Publicizing DUI checkpoints or not

[Barry]

What do you guys think about publicizing the location of DUI checkpoints? I have to say that the first thing that comes to mind is that the next thing would be a an "app" that gives you easy access that info and maps it! Or even alerts you when you are near one! Pretty bad, huh?

Another thought is that if you have it together enough to find out the info and avoid it, your probably less of a public menace then those who don't.

I've always thought the checkpoints are an invasion of privacy. The bill discussed below attempts to balance the right to privacy with the real need for public safety. I support it.

How about you?

Barry






https://roadwarrior.blogs.pressdemoc...a=all&tc=pgall

September 20th, 2011 08:42am
Publicizing DUI checkpoints or not

by Road.Warrior

A Santa Rosa assemblyman is generating a lot of controversy over his bill that would set uniform rules for police statewide in operating DUI checkpoints and that would require police to publicize the specific location of a checkpoint at least two hours in advance.

A story in Monday’s Press Democrat had local police officials opposing Democratic Assemblyman Michael Allen’s provision to give at least two hours notice of a checkpoint, Chris Smith raised doubts about the plan in his Tuesday column, a Press Democrat editorial Tuesday urged Gov. Jerry Brown to sign the bill and numerous Road Warrior readers have weighed in for and against Allen’s bill, AB 1389.

Allen was unavailable last week to be interviewed for the Monday story, so we put a call in to him to allow him to explain his position.

He said local social action groups came to him with concerns about varying enforcement at DUI checkpoints, and he drafted the bill to set a statewide standard for the checkpoints based on a 1987 state Supreme Court ruling, Ingersoll v. Palmer, that allowed the DUI checkpoints if certain factors were met.

The court’s eight standards cover such matters as location, time of day, operation and public notice of a checkpoint.

“Advance publicity is important to the maintenance of a constitutional permissible sobriety checkpoint,” the court said in Ingersoll.

Allen said that in talking to police, he found they believed the standard for publicity was advisory and not mandatory.

He said he or his staff talked to “lots of local law enforcement,” including Sonoma County Sheriff Steve Freitas and Santa Rosa Police Chief Tom Schwedhelm, and the CHP and he doesn’t remember the two-hour notice coming up as an issue. He said the two-hour notice is part of the CHP’s procedure manual.

Allen said he doubted giving the two-hour notice of a DUI checkpoint’s specific location “will deter from the effectiveness.” He questioned the effectiveness of the checkpoints in catching DUI suspects, saying studies have shown officers on patrol nab more suspects than checkpoints.

We also checked in with Freitas and the CHP. Schwedhelm was unavailable.

Freitas said he met with Allen in May and also doesn’t remember talking about a two-hour notice. (The two-hour notice was added to the bill on Sept. 2 in the state Senate.) But he said he opposes such notice because it would “lessen the effectiveness” of the checkpoint.

Sonoma County CHP spokesman Jon Sloat said the CHP requires a 48-hour notice of general locations of its DUI checkpoints but does not require a two-hour notice of the specific location. He said the procedure manual gives local offices the option of giving out the specific location no more than two hours ahead of time, but the Sonoma County office doesn’t.

Chris Cochran, a spokesman for the state Office of Traffic Safety, which provides grants to police for checkpoints, said the Supreme Court has changed its mind on advance publicity since its 1987 Ingersoll ruling.

In 1993′s People vs. Banks ruling, the court said, “We conclude that the operation of a sobriety checkpoint conducted in the absence of advance publicity, but otherwise in conformance with the guidelines we established in Ingersoll v. Palmer, supra, 43 Cal. 3d 1321, does not result in an unreasonable seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”

As to what Brown plans to do with Allen’s bill, it’s unknown. But Allen said his contacts with Brown’s staff indicate the governor is keeping an open mind.

In past statements, it’s been clear that at least part of Allen’s concern about DUI checkpoints is that they also catch unlicensed drivers, mostly illegal immigrants who are barred by state law from getting a license.

When the Assembly this month gave final approval to his bill and sent it to Brown, Allen issued a statement, saying: “On average, DUI checkpoints impound seven vehicles for every drunk driver arrest, and the number of impoundments is steadily increasing. Despite good intentions, the increase in impoundments for driving without a license creates the perception that the police are misusing their authority in order to generate revenues and are targeting neighborhoods where they are likely to find more unlicensed drivers. This undermines respect for the law and for law enforcement, which is crucial for effective community policing. Perhaps more important, by ignoring the findings of Ingersoll v. Palmer, law enforcement may provoke new legal challenges which could ultimately result in DUI checkpoints being found unconstitutional.”

To read the Press Democrat story, CLICK HERE.

To read Chris Smith’s column, CLICK HERE

To read the editorial, CLICK HERE

["Mad" Miles]

I support the bill. I met Michael Allen in the Living Wage Coalition of Sonoma County back in 2001 and he quickly impressed me with his intelligence, sense of humor and commitment to social justice. I was happy when he was elected to the Assembly. He's one of my FB friends.

His bill is a very savvy effort to balance the rights of those who, by law, cannot get a driver's license and all of us who want drunk drivers off of the road. The checkpoints confiscate cars from the poorest and hardest working, who in the past had the ability to get driver's licenses, and then registration and insurance, but who for about ten years have not had that ability.

If your goal is to drive away undocumented workers, and more practically harass and punish them for something over which they have no control, then unannounced checkpoints are something you might want. Otherwise, they're harassment, pure and simple. No matter what anyone harrumphes about "They're breaking the law!!!"

