Perhaps if our culture developed higher expectations of our publicans in this regard, and let them know it, the police wouldn't feel the need for over vigilance and certainly lives would be saved.

Photo
I think the people who chose not to drive hence leaving their cars in the parking lot over night should be rewarded, not towed... Wouldn't it be nice if Sebastopol had a shuttle, say Thurs. thru sunday nights to pick people up and take them home. There are many restaurants in the vicinity!!! They would all benefit.
I really like this idea.

[hedgewitch_13]

I noticed a lot of police activity around the Hopmonk last weekend. And sure enough a friend of mine was stopped coming out of the Hopmonk for a license plate bulb being out. She was asked if she drank anything, etc.

I have to say that my husband and I have definitely experienced police profiling since moving to Sebastopol. Prior to moving out this way we lived in Santa Rosa for most our lives. During all the time we lived in Santa Rosa, well over twenty years, we can count how many times we were pulled over by Santa Rosa police on one hand.

In three months in Sebastopol, we have been pulled over 14 times. We have been pulled over because one tail light was a little dimmer than the other. We have been pulled over for having an air freshner hanging from our rearview mirror. Always these bogus excuses. We were not intoxicated. We were not commiting traffic violations. We were not engaging in any illegal activities. In fact, each time we have been let go without so much as a ticket. However, I have to say that it feels extremely harrassing.

Both my husband and I feel that we were pulled over because it was a weekend night and we were driving back home late after hanging out with friends. Usually around midnight. We have a bit of an older car and we are young. They always ask if we have been drinking and yet we hardly ever have a drink; maybe once every few months and even then, we are very against driving under the influence. It's not behavior we engage in. It has gotten to the point where my husband doesn't even like driving in Sebastopol late at night because he is afraid of being harrassed.

I have talked to many people who have been having these negative experiences with the Sebastopol PD. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if people coming out of Hopmonk are being targeted.

-Shannon

[loi]

i just wanted to add that the police have a # to call for a free ride home if you are intoxicated and don't want to drive. it is:829-4400. i have not used it, as i live close enough to walk to/from downtown if i wish but it appears to be a great service (it was included in the little handbook i received in the mail when i moved into town last summer).






I think the people who chose not to drive hence leaving their cars in the parking lot over night should be rewarded, not towed... Wouldn't it be nice if Sebastopol had a shuttle, say Thurs. thru sunday nights to pick people up and take them home. There are many restaurants in the vicinity!!! They would all benefit.
I really like this idea.

[PeaceinMedicine]

I have to say that my husband and I have definitely experienced police profiling since moving to Sebastopol. Prior to moving out this way we lived in Santa Rosa for most our lives. During all the time we lived in Santa Rosa, well over twenty years, we can count how many times we were pulled over by Santa Rosa police on one hand.

In three months in Sebastopol, we have been pulled over 14 times. We have been pulled over because one tail light was a little dimmer than the other. We have been pulled over for having an air freshner hanging from our rearview mirror. Always these bogus excuses. We were not intoxicated. We were not commiting traffic violations. We were not engaging in any illegal activities. In fact, each time we have been let go without so much as a ticket. However, I have to say that it feels extremely harrassing.

Both my husband and I feel that we were pulled over because it was a weekend night and we were driving back home late after hanging out with friends. Usually around midnight. We have a bit of an older car and we are young. They always ask if we have been drinking and yet we hardly ever have a drink; maybe once every few months and even then, we are very against driving under the influence. It's not behavior we engage in. It has gotten to the point where my husband doesn't even like driving in Sebastopol late at night because he is afraid of being harrassed.

I have talked to many people who have been having these negative experiences with the Sebastopol PD. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if people coming out of Hopmonk are being targeted.

-Shannon

Actually, the Sebastopol Police Department does offer a free taxi service to people who are too intoxicated to drive. Seriously, give them a call and find out the details. This is real.

-Robert

[Tars]

I have often wondered why the police do not set up shop right in the parking lots of drinking establishments,

Because it would be police harassment of legal businesses and private citizens. We want to be careful about giving away our rights, right?


If our society does not condone drinking and driving, why are there brew pubs and bars lining the roads? Because a large percentage of people like beer. I'm not one of them, and I don't drink alcohol. But I do frequent bars, because like many adult people, I like gathering with others in semi-public places and spending time with my adult friends and casual acquaintances. I like playing pool and listening to music and adult conversation while I'm doing it. I very much enjoy relaxing in the type of environment where one doesn't have to maintain a "family-oriented atmosphere".

I frequently volunteer to be a designated driver.

[MsTerry]

Because it would be police harassment of legal businesses and private citizens.

Do you consider it to be harassment to show ID when you go to a bar? The majority of people that frequent bars don't go there to drink lemonade......................
I think people (or bars) should volunteer to take a breath analyzer test.


We want to be careful about giving away our rights, right?
What rights? The right to be run over by a drunk?
I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that some people who go to a place that serves alcohol, will abuse that privilege.
A police presence will only serve to remind people of their responsibilities.

[Tars]

Do you consider it to be harassment to show ID when you go to a bar? The majority of people that frequent bars don't go there to drink lemonade......................

No, it's not harassment to show proof that you're old enough to enter a liquor-serving establishment. What has that got to do with this discussion? But, it is harassment if any government agency, most especially including law enforcement, unnecessarily imposes themselves into the PRIVATE business of law-abiding citizens, going about their personal business, in such a manner as to negatively impact that business.

Reminder - it is NOT illegal to consume alcohol. It's only illegal if a person operates a vehicle on the highways, or makes themselves obnoxious in public. Hence, it's reasonable for a police officer to stop a driver whom they think might be intoxicated. It is not reasonable for a police officer to pre-emptively hang out in the parking lot of a legal business, intimidating customers, and scaring away potential customers.


What rights? The right to be run over by a drunk?

The right to assemble, The right to assemble and carry on their personal business without harassment or overt control by any governmental representative.

[MsTerry]

No, it's not harassment to show proof that you're old enough to enter a liquor-serving establishment. What has that got to do with this discussion? .
Well, I don't consider it harassment to check if a person is able and legally allowed to drive. Like I said, maybe the bars should do breath analyzers before people drive.


But, it is harassment if any government agency, most especially including law enforcement, unnecessarily imposes themselves into the PRIVATE business of law-abiding citizens, going about their personal business, in such a manner as to negatively impact that business.
I wouldn't stay away from a business because they check for drunks. Come to think of it, I might want to go there, beats getting my car scraped or worse.


Reminder - it is NOT illegal to consume alcohol. It's only illegal if a person operates a vehicle on the highways, or makes themselves obnoxious in public. Hence, it's reasonable for a police officer to stop a driver whom they think might be intoxicated. It is not reasonable for a police officer to pre-emptively hang out in the parking lot of a legal business, intimidating customers, and scaring away potential customers.

Once again, who would be scared away from a police presence?
Drunks maybe?


The right to assemble, The right to assemble and carry on their personal business without harassment or overt control by any governmental representative
Driving a car is not a right, it is a privilege.
Driving intoxicated is not a right, it is a crime against humanity.

[Deborah]

Which leads me back to a long ago thought. If it is not okay to drink and drive, and I am in agreement that it is not, how can our city or country for that matter allow liquor to be served at establishments? I know many people who have one drink and a meal and are safe to drive, but many people have more.

[Tars]

Which leads me back to a long ago thought. If it is not okay to drink and drive, and I am in agreement that it is not, how can our city or country for that matter allow liquor to be served at establishments? I know many people who have one drink and a meal and are safe to drive, but many people have more.

One thing our society hopefully has learned is that prohibition doesn't work. For sure, people need to be held responsible for the results of their drug use. But it's a big waste of time and energy for non-users to try to exert control over others' drug use.

It's not our business to monitor or decide how much alcohol (or any drug for that matter), is used by other adults. Each adult should be left to decide for themselves how much alcohol they consume at Hopmonk. We properly requirethem to be responsible for the results. If they become intoxicated, it's their decision for their life & body. If their intoxication causes problems for anyone else, then that is another matter, which is currently addressed by legal means.

By the way, back to the original subject, a Hopmonk worker tells me that a poll was taken, and 4 out of 5 employees have been followed and or stopped by the police on their way home from work.

[MsTerry]

By the way, back to the original subject, a Hopmonk worker tells me that a poll was taken, and 4 out of 5 employees have been followed and or stopped by the police on their way home from work.
There is a big difference between being followed and being pulled over by a cop.
Being followed means, they want to see if you are intoxicated and if you are a danger to society.
Do you have a problem with that?
Being pulled over means, they suspect you did something wrong and want to check out if you are intoxicated.
Anything wrong with that?
Now you forgot to mention how often they are followed or stopped. Is it every day? Every week? Every month?

If this really is a police-conspiracy, the right thing to do, would be for the owners of the Hopmonk to go talk to the cops.
If they are just sitting there and waiting, as is alleged here, why don't they invite them in and cooperate with the crackdown on drunk driving!
Like I said before, they could start a breath analyzer station at the Hopmonk, before peoples get in their car, that would show responsibility.
Any thing wrong with that?

[bodegahead]

Police are supposed to have '"probable cause "to stop a person or pull them over.Sometimes ""probable cause" is as trivial as a missing license plate bulb or driving over cautiously because the cop following you is making you nervous and you don`t want to get cited for any traffic violations.

Once at night I was driving and I drove pass a police car parked on the other side of the street facing me. He made a u-turn got behind me and pulled me over. Reason: He couldn't see the middle number on my rear license plate because I had a trailer hitch ball. (a real small hitch ball that didn't block anything
Often "probable cause " is just used as a reason to interrogate you, run your id`s etc. They are fishing for anything more substantial than the original reason for pulling you over.

An easy way for police to get away with this is if they don`t find any juicier offense like expired license or insurance, they just let you go with a warning. I drive a whole lot out here and I don`t have to park somewhere and fish to find a potentially dangerous driver. I see dangerous drivers everywhere and often wish there was an officer around to see it to. I believe dangerous drivers should be dealt with but we really don`t need to harass a business`s customers to find dangerous drivers.

Now that we don`t have Bush to create a police state for us I guess we need to come up with own ideas to chisel away at an individuals right to privacy. All in the name of protection, right?

Having the local police babysit us inside the local tavern is a good start.

Also, an officer at 7-11 should follow anyone buying liquor or walking out with a 12 pack of beer. If it`s late at night the purchaser may have been already drinking. (I know a town where this is a reality)
While we`re at it, maybe an officer at the local pharmacy. There are many ways to DUI other than alcohol. Many common pharmaceuticals state "do no not drive" Since a breath test won`t yet detect pills, random blood testing might be necessary.Just a thought


There is a big difference between being followed and being pulled over by a cop.
Being followed means, they want to see if you are intoxicated and if you are a danger to society.
Do you have a problem with that?
Being pulled over means, they suspect you did something wrong and want to check out if you are intoxicated.
Anything wrong with that?
Now you forgot to mention how often they are followed or stopped. Is it every day? Every week? Every month?

If this really is a police-conspiracy, the right thing to do, would be for the owners of the Hopmonk to go talk to the cops.
If they are just sitting there and waiting, as is alleged here, why don't they invite them in and cooperate with the crackdown on drunk driving!
Like I said before, they could start a breath analyzer station at the Hopmonk, before peoples get in their car, that would show responsibility.
Any thing wrong with that?

[Veeja]

I'm not being very nice right now. And it's not like me. So I apologize in advance. MsTerry! would you just give it up. Sometimes you go on and on. You just can't help yourself can you? It can be annoying. Again I'm sorry I could not help myself my fingers just kept on typing. Could'nt do anything about it. Have a nice day!


There is a big difference between being followed and being pulled over by a cop.
Being followed means, they want to see if you are intoxicated and if you are a danger to society.
Do you have a problem with that?
Being pulled over means, they suspect you did something wrong and want to check out if you are intoxicated.
Anything wrong with that?
Now you forgot to mention how often they are followed or stopped. Is it every day? Every week? Every month?

If this really is a police-conspiracy, the right thing to do, would be for the owners of the Hopmonk to go talk to the cops.
If they are just sitting there and waiting, as is alleged here, why don't they invite them in and cooperate with the crackdown on drunk driving!
Like I said before, they could start a breath analyzer station at the Hopmonk, before peoples get in their car, that would show responsibility.
Any thing wrong with that?

[MsTerry]

Here is a link for you, from people who can't go on anymore
- Mothers Against Drunk Driving (https://www.madd.org/)


I'm not being very nice right now. And it's not like me. So I apologize in advance. MsTerry! would you just give it up. Sometimes you go on and on. You just can't help yourself can you? It can be annoying. Again I'm sorry I could not help myself my fingers just kept on typing. Could'nt do anything about it. Have a nice day!

[bodegahead]

I have not seen one post in this dicussion that condones drunk driving. The sentiment has been quite the opposite. Don`t drive drunk. It`s not cool, it`s not acceptable.

.I think Terry you might be missing the point of this discussion.

The point is not drunk driving. The point is a concern peoples privacy and freedom to travel without being harrassed is being infringed upon And a legitimate businnes owner is having his customers harrassed just because they patronize his establisment.


Here is a link for you, from people who can't go on anymore
- Mothers Against Drunk Driving (https://www.madd.org/)

[MsTerry]

I have not seen one post in this dicussion that condones drunk driving. The sentiment has been quite the opposite. Don`t drive drunk. It`s not cool, it`s not acceptable.

.I think Terry you might be missing the point of this discussion.

The point is not drunk driving. The point is a concern peoples privacy and freedom to travel without being harrassed is being infringed upon And a legitimate businnes owner is having his customers harrassed just because they patronize his establisment.
No, I think all of you are missing the point.
Checking for drunks or ID's, I don't consider harassment and I truly wonder why all of you do.

High Visibility Law Enforcement


Where we stand: MADD supports law enforcement agencies nationwide in their efforts to reduce drunk driving fatalities and injuries. We support high-visibility law enforcement crackdowns during high-risk holidays including Labor Day and the end-of-year/New Year’s holidays, saturation patrols and roving patrols and sobriety checkpoints.

High-visibility enforcement remains the cornerstone of successful efforts to reduce drunk driving – and the American public supports these efforts by law enforcement agencies as they patrol the roads, day in and day out, to protect the public from drunk drivers.
https://www.madd.org/getfile/808aed41-f017-490d-99f1-d75685f8c18a/ArizonaOfficers150.aspx (https://www.madd.org/Professionals/Law-Enforcement/Officer-Tribute.aspx)High Visibility Drunk Driving Crackdowns

MADD supports twice-yearly drunk driving crackdowns and heightened law enforcement before high-risk periods – Labor Day and the December holidays. Saturation Patrols

A saturation patrol is a concentrated enforcement effort that targets impaired drivers by observing moving violations such as reckless driving, speeding and aggressive driving among others things.
A saturation patrol is generally spread over a larger geographic area than a sobriety checkpoint.
https://www.madd.org/getfile/0a7476ad-1ac6-4eb3-808c-4a0eb4aff287/WV-Field-Sobriety-Test150.aspxSobriety Checkpoints

Sobriety checkpoints are a technique where law enforcement officials evaluate drivers for signs of alcohol or drug impairment at specific points on the roadway. Sobriety Checkpoint Facts (https://www.madd.org/getfile/afe91899-c70a-440c-945e-bfd47d42bf7c/Sobriety-Checkpoints-2009.aspx)

Vehicles are stopped in a specific sequence such as every other vehicle or every fourth, fifth or sixth vehicle.
Checkpoints are typically publicized in advance and signs are posted at the approaches to the checkpoints warning drivers that a checkpoint is ahead.
Police must have a reason to believe the driver stopped at a checkpoint has been drinking before a breath test can be conducted.
If the checkpoints are conducted properly, cars are pulled over at random according to their order in the sequence which diminishes the possibility of racial profiling.
Law-abiding people are sent on their way within minutes.
Average stop time is about the length of a cycle at a stop light.
The primary goal of a sobriety checkpoint is not to arrest people, but rather to deter people from committing DUI.
Sobriety checkpoints help stop drunk drivers who would likely remain under the radar.
The publicity from checkpoints reminds people who drink that drinking and driving don’t mix.
Research shows that for every dollar invested in checkpoints, communities save between $6 and $23 in costs from alcohol-related crashes.^{^[1]} (https://www.madd.org/Drunk-Driving/Drunk-Driving/Campaign-to-Eliminate-Drunk-Driving/Law-Enforcement.aspx#_ftn1) ^{^[2]} (https://www.madd.org/Drunk-Driving/Drunk-Driving/Campaign-to-Eliminate-Drunk-Driving/Law-Enforcement.aspx#_ftn2) ^{^[3]} (https://www.madd.org/Drunk-Driving/Drunk-Driving/Campaign-to-Eliminate-Drunk-Driving/Law-Enforcement.aspx#_ftn3)
^{The annual cost of alcohol-related crashes to society is over $100 billion.^{^[4]} (https://www.madd.org/Drunk-Driving/Drunk-Driving/Campaign-to-Eliminate-Drunk-Driving/Law-Enforcement.aspx#_ftn4)}
Research shows that checkpoints, if done correctly, can be effective with as few as three to five officers.^{^[5]} (https://www.madd.org/Drunk-Driving/Drunk-Driving/Campaign-to-Eliminate-Drunk-Driving/Law-Enforcement.aspx#_ftn5)

[Veeja]

I had a friend killed by a drunk driver. I wished we could get all the drunk driver off the road. But, people have a right not to be harassed unless probable cause. Not everyone is a drunk. In fact most people I know are very responsible and only have a couple beers and food. How would you like it if your home could be searched whenever the cops felt like it. Wow! we could probably save abused animals, children and god knows what else.


Here is a link for you, from people who can't go on anymore
- Mothers Against Drunk Driving (https://www.madd.org/)

[Veeja]

No! Your point is perfectly clear. Your not willing to even take other people point into consideration. I will not waist my time arguing with you. You have your opinion, I respect that. State it and be done.

[MsTerry]

The point is not drunk driving. The point is a concern peoples privacy and freedom to travel without being harrassed is being infringed upon And a legitimate businnes owner is having his customers harrassed just because they patronize his establisment.

I am not sure what you mean by 'privacy' when somebody goes to a public place.
It might be inconvenient to be stopped for a couple of minutes, but why the safety of the community at large (and that includes you) is considered harassment is a big stretch for me.
Here are some numbers for you, if these people would have been "harassed" in the parking lot, how many would still be alive?
YouTube - DRUNK DRIVING (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7YT1AYVH3Q)

[photolite]

I remember once hearing that, on average, one in four drivers of vehicles on the street after midnight is past the legal limit for intoxication.
Does anyone have or know where this figure comes from and if it's accurate?
Photo

[MsTerry]

Your not willing to even take other people point into consideration.

Well, that is an interesting twist on my words.
Honey, I am the only one who IS taking other people into consideration. I am the only one who seems to care about whether other people might get hurt.
Everybody else so far is preoccupied with how they are "being harassed".
Let me ask you a simple Question since I see your concern about Drunk Driving, How do you want cops to prevent Drunk Driving, if you don't want them check out people who are a potential hazard?
If I want Ice Cream, I go to Screamin' Memes, if I want books I go to Copperfields, Where do you think is the most likely place for me to find drunks?

[Veeja]

Answer my question. Would you allow your rights taken away, and have the police come to your home anytime they wanted to make sure you were not breaking any laws. Like abuse children or animals, pain pills, etc. ? Maybe you could try and get the laws changed yourself. You can head that up. Keep you busy for a while


Well, that is an interesting twist on my words.
Honey, I am the only one who IS taking other people into consideration. I am the only one who seems to care about whether other people might get hurt.
Everybody else so far is preoccupied with how they are "being harassed".
Let me ask you a simple Question since I see your concern about Drunk Driving, How do you want cops to prevent Drunk Driving, if you don't want them check out people who are a potential hazard?
If I want Ice Cream, I go to Screamin' Memes, if I want books I go to Copperfields, Where do you think is the most likely place for me to find drunks?

[bodegahead]

If I`m reading High Visibility Law Enforcement correctly,whats`s going on outside HopMonk is not legally a sobriety checkpoint following mandated requirements, nor is it a roving saturation patrol that is "usually spread over a larger geographic area.
With no disrespect for Madd or any of it`s followers, It is my belief that some followers reach a point of being "Madd beyond reason" .For them I feel sorry for their losses with and sympathize with their worries but why take it out on everybody. Aint no time to hate.
"
No, I think all of you are missing the point.
Checking for drunks or ID's, I don't consider harassment and I truly wonder why all of you do.

High Visibility Law Enforcement


Where we stand: MADD supports law enforcement agencies nationwide in their efforts to reduce drunk driving fatalities and injuries. We support high-visibility law enforcement crackdowns during high-risk holidays including Labor Day and the end-of-year/New Year’s holidays, saturation patrols and roving patrols and sobriety checkpoints.

High-visibility enforcement remains the cornerstone of successful efforts to reduce drunk driving – and the American public supports these efforts by law enforcement agencies as they patrol the roads, day in and day out, to protect the public from drunk drivers.
https://www.madd.org/getfile/808aed41-f017-490d-99f1-d75685f8c18a/ArizonaOfficers150.aspx (https://www.madd.org/Professionals/Law-Enforcement/Officer-Tribute.aspx)High Visibility Drunk Driving Crackdowns
MADD supports twice-yearly drunk driving crackdowns and heightened law enforcement before high-risk periods – Labor Day and the December holidays.Saturation Patrols

A saturation patrol is a concentrated enforcement effort that targets impaired drivers by observing moving violations such as reckless driving, speeding and aggressive driving among others things.
A saturation patrol is generally spread over a larger geographic area than a sobriety checkpoint.https://www.madd.org/getfile/0a7476ad-1ac6-4eb3-808c-4a0eb4aff287/WV-Field-Sobriety-Test150.aspxSobriety Checkpoints
Sobriety checkpoints are a technique where law enforcement officials evaluate drivers for signs of alcohol or drug impairment at specific points on the roadway.

[MsTerry]

Yeah, I was afraid of that.
You aren't able to answer a simple question.
And now you want to turn the conversation from a public place to a private place.
AA has some great lessons about taking responsibility for your one's own actions.


Answer my question. Would you allow your rights taken away, and have the police come to your home anytime they wanted to make sure you were not breaking any laws. Like abuse children or animals, pain pills, etc. ? Maybe you could try and get the laws changed yourself. You can head that up. Keep you busy for a while

[MsTerry]

With no disrespect for Madd or any of it`s followers, It is my belief that some followers reach a point of being "Madd beyond reason" .For them I feel sorry for their losses with and sympathize with their worries but why take it out on everybody. Aint no time to hate.
"
MADD BEYOND REASON??????????????
Let me see 3 out of 10 accidents is caused by drunks
10.000 people die because of this every year.
yes that is unreasonable, and totally preventable.
Now what was your reason to ridicule Mothers who lost a child again???????

[MsTerry]

.For them I feel sorry for their losses with and sympathize with their worries but why take it out on everybody. Aint no time to hate.
"
Oh BTW, I've been to the Hopmonk several times with my kids.
Never been pulled over once.
So what do you mean with ' take it out on everybody."???

[Veeja]

You did not want to answer this question the first time I asked it. So why would I want to answer yours. You answer mine and I will be happy to answer yours. Thank you!


Yeah, I was afraid of that.
You aren't able to answer a simple question.
And now you want to turn the conversation from a public place to a private place.
AA has some great lessons about taking responsibility for your one's own actions.

[Veeja]

And by the way. I hit the reply privately button instead of public, by accident. I will only respond to you a couple of more times. Then I will ignore you. I have a lot of other things to do in my life besides argue. I'm very busy. So please think before you respond.


Yeah, I was afraid of that.
You aren't able to answer a simple question.
And now you want to turn the conversation from a public place to a private place.
AA has some great lessons about taking responsibility for your one's own actions.

[Veeja]

Thats a good thing to be teaching your children. Going to a drinking establishment, where you will find drunks. Uumh! O.K.


Oh BTW, I've been to the Hopmonk several times with my kids.
Never been pulled over once.
So what do you mean with ' take it out on everybody."???

[bodegahead]

MADD BEYOND REASON??????????????
Let me see 3 out of 10 accidents is caused by drunks
10.000 people die because of this every year.
yes that is unreasonable, and totally preventable.
Now what was your reason to ridicule Mothers who lost a child again???????


let me clarify myself, as it seem you misconstrued what I was trying to say.
By "Madd beyond reason" I meant the point at which a person becomes so mad that they loose the ability to comprehend or be open to any other reasoning that doesn`t jive with their belief. I`m out of here. Nice relaxing sunset walk. Hope you all have a wonderful evening.

[MsTerry]

Your question is irrelevant to this subject and I already answered it, but I'll be happy to oblige again.
What somebody does in public is different form what's done in private. If you want to get drunk at home, go ahead, you can do that.
You don't have the right to do that in public.
Now let's see if you can answer mine.



You did not want to answer this question the first time I asked it. So why would I want to answer yours. You answer mine and I will be happy to answer yours. Thank you!

[MsTerry]

Thats a good thing to be teaching your children. Going to a drinking establishment, where you will find drunks. Uumh! O.K.
They do serve food there, and yes, I agree, it is a great lesson for my children to see what happens when somebody can't control themselves with alcohol.

[MsTerry]

And by the way. I hit the reply privately button instead of public, by accident.
A steady hand is all it takes to hit the right button


I will only respond to you a couple of more times.
I'll be counting my blessings

Then I will ignore you.
You already do

I have a lot of other things to do in my life besides argue. I'm very busy.
Just do one thing at a time,especially when you drive!

So please think before you respond.
I even think while I am responding, driving or drinking.
Will you do the same?

[MsTerry]

let me clarify myself, as it seem you misconstrued what I was trying to say.
By "Madd beyond reason" I meant the point at which a person becomes so mad that they loose the ability to comprehend or be open to any other reasoning that doesn`t jive with their belief.
Yes, I did understand that to be your meaning since you have not been able to clarify what part of the police action is 'harassment', nor have you been able to tell me what you would like the police to do about drunks.
Just wait for accidents and do the clean-up?

[Veeja]

You could also be teaching them that people have fun there drinking. And in answer to your question. They say they are pulling people over for a light bulb out. It is a lie. They are pulling you over to ask you if you've been drinking. And from the stories that have hear.. They were either under the limit or had nothing to drink. Why don't they be honest and set up a check point right outside of Hop Monk? By the way I do not condone this. But at least it would be honest. My question was not irrelevant. But I will not explain why! Your ignorance astounds me. I'm Done! No more. say what will. bye bye!


Well, that is an interesting twist on my words.
Honey, I am the only one who IS taking other people into consideration. I am the only one who seems to care about whether other people might get hurt.
Everybody else so far is preoccupied with how they are "being harassed".
Let me ask you a simple Question since I see your concern about Drunk Driving, How do you want cops to prevent Drunk Driving, if you don't want them check out people who are a potential hazard?
If I want Ice Cream, I go to Screamin' Memes, if I want books I go to Copperfields, Where do you think is the most likely place for me to find drunks?

[MsTerry]

OK, I say what will.
A drunk is not fun for a child, it actually scares them. When it is a member of their family, it embarrasses them.
I'm amazed that my ignorance astounds you, especially since you are contributing to it with your refusal to explain yourself.
My ignorance is so great that no one has been able to explain what part of the police action is harassment.


You could also be teaching them that people have fun there drinking. And in answer to your question. They say they are pulling people over for a light bulb out. It is a lie. They are pulling you over to ask you if you've been drinking. And from the stories that have hear.. They were either under the limit or had nothing to drink. Why don't they be honest and set up a check point right outside of Hop Monk? By the way I do not condone this. But at least it would be honest. My question was not irrelevant. But I will not explain why! Your ignorance astounds me. I'm Done! No more. say what will. bye bye!

[bodegahead]

Sorry folks this has digressed so way off topic, but to answer Ms Terry`s question I think we should do the same thing we do to discourage drunk drivers as we do to discourage aids infected people from having unprotected sex with unknowing people.. Education, information. legal recourse and hope for the best. This is not to say that police should not stop someone who shows obvious problems with their driving.

Back to the HopMonk, I think the propriators should post signs in the restrooms, by the doors etc. informing that the police are performing random stops and breath test. This could be a great deterent and besides you don`t want to send your patrons out blind into a police trap.

Also I feel the owners have good cause and good reason and should take this matter to the city council and police chief. I have seen this happen with other establisments and when the owner brought the matter to the attention of authorities/govt. He explained how he was running respectable legitimate business and that the police parking acrooss the stree and following his customers was intimidating to them and costing him business. The police changed their ways and now his business thrives.

The City of Sebastopol has lost a lot of tax revenue lately. Car dealers closing and everything else. I`m sure the City Council would like to see the HopMonk be as finacially profitable as possible and would be open to any sugestions that could make sucess a reality.


Yes, I did understand that to be your meaning since you have not been able to clarify what part of the police action is 'harassment', nor have you been able to tell me what you would like the police to do about drunks.
Just wait for accidents and do the clean-up?

[bodegahead]

OK, I say what will.
A drunk is not fun for a child, it actually scares them. When it is a member of their family, it embarrasses them.
I'm amazed that my ignorance astounds you, especially since you are contributing to it with your refusal to explain yourself.
My ignorance is so great that no one has been able to explain what part of the police action is harassment.

Didn`t mean to private reply you MsTerry, pushed the wrong button.

The Supreme Court identified eight factors that minimize the intrusiveness on the individual, while balancing the needs of society to keep drunk drivers off the road.
According to the Ingersoll decision, the establishment and location of sobriety checkpoints must be decided by supervisory police officers, not officers in the field. This requirement is important to reduce the potential for arbitrary and random enforcement.
The Supreme Court’s ruling also placed limits on the discretion of police to stop drivers at checkpoints. Police must use a neutral mathematical formula, such as every driver, or every third, fifth, or tenth driver to determine who to stop. This requirement takes away the https://www.californiaduihelp.com/images/content/DMVFreeConsultation.jpg (https://www.californiaduihelp.com/evaluation/case_evaluation.asp)discretion of the individual officer to choose to stop individual drivers without any legitimate basis.

[Veeja]

Nicely said! Thank you!


Sorry folks this has digressed so way off topic, but to answer Ms Terry`s question I think we should do the same thing we do to discourage drunk drivers as we do to discourage aids infected people from having unprotected sex with unknowing people.. Education, information. legal recourse and hope for the best. This is not to say that police should not stop someone who shows obvious problems with their driving.

Back to the HopMonk, I think the propriators should post signs in the restrooms, by the doors etc. informing that the police are performing random stops and breath test. This could be a great deterent and besides you don`t want to send your patrons out blind into a police trap.

Also I feel the owners have good cause and good reason and should take this matter to the city council and police chief. I have seen this happen with other establisments and when the owner brought the matter to the attention of authorities/govt. He explained how he was running respectable legitimate business and that the police parking acrooss the stree and following his customers was intimidating to them and costing him business. The police changed their ways and now his business thrives.

The City of Sebastopol has lost a lot of tax revenue lately. Car dealers closing and everything else. I`m sure the City Council would like to see the HopMonk be as finacially profitable as possible and would be open to any sugestions that could make sucess a reality.

[Zeno Swijtink]

Is this thread grounded in the facts? What's the evidence that the Sebastopol police is "targeting" Hopmonk customers?

Have customers from Jasper O'farrell's or the Old Main Street Saloon been able to get away without being scrutinized?

Couldn't this be a general action against drinking & driving?

[Yubajeff]

I'll jump into this mess (fools rush in where wise men fear to tread). The real issue is not drunk driving,or stoned driving; it is irresponsible driving.
1. No one wants prohibition ( I don't want prohibition of anything, even though I may not indulge myself)
2. MVA's are a major cause of death, and at least half involve substances, but far from all.
3. Society accepts death from auto as the "cost of doing business" otherwise we would surely ban automobiles. Every country in the world accepts this risk.
4.Persecution of "drunk drivers" is a major growth industry. Billions are wasted on prosecuting, adjudicating, punishing, treating and "rehabilitating drunk drivers".

The war on blood alcohol levels is essentially irrational. "Alcoholics" (and I resent the use of the word "drunks" as being widely abused itself, too vague and difficult to define) drive better when they maintain a blood alcohol level that they have become physiologically stabilized on. This is often in the 100-300mg% range. The same level might be indicative of severe impairment if it were obtained in a non-drinker. The same applies to chronic pain meds.
That is why we have all known "alcoholics" who are functional and stable over many years; they titrate their blood level to a reasonably fine point. I once cared for a man who was the chief of police in Davis. He is long dead from cirrhosis due to his alcoholism. Yet he was a fine man, a good chief of police, and he died with his boots on. Such stories are not unusual.

Our world seems to have a way of producing bureaucracies that perpetuate fruitless, wasteful endeavors that most people believe are in their best interests, like this business of profiling clubgoers, the inevitable arrests, and the consequences. This type of law enforcement has never been shown to benefit society. It does offer fodder for the bureaucracy alluded to. It has also led to abuse of the "sobriety field test", a poor tool for the job at hand, given the background variation in ocular findings, coordination and cognition. Even the well meaning officers are unable to use such an awkward tool in a way that would be better than their own intuitive about who is impaired.
As in the rest of life, let the outcome of the behavior be the point that reality ie law enforcement "hits the fan". Shit anyways!

[MsTerry]

Sorry folks this has digressed so way off topic, but to answer Ms Terry`s question I think we should do the same thing we do to discourage drunk drivers as we do to discourage aids infected people from having unprotected sex with unknowing people.. Education, information. legal recourse and hope for the best. This is not to say that police should not stop someone who shows obvious problems with their driving.

See, we can agree on something


Back to the HopMonk, I think the propriators should post signs in the restrooms, by the doors etc. informing that the police are performing random stops and breath test.
Like I said before, Hopmonk should invite the police in and make them part of their routine.


This could be a great deterent and besides you don`t want to send your patrons out blind into a police trap.
This contradicts your previous efforts.
What do they have to fear if they stay within the legal limits?


Also I feel the owners have good cause and good reason and should take this matter to the city council and police chief. I have seen this happen with other establisments and when the owner brought the matter to the attention of authorities/govt. He explained how he was running respectable legitimate business and that the police parking acrooss the stree and following his customers was intimidating to them and costing him business.
Yes the Hopmonk is a legit business, but so is the Police Department.
They can park and do surveillance any where they want or see the need.


The City of Sebastopol has lost a lot of tax revenue lately. Car dealers closing and everything else. I`m sure the City Council would like to see the HopMonk be as finacially profitable as possible and would be open to any sugestions that could make sucess a reality
Money over safety has been a steady capitalist slogan.
Is that what you see as the solution?

[MsTerry]

This is quite offensive bodegahead.
What you are posting is from lawyers trying to let drunks get away with driving drunk.
It is irrelevant to this situation, since there are no sobriety checkpoints at the Hopmonk.



The Supreme Court identified eight factors that minimize the intrusiveness on the individual, while balancing the needs of society to keep drunk drivers off the road.
According to the Ingersoll decision, the establishment and location of sobriety checkpoints must be decided by supervisory police officers, not officers in the field. This requirement is important to reduce the potential for arbitrary and random enforcement.
The Supreme Court’s ruling also placed limits on the discretion of police to stop drivers at checkpoints. Police must use a neutral mathematical formula, such as every driver, or every third, fifth, or tenth driver to determine who to stop. This requirement takes away the https://www.californiaduihelp.com/images/content/DMVFreeConsultation.jpg (https://www.californiaduihelp.com/evaluation/case_evaluation.asp)discretion of the individual officer to choose to stop individual drivers without any legitimate basis.

[bodegahead]

I am vey interested in this discussion but I will no longer be responding to your post'ings. I feel it`s a waste of my time and thank God I have better things to due.


See, we can agree on something

Like I said before, Hopmonk should invite the police in and make them part of their routine.

This contradicts your previous efforts.
What do they have to fear if they stay within the legal limits?


Yes the Hopmonk is a legit business, but so is the Police Department.
They can park and do surveillance any where they want or see the need.

Money over safety has been a steady capitalist slogan.
Is that what you see as the solution?

[bodegahead]

To readers of this discussion. Please excuse the attorny square in one of my previous postings. I`m not very good at cut and pasting. I`m sure that most of you understand that the important part of the post that I was was trying to convey was some content of a Supreme Court ruling.
:hmmm:

[MsTerry]

Please excuse the attorny square in one of my previous postings.

No, actually It showed the real intent of the quote.
It comes from lawyers who are trying to get drunks out of jail and back onto the streets.

[MsTerry]

I I feel it`s a waste of my time and thank God I have better things to due.
As long as it isn't driving while intoxicated, you'll be excused but I am curious who would you rather be stopped by
a) A cop?
b) A drunk plowing his car into yours or you?

[Zeno Swijtink]

I assume you're not proposing to let drivers decide how they drink and drive.

Question then is how you think your more fine-tuned and sophisticated insights into the effect of drinking on driving translate into policy, criteria and tests that can be done routinely in the practice of police road surveillance.

Until we have these better tests it's not too great a price we ask of people too avoid the simple blood level criteria.

We can and should adopt Sweden's Vision Zero policy for car crashes from any causes (https://www.sweden.se/eng/Home/Work-live/Government-politics/Reading/Road-safety/).


I'll jump into this mess (fools rush in where wise men fear to tread). The real issue is not drunk driving,or stoned driving; it is irresponsible driving.
1. No one wants prohibition ( I don't want prohibition of anything, even though I may not indulge myself)
2. MVA's are a major cause of death, and at least half involve substances, but far from all.
3. Society accepts death from auto as the "cost of doing business" otherwise we would surely ban automobiles. Every country in the world accepts this risk.
4.Persecution of "drunk drivers" is a major growth industry. Billions are wasted on prosecuting, adjudicating, punishing, treating and "rehabilitating drunk drivers".

The war on blood alcohol levels is essentially irrational. "Alcoholics" (and I resent the use of the word "drunks" as being widely abused itself, too vague and difficult to define) drive better when they maintain a blood alcohol level that they have become physiologically stabilized on. This is often in the 100-300mg% range. The same level might be indicative of severe impairment if it were obtained in a non-drinker. The same applies to chronic pain meds.
That is why we have all known "alcoholics" who are functional and stable over many years; they titrate their blood level to a reasonably fine point. I once cared for a man who was the chief of police in Davis. He is long dead from cirrhosis due to his alcoholism. Yet he was a fine man, a good chief of police, and he died with his boots on. Such stories are not unusual.

Our world seems to have a way of producing bureaucracies that perpetuate fruitless, wasteful endeavors that most people believe are in their best interests, like this business of profiling clubgoers, the inevitable arrests, and the consequences. This type of law enforcement has never been shown to benefit society. It does offer fodder for the bureaucracy alluded to. It has also led to abuse of the "sobriety field test", a poor tool for the job at hand, given the background variation in ocular findings, coordination and cognition. Even the well meaning officers are unable to use such an awkward tool in a way that would be better than their own intuitive about who is impaired.
As in the rest of life, let the outcome of the behavior be the point that reality ie law enforcement "hits the fan". Shit anyways!

[MsTerry]

Surely you must be joking Zeno!
Think of all the rights people would lose?
From this little opinion thread we may conclude that people here, rather have an accident than the inconvenience of a police stop.
People are more concerned about what they are losing than what they are gaining.




Until we have these better tests it's not too great a price we ask of people too avoid the simple blood level criteria.

We can and should adopt Sweden's Vision Zero policy for car crashes from any causes (https://www.sweden.se/eng/Home/Work-live/Government-politics/Reading/Road-safety/).

[bodegahead]

I just talked with Sebastopol Police and asked if they had an officer assigned as a liaison with club/bar/entertainment establishments. The person I talked to was very nice and stated that, no, Sebastopol Police has no liaison officer for these businesses.
In my line of work, I have found that many city police departments have a delegated liaison officer for clubs, bars and entertainment events. Having such a liaison officer has proved to be very beneficial in problem solving and is pretty much a necessity in keeping consistent and ongoing communications between the business and the police department. If Hopmonk has not yet done so, I would suggest they take the idea of a liaison officer to Chief Weaver and if necessary to the City Council. The City and the Hopmonk both have a lot to loose if this situation doesn't get worked out.

[ChristineL]

I was "harrassed" by the local police when I lived in Rohnert Park and hung out in Cotati. My feeling is that if I have chosen to go dancing and hang out in an establishment that serves alcohol, I may get stopped by the police when I drive away from said establishment. If you're responsible and make sure you're "sober" before driving home, there's nothing to get upset about...If this inconvenience means the police are catching drunken people before they kill/hurt another person or someone's pet, I'm happy to be inconvenienced. They're doing their job.

Of course, my point of view is that the law is too soft on drunk drivers. If the first offense, whether you've had an accident or not, was punishable by automatic jail time...there would be a lot less drunken driving. The police is not the problem, the CA laws and courts are. CA makes too much money from DUIs to change the Code.

And...yes...I understand alcoholism is a disease...but if a drunk driver runs me over and cripples me for life, I still want his/her ass in jail. I was once hit by a drunk driver who was aiming to hurt my passenger (long story...), caused extensive damage to my car, and remembered nothing afterward. She was charged with assault with a deadly weapon. Prior to the court date, I was approached by several people offering to pay for the damages if only I did not prosecute the poor woman as it might cost her the custody of her child. My question was; "what makes you think I wouldn't feel that was a good idea?" I prosecuted because if I didn't and the next time she drove drunk she hurt or killed someone, I would be as guilty as she.

[Braggi]

Whatever you do, don't sleep in your car (Don't drink and drive either) They can give you a DUI sleeping in car, sitting in your car. ...

If you need to sit in your car or sleep in your car AND you've been drinking, take your car keys out of the ignition and put them in the glove box. If you have the keys in the ignition it is evidence you INTENDED to drive under the influence. If you can demonstrate in court you purposefully made it impossible to start your engine you can not be found guilty of DUI.

I heard this on the radio from a lawyer who specializes in DUI cases.

-Jeff

[someguy]

This is whole discussion is hilarious. I can't believe some people here would think that profiling people and justifying it by saying that the ends justify the means is complete insanity! You know what? Theres a hell of a lot more minorities in prison, hmmm, I guess that means the cops should just pull over all minorities and ask them what crimes they've committed lately.... Or better yet, I would say that public opinion would indicate that "hippies", "new agers" or people who belong to "online conscious communities" are more likely to smoke pot than the average American. Why not send some cops over to every last wacco's house and search it for ganja! If you've got nothing hide, what does it matter?!? Let them smash down your door, tear up your couch and your bed and point guns at your head. Hey, it's for the safety of the public. Because there just MIGHT be some devil weed in that wacco's house!

[PeriodThree]

I don't think it is actually 'profiling' to note that lots of people leave popular drinking spots having (wait for it) consumed more than the limit...

[Barry]

... Or better yet, I would say that public opinion would indicate that "hippies", "new agers" or people who belong to "online conscious communities" are more likely to smoke pot than the average American. Why not send some cops over to every last wacco's house and search it for ganja! If you've got nothing hide, what does it matter?!? Let them smash down your door, tear up your couch and your bed and point guns at your head. Hey, it's for the safety of the public. Because there just MIGHT be some devil weed in that wacco's house!


:eek: :Mr.Natural:

[someguy]

I don't think it is actually 'profiling' to note that lots of people leave popular drinking spots having (wait for it) consumed more than the limit...

Well then I guess its not "profiling" to note that minorities make up a large percentage of the prison population, so therefore any it wouldnt be inappropraite to single out minorites under the assumption that they've already commited a crime. I dont see any difference. If you do, please explain.

Im not saying that its wrong for a cop to wait outside a popular bar, where people get drunk from time to time, to monitor the situation and ensure a safe driving environment. And if a patron leaving this bar gets in his/her car and drives out of that parking lot in a manner that suggests he/she is intoxicated, well then that cop has the right to pull that person over. That would not be profiling, thats logical. But to assume that every patron who leaves that certain bar is wasted, even though the cop has no proof ( bad driving, stumbling, swerving, etc..) well then thats profiling. And on top of that, its very irritating, nonsensical, humiliating and flat out harrassment. Who the hell wants to be humiliated and harrassed just for going to a bar, in the name of "public safety"?

[Vet-To-Pet]

I haven't had a drink in over 21 years (I'm an alcoholic who chooses not to drink). About 3 or 4 years ago I was pulled over (in Georgia, where I was living at the time) for....? the road was empty, the conditions were dry/late afternoon/dusk, I wasn't driving erratically, HOWEVER, it was "Homecoming Day" in the college town in which I lived, so I believe this particular cop thought he was going to get him a DUI driver, by golly! Well, I was asked to step out of the car (never had I been asked to do so before, which had always been for speeding), which I did, and was given a field sobriety test. I even told the cop that I hadn't had a drink in over 18 years (at that time), but he still made me blow into the breathalyzer, which I'm certain read "0.000000". He then wrote me up for speeding, but when I looked at the ticket, there was NOTHING filled in about having given me the Sobriety test---it was all blanks, altho everything else was filled out---weather conditions, road conditions, visibility, time of day, etc. So, I assumed it was an invalid ticket, since the police officer had "left out" some significant facts. I DEMANDED that the video of my "incident" be brought into court, to prove that the officer had,in fact, given me the test, and had "profiled me" (as someone who'd been celebrating Homecoming Day---as if). I had to repeat my demand a few times & the DA didn't want to go to the 'trouble' of having to get the tape shipped over from Atlanta (an hour away), but I finally was told they'd have it there when my court date was scheduled. Guess what? The arresting officer didn't show up, so the case was dismissed. The lesson here is to always insist on having the video of the incident in court, which is your right. You might even mention at the time of the incident that you'll be asking for the video to be brought to court on the date of your hearingIf there's nothing wrong with the way you were driving, then it will show up on the video. If you were reckless or worse, that, too, will be obvious. Be prepared to be inconvenienced a bit, since I had to go to court (early!) twice before the actual (third) time when the case was dismissed.

Incidentally, it's not unusual for police to "stake out" bars/clubs near the closing time, or earlier, since that's where many drunks are getting into their vehicles! Do you see them waiting in the parking lots of Target or Safeway? No, because most people don't "shop & drive under the influence". Use some common sense, please. If you go to Hopmonk & have "one beer", as you mentioned, even if you ARE stopped & tested, you should be well under the blood alcohol limit for a DUI arrest. If you think they're harassing the patrons of the establishments whose customers use a certain parking lot, then talk to the owners/managers of those places & ask them to talk to the police about why they're singling out that particular parking lot. If it stops one person from being killed, them it's worth it (to keep drunk/incapacitated drivers off the roads). EVERY day there's another news article about some car wreck caused by a drunk driver, often with someone being killed, and I'm REALLY tired of it---just don't drink & drive! It's that simple. Then you don't have to worry about which parking lots are being watched.
Vet-To-Pet


This is a warning to patrons of the parking lot by the Hopmonk Tavern. The Sebastopol Police are now targeting anyone driving out of this parking lot, stopping them, claiming there is a valid reason for a traffic stop, and then administering sobriety tests.

This has happened to several people that I know, who may have come out of the Hopmonk or who have just parked there.

The reasons the police gave for stopping my friends have been flimsy, "you rolled that stop sign", or "your license plate light is out". My friends were not intoxicated when they were stopped, but instead felt harassed and profiled, as they were only stopped because they came out of that parking lot. In one case, the police car was waiting in the parking lot and drove to anyone who was walking out of the Hopmonk and waited til they got in their car to follow them.

Of course no one condones drunk driving, but harassment is another thing. This will only hurt our local businesses, if it becomes apparent that the Sebastopol Police are profiling and harassing it's residents. Who will go to the Hopmonk if they think they might get arrested for having one beer and then leaving?

So beware, and if you are going to the Hopmonk, perhaps park away from the venue and look around before you get into your car. Just wait them out if you see a police car waiting for you to drive. Their intention is now very clear, they are stopping everyone they can.

If our city council is reading this, perhaps you could intervene and let the police chief know that we are aware of this profiling and respond. Is this an effort to create revenue for the city through DIU fines?

[ChristineL]

As much as I actually don't particularly love cops, a leftover from my hippie days and attendance at many an anti-Vietnam war demonstration, and do decry profiling, I am presently tired of the extremes of "political correctness". If only Hispanic or female or Black or young people were being stopped, I'd feel there's profiling going on. However, the assumption that people leaving a bar could have been drinking is right up there with the assumption that people entering a dog park are most likely accompanied by a dog.

Having been hit by a drunk driver myself, as well having known people killed by drunk drivers, and a man killed by a drunk in a rage, I don't mind dealing with the "so-called" harrassment and don't feel I'm a victim of profiling. The life that's saved by this "harrassment" could be yours, or your child's, or your spouse's or even your cat's....or even....mine.

[Tars]

Is this thread grounded in the facts? What's the evidence that the Sebastopol police is "targeting" Hopmonk customers?

Have customers from Jasper O'farrell's or the Old Main Street Saloon been able to get away without being scrutinized?

Couldn't this be a general action against drinking & driving?

The "evidence" is anecdotal, by Hopmonk employees, and customers, as presented earlier in this thread. As far as I know there's no citizens' group or other group, that follows the police around, quantifying how they do their job. As to the customers of other drinking establishments, they are addressed by the Sebastapolice in the usual fashion, via police stops at the various traffic bottlenecks and exits of Sebastopol.

Anyone who travels through downtown late at night has most likely seen police pulling motorists over from locations such as the Safeway parking lot, or the gas station on highway 12, or south of town near the coffe place.

Unlike Jasper's, Hopmonk may have a special problem because its lot, is easily viewable from the street, or from across the street, in the dealership parking lot, or from near Frizelle-Enos. Old Main Street has public parking behind it. From another location near the Old Main, I have seen police fairly regularly sweep the square, and stop pedestrians and drivers in that area.

I, for one, am a content citizen, to have police monitoring for, and stopping drunk drivers at various points around the community. I think that everyone here thinks drunk driving is dangerous. My only problem would be with police who park visibly very near any establishment which serves alcohol, so as to intimidate customers, and scare potential customers away.

[pbrinton]

Well then I guess its not "profiling" to note that minorities make up a large percentage of the prison population, so therefore any it wouldnt be inappropraite to single out minorites under the assumption that they've already commited a crime. I dont see any difference. If you do, please explain.

I do see a very significant difference. In the one case you are talking about profiling someone because of something he or she is (Black, Hispanic, Hippie, whatever) whereas in the other case you are profiling someone because of what he or she is voluntarily doing (driving after spending time in an establishment where alcohol is served.) If the complaint were that certain classes of people were being stopped and other classes of people behaving identically were not, then your argument would be much more persuasive.

Please note that I am not expressing an opinion on the rights and wrongs of the subject of the thread here, but simply answering your request for clarification.

Patrick

[wildflower]

and I don't exactly get how this constitutes "profiling"....yeah because you are leaving a bar, you were drinking profile?
well IT IS a BAR!
This is sort of a slap in the face to the true meaning and targets of real profiling.
and.......It just might save someone's life.
best
wf

[Valley Oak]

If this method of carrying out law enforcement is going to be routine (or even if it's not routine) then people need to know it. People need to talk and inform each other of what the police are doing, how, why, etc.

For example, if the basic idea that the police have in mind is that anyone walking out of a bar, getting into their car, is probable cause or reasonable suspicion, then fine, so be it. But people need to know ahead of time that they can be harassed. It's only fair (being fair is something that the police forget about much too often to be overlooked).

I would say that folks need to learn this, as is inevitable, and will also learn new ways to deal with sneaky police tactics. Just because a person walks out of a bar and into their car doesn't necessarily mean that they are drunk. Sure, the police will do whatever they feel like to get the 'bad guys' but then this strongly implies that a lot of innocent people are being treated as criminals or are too easily put under suspicion. And that's not fair.

Folks, on this list and elsewhere because word travels fast, will know that this is another police tactic of 'getting the bad guys' that basically only inconveniences innocent, good, law abiding citizens.

As a result of word spreading around, people will develop cautionary behavior regarding the police, not because people are 'bad' but because people should not be interfered simply over poor law enforcement efforts that victimize average citizens. It's a survival mechanism.

If I lived in Sebastopol, I would avoid going to that bar. I would also keep in mind the fact that the police might be doing this whenever I walk into a bar. I would have a designated driver or simply watch what I consume (but notice that none of these things would keep me from being harassed after getting out of the Hopmonk). I would also park far away, certainly not in the bar's parking lot, maybe a block or two away, increase my exercise, and not be in plain view from the bar or the police. Maybe parked around the corner a block or two away. I would tell my friends ahead of time that the police are doing this and in particular the Hopmark.

Another question I have is that there might be some corruption going on and that the Hopmark is being unfairly targeted. Or maybe there have been several calls to the police because of incidents at the Hopmark. I really don't know but then the police are notorious for being corrupted in many cities and towns around the country. Sebastopol police? I don't know.

I'm not a person who goes to bars. I might walk into one once a year or less on average. I have to confess that I'm not terribly worried because it does not affect me directly.

I think it's wrong-headed for police to automatically target and inconvenience ANYONE who walks out of a bar, just because they were seen walking out of a bar. There should be more and better criteria than just that. If the police and the public feel strongly that this kind of law enforcement is appropriate then we should change the laws and make it standard and fair. Maybe we should just bring back Prohibition and re-amend the U.S. Constitution?

Edward



I do see a very significant difference. In the one case you are talking about profiling someone because of something he or she is (Black, Hispanic, Hippie, whatever) whereas in the other case you are profiling someone because of what he or she is voluntarily doing (driving after spending time in an establishment where alcohol is served.) If the complaint were that certain classes of people were being stopped and other classes of people behaving identically were not, then your argument would be much more persuasive.

Please note that I am not expressing an opinion on the rights and wrongs of the subject of the thread here, but simply answering your request for clarification.

Patrick

[someguy]

I do see a very significant difference. In the one case you are talking about profiling someone because of something he or she is (Black, Hispanic, Hippie, whatever) whereas in the other case you are profiling someone because of what he or she is voluntarily doing (driving after spending time in an establishment where alcohol is served.) If the complaint were that certain classes of people were being stopped and other classes of people behaving identically were not, then your argument would be much more persuasive.

Please note that I am not expressing an opinion on the rights and wrongs of the subject of the thread here, but simply answering your request for clarification.

Patrick

Well in a sense this is about class too. These cops are only pulling people over who attend bars. I would say a very large percentage of restaurants in Sebastopol serve alcohol, wouldn't you? Why aren't the cops outside of these establishments? Could it be that in general people assume that lower class citizens attend bars, and good old wholesome families go out to dinner? While in reality both establishments serve alcohol which could lead to drunk driving. Hell I can get shit faced at home and go for a joyride. Maybe cops should be assigned to sit outside every persons home thats over the age of 21. This is extremely dangerous thinking.

Regardless of whether the cops are profiling you because of who you are or what you are doing, it is still profiling. It might not be racially motivated, but it is a very similar attitude to law enforcment. By playing the odds, they pull over as many people that fit into a stereotypical catagory that implies wrong doing and harrass them until they find one person who has actually commited a crime. This mind set is wrong, and very unhealthy to society.

And still whether or not you think this is profiling, this is still messed up to just pull someone over because they've spent some time in a bar, which is a perfectly legal thing to do. Its perfectly legal to go in a head shop (pipe shop), and just because a large percentage of people who go into head shops probably smoke weed, doesn't mean any particular person who enters and exits that store has done anything illegal. Do they deserve to be spied on, followed and eventually pulled aside for questioning?

The point of this whole arguement is that regardless of who you are or what you are doing, as long as youre not doing anything illegal, you don't deserve to be singled out by police and treated as if you have already done something wrong.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -Benjamin Franklin

[ChristineL]

I'm not all that fond of your profiling...I do sometimes hang out in bars, particularly the local one that has bands every week-end...I do not consider myself "lower-class" (broke at the moment, yes) and I don't drink...I do like to play pool and listen to music...this makes me lower class...It seems you're doing the profiling.

You're right...you could drive away from your home totally drunk, however, the chances are much smaller, you're already home. The cops can't be everywhere...covering every eventuality. The odds are much higher of people leaving a "bar" drunk than they are of leaving home or a restaurant (even one that serves alcohol) that way. That glass or two of wine with my dinner will not impair my driving abilities, the same two glasses without food will, in my case, slow my reflexes and make me a danger on the road.

I consider the tracking of my shopping habits via the internet, club card and credit card usage a lot more invasive to my privacy than cop cars outside the bar I'm hanging out in. That tracking is actually used for creating profiles. Local cops finding out I'm never over the limit, I don't mind. After the first year, the Cotati police had me "profiled" as a non-drinker and didn't stop me any more.

Just an added note, profiling all cops to the point that every time a cop shoots his gun, he/she is wrong, using excessive force, profiling, etc. and everyone is outraged, but when four cops get killed, there's almost no outrage at all. Every time a cop makes a traffic stop, he/she risks getting shot, as recently proven. I'm glad they're still making them and getting drunk drivers off the road no matter how temporary it is.



Well in a sense this is about class too. These cops are only pulling people over who attend bars. I would say a very large percentage of restaurants in Sebastopol serve alcohol, wouldn't you? Why aren't the cops outside of these establishments? Could it be that in general people assume that lower class citizens attend bars, and good old wholesome families go out to dinner? While in reality both establishments serve alcohol which could lead to drunk driving. Hell I can get shit faced at home and go for a joyride. Maybe cops should be assigned to sit outside every persons home thats over the age of 21. This is extremely dangerous thinking.

Regardless of whether the cops are profiling you because of who you are or what you are doing, it is still profiling. It might not be racially motivated, but it is a very similar attitude to law enforcment. By playing the odds, they pull over as many people that fit into a stereotypical catagory that implies wrong doing and harrass them until they find one person who has actually commited a crime. This mind set is wrong, and very unhealthy to society.

And still whether or not you think this is profiling, this is still messed up to just pull someone over because they've spent some time in a bar, which is a perfectly legal thing to do. Its perfectly legal to go in a head shop (pipe shop), and just because a large percentage of people who go into head shops probably smoke weed, doesn't mean any particular person who enters and exits that store has done anything illegal. Do they deserve to be spied on, followed and eventually pulled aside for questioning?

The point of this whole arguement is that regardless of who you are or what you are doing, as long as youre not doing anything illegal, you don't deserve to be singled out by police and treated as if you have already done something wrong.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -Benjamin Franklin

[Braggi]

....It just might save someone's life.
best
wf

It might save someone's life to arrest everyone and put them in prison. Thing is, then there'd be no one left to pay taxes to pay for the prisons.

It's very dangerous when the police are making assumptions of guilt. It's possible they have someone with a radio stationed in the parking lot in question letting officers in a car know who's wobbly walking out the door. If that's the case (I have no information to that effect), I still think that's a pretty lousy approach to law enforcement .

I'll park down the street if I go there.

-Jeff

[someguy]

[quote=Christine;85970]I'm not all that fond of your profiling...I do sometimes hang out in bars, particularly the local one that has bands every week-end...I do not consider myself "lower-class" (broke at the moment, yes) and I don't drink...I do like to play pool and listen to music...this makes me lower class...It seems you're doing the profiling.]

Whoa.... Excuse me I never called anyone lower class or even insinuated that. Re-read what I said. Here it is:"Could it be that in general people assume that lower class citizens attend bars, and good old wholesome families go out to dinner? While in reality both establishments serve alcohol which could lead to drunk driving."

That was a rhetorical question that I believe has a lot of legitimacy. If you were to actually think about it for a minute you would see that all I was doing is showing you how cops jumping to conclusions about certain establishments because of who/what they believe to be inside is a big problem!

And for me to ask a rhetorical question about what people in general might assume, and then for you to say that Im the one making that assumption is ridiculous! For the record, I don't believe that people going to bars are lower class at all. My entire purpose here is to point out that whats going on outside the Hopmunk is PROFILING, and I sure as hell am not the one doing it here on wacco, no matter how hard you try to read between the lines and make up your own absurd conclusions.

[Braggi]

... but when four cops get killed, there's almost no outrage at all. ...

Not sure what planet you've been on Christine. Talk radio is full of it hour after hour, day after day. They had to rent a stadium for a memorial service. A semi-public grieving session was mobbed with streets blocked by cars for blocks in every direction.

Lot's of outrage but a whole lot more grief and compassion for the families and coworkers of the fallen officers.

The real apples vs. oranges of your comment though is that your are comparing the actions of an individual vs. the actions of an institution with institutionalized actions. There is a vast difference.

-Jeff (who usually agrees with you.)

[bodegahead]

I might be missing somthing but I just don`t see the connection between Oaklands slain officers and what going on outside the Hopmunk.

And from what I`ve seen there has been a lot of ourage over it, close to home and worldwide. And by what I`m watching on TV right now (the memorial service) there`s a very large community in grieving.

[ChristineL]

You're right, just not enough of it in our local paper or its letters to the editor...(I have not read today's yet).

It seems to me that no matter how the police do their jobs, many members of the public feel they're wrong. That's the real point.

I am a sober person who does hang out in bars where there is music and pool tables...and sorry if you think I'm profiling, but almost all the patrons most concerned about cops outside are over their limit. If I had a nickel for every time an acquaintance asked "can you follow right behind me when I leave, I can't get stopped? I may be over the limit, but I know I can drive. I made it home last week just fine." I'd be rich. I refuse to do that, but do offer rides home and have taken people's keys from them. I'll tell you honestly, the reason I often go out alone is that I got tired of baby-sitting. I have a lot of fun without getting drunk and would really like for other people to be able to do the same without expecting me, and others like me, to save them from the cops, accidents, picking up a dangerous sex partner, and keep them out of fights. And...no I'm not talking about the person who occasionally over-indulges.

Having lost people to drunk drivers, as well as having been through the very scary experience and expenses of being hit by one, I have a very low tolerance. What I truly found intolerable in that experience is the number of people who knew the woman who hit me and tried to convince me not to prosecute because it wasn't her fault as she was drunk...she was always drunk and had no license or insurance. The best one was the person who told me she could lose custody of her young child if she was convicted...no one seemed to worry what could happen to the next person she might run down or, for that matter, to her child if she was passed out drunk one day.

My father taught me, lots of years ago, always carry cab fare and never get in a car with a driver who's had too much, and never drive yourself home if you've had one too many. If everyone learned that, the cops would stop sitting outside the bars.



I might be missing somthing but I just don`t see the connection between Oaklands slain officers and what going on outside the Hopmunk.

And from what I`ve seen there has been a lot of ourage over it, close to home and worldwide. And by what I`m watching on TV right now (the memorial service) there`s a very large community in grieving.

[bodegahead]

Let me try to put it this way.
I feel I should be allowed my Liberty, unless a police officer knows for a fact I have broken the law, or valid probable cuase to believe a law has been broken.
I don`t think that walking out of an establishment that serves food, welcomes families and provides entertainment is a valid probable cause to infringe on ones Liberty.

LIBERTY
1: the quality or state of being free: a: the power to do as one pleases b: freedom from physical restraint c: freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d: the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e: the power of choice

[Vet-To-Pet]

After reading various posts about this topic (that Sebastopol police are waiting outside Hopmonk Tavern's parking lot & pulling drivers over who leave Hopmonk & then drive out of that parking lot), it seems to me that the general impression I'm getting is that there are an awful lot of people who drink too much, then want to drive, and are outraged that their "liberties" are being infringed upon. the difference between restaurants & bars is that people usually go to a restaurant for a meal, possibly having a drink or two before/during/after their meal, but they usually don't go to a restaurant and ONLY drink, and spend the entire evening at the restaurant having one drink after another. It sounds like many of the "offended posters" are people who are trying to justify their drinking habits---as in " thou doth protest too much" (pardon my Shakespear). The people who are protesting the "profiling" are the ones who shouldn't be driving after a night out drinking. Take a good, long look at your drinking---see anything that doesn't seem "right"? Getting into fights? having 'black-outs'? Can't find your car the next morning? Finding crumpled up dollar bills stuffed in your pockets in the mornings? Closing one eye in order to stay in your lane while driving home after an evening at the bar? I could go on & on because I used to do ALL of those things, and you know what? I finally realized that I'm a raging alcoholic! I can't have "just one" drink---I think,"what's the point?" If I see someone who doesn't finish a glass of wine with their meal, I wonder, "What did they order that wine for?" I don't think about alcohol (or drugs) the way "normal" people do---I wanted to get shit-faced, that was my objective. I finally got sick & tired of being sick & tired, of waking up next to guys whose names I couldn't remember. So, take a good look at yourself & honestly tell yourself: I drink only to relax a little, or to enhance the meal that I'm enjoying with my friends. I usually have about one drink per hour (or less), and I always ask a friend if they think I'm okay to drive---if they say "no", then I call a cab or ask for a ride home.
Don't stay in denial about something as serious as your life, as well as the lives of innocent people who are minding their own business. Imagine being responsible for killing someone while you're driving under the influence---and imagine living with that guilt for the rest of your life. STOP IT!!!
vet-To-Pet


Well in a sense this is about class too. These cops are only pulling people over who attend bars. I would say a very large percentage of restaurants in Sebastopol serve alcohol, wouldn't you? Why aren't the cops outside of these establishments? Could it be that in general people assume that lower class citizens attend bars, and good old wholesome families go out to dinner? While in reality both establishments serve alcohol which could lead to drunk driving. Hell I can get shit faced at home and go for a joyride. Maybe cops should be assigned to sit outside every persons home thats over the age of 21. This is extremely dangerous thinking.

Regardless of whether the cops are profiling you because of who you are or what you are doing, it is still profiling. It might not be racially motivated, but it is a very similar attitude to law enforcment. By playing the odds, they pull over as many people that fit into a stereotypical catagory that implies wrong doing and harrass them until they find one person who has actually commited a crime. This mind set is wrong, and very unhealthy to society.

And still whether or not you think this is profiling, this is still messed up to just pull someone over because they've spent some time in a bar, which is a perfectly legal thing to do. Its perfectly legal to go in a head shop (pipe shop), and just because a large percentage of people who go into head shops probably smoke weed, doesn't mean any particular person who enters and exits that store has done anything illegal. Do they deserve to be spied on, followed and eventually pulled aside for questioning?

The point of this whole arguement is that regardless of who you are or what you are doing, as long as youre not doing anything illegal, you don't deserve to be singled out by police and treated as if you have already done something wrong.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -Benjamin Franklin

[Valley Oak]

Dear 'Vet to Pet' (charming name, btw),

I'm surmising from your email that everyone who has criticized the action of the police at Hopmonk has a drinking problem.

1. That is a HUGE assumption to be making.

2. I am not an alcoholic.

3. I know personally people who have also criticized the actions of the police who are not alcoholics.

4. This assertion you made about everyone who is in disagreement with you being an alcoholic is grossly irresponsible, reckless, and most of all, infantile. How old are you anyway?

5. I entertain myself by torturing animals in the privacy of my own home. Please do something to stop it. Call the Sebastopol police. They might station someone outside or even break in with you as a shadow.

Edward


After reading various posts about this topic (that Sebastopol police are waiting outside Hopmonk Tavern's parking lot & pulling drivers over who leave Hopmonk & then drive out of that parking lot), it seems to me that the general impression I'm getting is that there are an awful lot of people who drink too much, then want to drive, and are outraged that their "liberties" are being infringed upon. ...

[bodegahead]

From what I`ve been reading in this dicussion it seems to me that your "general impression " is based on a lot of assumption. Many of the posters here that do not agree with the police behavior are non drinkers and quite a few do not frequent bars or the Hopmonk. I`m going to visit the Hopmonk soon. After paying fifty dollars for a ticket I should be able to afford one, maybe two at the most of their $7.00 beers. I will be walking after the show. I would be walking whether the police were parked acroos the street or not. Still, I strongly disagree with what the police are doing.


After reading various posts about this topic (that Sebastopol police are waiting outside Hopmonk Tavern's parking lot & pulling drivers over who leave Hopmonk & then drive out of that parking lot), it seems to me that the general impression I'm getting is that there are an awful lot of people who drink too much, then want to drive, ...

[someguy]

After reading various posts about this topic (that Sebastopol police are waiting outside Hopmonk Tavern's parking lot & pulling drivers over who leave Hopmonk & then drive out of that parking lot), it seems to me that the general impression I'm getting is that there are an awful lot of people who drink too much, then want to drive, ...



Are you trying to say that Im a drunk? It certainly comes accross that way since you did quote me and all.

Well, im sorry to inform you that I am not someone who induldges in alcohol. In fact, I probably enjoy an alcoholic beverage (dark beer, or wine) once or twice a month, and almost never get drunk!

You know what? I actually care about civil liberties, and have no problem putting aside my personal beliefs and lifestyle preferences out of respect for others freedom (to do as they please without government interferance, as long as they are not harming other people).

For example: I don't smoke cigarettes. In fact I hate the smell, and often it makes me nauseous and gives me a headache. But, I still think all these non-smoking laws that have been passed recently (the past decade) are stupid and infringe on smokers rights. Smokers should be able to go into establishments and enjoy a cigarette with their meal, if they so choose. And if I don't like it, I'll go elsewhere with my money. But if the establishment is cool with it and it brings them business, well thats their right to accomodate smokers. I believe this type of thinking should be adopted by more people to ensure a better living standard for EVERYONE, not just YOURSELF!

So in closing, I hope you don't assume that Im just like you used to be (or whatever) and drink my freaking head off and sleep with every person in sight and wake up in a garbage can or some shit like that. I don't have to be a drinker to support peoples free will to enjoy a beer or three without government harrassment!

[bodegahead]

Information for the uninformed.

Hopmonk Tavern is as much of a restaurant as it is a bar. More like a restaurant with a real good beer selection. And it`s not much of a bar as it doesn`t serve hard liquor/cocktails. It is also a concert venue.

Maybe if it was a wine bar instead of a beer tavern the place might not be under such scrutiny.

[Vet-To-Pet]

You don't have to be someone who drinks to recognize that there's a HUGE problem with people driving while under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs in this county, as well as many other places in this country. I am tired of reading about the people whose lives are ended or ruined becauce someone thought they could drive after drinking...and they were wrong. So go ahead and spout off about civil liberties and all that, but don't get upset when the Highway patrol comes to your house one day to tell you that a loved one was killed by a drunk driver. Don't you DARE get upset---it was that person's RIGHT to drive drunk!


Are you trying to say that Im a drunk? It certainly comes accross that way since you did quote me and all.

Well, im sorry to inform you that I am not someone who induldges in alcohol. In fact, I probably enjoy an alcoholic beverage (dark beer, or wine) once or twice a month, and almost never get drunk!

You know what? I actually care about civil liberties, and have no problem putting aside my personal beliefs and lifestyle preferences out of respect for others freedom (to do as they please without government interferance, as long as they are not harming other people).

For example: I don't smoke cigarettes. In fact I hate the smell, and often it makes me nauseous and gives me a headache. But, I still think all these non-smoking laws that have been passed recently (the past decade) are stupid and infringe on smokers rights. Smokers should be able to go into establishments and enjoy a cigarette with their meal, if they so choose. And if I don't like it, I'll go elsewhere with my money. But if the establishment is cool with it and it brings them business, well thats their right to accomodate smokers. I believe this type of thinking should be adopted by more people to ensure a better living standard for EVERYONE, not just YOURSELF!

So in closing, I hope you don't assume that Im just like you used to be (or whatever) and drink my freaking head off and sleep with every person in sight and wake up in a garbage can or some shit like that. I don't have to be a drinker to support peoples free will to enjoy a beer or three without government harrassment!

[someguy]

You don't have to be someone who drinks to recognize that there's a HUGE problem with people driving while under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs in this county, as well as many other places in this country. I am tired of reading about the people whose lives are ended or ruined becauce someone thought they could drive after drinking...and they were wrong. So go ahead and spout off about civil liberties and all that, but don't get upset when the Highway patrol comes to your house one day to tell you that a loved one was killed by a drunk driver. Don't you DARE get upset---it was that person's RIGHT to drive drunk!

First you call me an alcoholic. Then you say that I think people have the right to drive drunk! Are you fucking drunk right now?!? Read all of my posts. I am not condoning drunk driving at all. Never have, never will! In fact I said that if people were displaying signs on the road of drunk driving they should be pulled over. Profiling people who are not drunk and have done nothing to make a cop think that person is drunk is a completly different issue.

You and your stupidly spun logic is really starting to piss me off. Dont you DARE say again that I condone drunk driving or that I am a drunk. You must be too damn conscious and blissed out to throughly read my posts and critically understand whats being said to you! Or maybe your just drunk off your ass. Either way your as annoying as a drunk, thats for sure.

[bodegahead]

You don't have to be someone who drinks to recognize that there's a HUGE problem with people driving while under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs in this county, as well as many other places in this country. I am tired of reading about the people whose lives are ended or ruined becauce someone thought they could drive after drinking...and they were wrong. So go ahead and spout off about civil liberties and all that, but don't get upset when the Highway patrol comes to your house one day to tell you that a loved one was killed by a drunk driver. Don't you DARE get upset---it was that person's RIGHT to drive drunk!
Maybe I missed somthing, but I don`t think so, I don`t recall seeing one single post in this in this discussion where anyone comes even close to condoning driving under the influence or stating that a person has a right to drive drunk. Not one single post.
I suggest that since you feel so strongly and obviously need someplace to vent, perhaps you should start a separate discussion topic on alcohol, the brain damage caused by abuse, and tragedies of life. And since you consider yourself a raging alcoholic AA meetings could help in your recovery. And one of the things they teach there is to take care of your own recovery agenda and don`t push it on others.

[Barry]

Paula,

Please take these: :chillpill: :chillpill:

It's clear that you have experienced a lot of pain around both sides of alcohol abuse (as the drinker and person being effected by the damage it can do).

While I welcome you to write about your experience and thoughts on the matter, please do not project your pain, anger and righteousness at other members. Just because you and many others were/are not responsible with alcohol use does not mean we all are.

Thank you,
Barry


You don't have to be someone who drinks to recognize that there's a HUGE problem with people driving while under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs in this county, as well as many other places in this country. I am tired of reading about the people whose lives are ended or ruined becauce someone thought they could drive after drinking...and they were wrong. So go ahead and spout off about civil liberties and all that, but don't get upset when the Highway patrol comes to your house one day to tell you that a loved one was killed by a drunk driver. Don't you DARE get upset---it was that person's RIGHT to drive drunk!

[Barry]

Information for the uninformed.

Hopmonk Tavern is as much of a restaurant as it is a bar. More like a restaurant with a real good beer selection. And it`s not much of a bar as it doesn`t serve hard liquor/cocktails. It is also a concert venue....

Correction: The Hopmonk has an excellent bar with a wide selection of liquor and cocktails! :cocktail:

[Vet-To-Pet]

My apologies to anyone who I've insulted or who misunderstood anything I wrote in my recent postings. I don't wish to cause anyone any discomfort or frustration about this topic. mea culpa.
Paula


Paula,

Please take these: :chillpill: :chillpill:

It's clear that you have experienced a lot of pain around both sides of alcohol abuse (as the drinker and person being effected by the damage it can do).

While I welcome you to write about your experience and thoughts on the matter, please do not project your pain, anger and righteousness at other members. Just because you and many others were/are not responsible with alcohol use does not mean we all are.

Thank you,
Barry

[MsTerry]

Tars, I agreed with everything you said, until I came to the last sentence.
What kind of potential customers do you think a police car would scare away?
Not me! I'd feel a lot safer actually.



My only problem would be with police who park visibly very near any establishment which serves alcohol, so as to intimidate customers, and scare potential customers away.

[MsTerry]

It might save someone's life to arrest everyone and put them in prison.
-Jeff
Who wants to arrest everyone?


It's possible they have someone with a radio stationed in the parking lot in question letting officers in a car know who's wobbly walking out the door. If that's the case (I have no information to that effect), I still think that's a pretty lousy approach to law enforcement .
Do you suggest they should let the wobbly walk or drive?


I'll park down the street if I go there.
Why would you want to do that if you haven't done anything wrong?
Why not walk up to them and ASK for a test?