Yeah, they're breaking a law that was specifically passed to harass them.

Economic desperation, produced by trade policies pushed through in the name of globalization and economic prosperity (seen much of the latter lately?) drives them to work here out of a need to survive.

If you don't like that, change the laws so they're either kept out, or can get papers to legalize their vehicles that they require for work in this economy.

Keeping them in a limbo of targeted victimization, helps no one, and is the greater injustice here. This bill is an incremental step to address a raw injustice. And that's better than the status quo.

[dysbtwn]

It appears that in Petaluma, all of these resources were wasted last week, with 987 stops, no arrests.

In a state bleeding in red ink, with school cutbacks, higher fees for college students, is this the best use of resources by turning our roads into a "show my your papers" ever few weeks? How much money is this costing us if we stop almost 1000 cars and no one is drunk? How many semesters of college for poor students at SRJC or Sonoma State could this futile exercise have paid for? How many of these police are being paid overtime to work these check points? Is there any accounting that is available to the public to see the actual return on investment?

Checkpoints result in no arrests for DUI
Published: Sunday, September 18, 2011 at 12:40 p.m.

Petaluma police arrested five drivers during checkpoints Friday night — three for driving without valid licenses and two for driving on suspended licenses.

No drivers were found to be driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

Police conducted two DUI/drivers license checkpoints Friday night, one on Sonoma Mountain Parkway and the second on Petaluma Boulevard North at Gossage Avenue.

A total of 987 vehicles were screened in the checkpoints. Some 22 drivers were evaluated for being under the influence of alcohol, but none of them were arrested, according to Officer Ron Klein.

One of the drivers arrested for driving on a suspended drivers license, one of them, Jennifer Markovich, was also arrested for having false registration tabs on her vehicle, which was registered in her name.

The other drivers were given citations to appear and released.

Four vehicles were towed, and three of them were impounded for 30 days.

The checkpoints were funding by a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety.

[zenekar]

It appears that in Petaluma, all of these resources were wasted last week, with 987 stops, no arrests.

In a state bleeding in red ink, with school cutbacks, higher fees for college students, is this the best use of resources by turning our roads into a "show my your papers" ever few weeks? How much money is this costing us if we stop almost 1000 cars and no one is drunk? How many semesters of college for poor students at SRJC or Sonoma State could this futile exercise have paid for? How many of these police are being paid overtime to work these check points? Is there any accounting that is available to the public to see the actual return on investment?

Checkpoints result in no arrests for DUI
Published: Sunday, September 18, 2011 at 12:40 p.m.

Petaluma police arrested five drivers during checkpoints Friday night — three for driving without valid licenses and two for driving on suspended licenses.

No drivers were found to be driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

Police conducted two DUI/drivers license checkpoints Friday night, one on Sonoma Mountain Parkway and the second on Petaluma Boulevard North at Gossage Avenue.

A total of 987 vehicles were screened in the checkpoints. Some 22 drivers were evaluated for being under the influence of alcohol, but none of them were arrested, according to Officer Ron Klein.

One of the drivers arrested for driving on a suspended drivers license, one of them, Jennifer Markovich, was also arrested for having false registration tabs on her vehicle, which was registered in her name.

The other drivers were given citations to appear and released.

Four vehicles were towed, and three of them were impounded for 30 days.

The checkpoints were funding by a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety.

Working immigrants are intimidated and $2000 poorer after getting their cars back from the 30 day impound, while private towing companies are making out like bandits, for the towing of the cars and 30 day storage. Giving licenses to all who pass the driving test, regardless of immigration status, is the correct solution.

[Imagery]

So where does it end?

I'd bet Paul Hobbs is all for this bill as well. It helps provide more protection for his cheap labor, therefore increasing profits to his business. It's the rich and powerful people who want the cheapest labor who are really behind this. They sell the idea to well-meaning immigrant rights groups, disguised as "human rights". They obviously don't give one damn about the rights of the victims of drunk drivers, they don't give a damn about children who get run over, they just care that their cheap labor source is protected.

Last I've read, there is no "right" to drive a car, it's a privilege. While it may be a necessity in this day and age, given the lack of efficient and effective public transportation, it still doesn't mean that everyone has the "right" to drive. I see some who are quoting ONE of the DUI checkpoint statistics in which there were zero arrests made for DUI. You fail to mention (it won't support your case) how many other DUI checkpoints nab drunk drivers and remove them before they can run over someone, or crash into an innocent driver whose bad luck it was to share that stretch of road.

[edie]

Keeping them in a limbo of targeted victimization, helps no one, and is the greater injustice here. This bill is an incremental step to address a raw injustice. And that's better than the status quo.

"Mad" Miles, I agree with everything you are saying.

Now, the next time someone without car insurance causes damage to my car, will you help me paying for the damage?
Cause I can't.
Now, (I hope not) someone without car insurance will hit and totally destroy my car, will you help me buying another car?
Cause I can't.
Now, (I hope never) someone without car insurance will cause an accident and my doctor-bills are piling up, will you help me paying them and assure me I still will live a healthy life?
Cause I can't.
Now, (I wish not ever) someone without driver license & car insurance will cause an accident and because of that poor person, I will meet my creator before my time, will you promise me I can come back and ring his or her neck? (probably yours too)

Of course I know that all of the above mentioned can be caused by someone with a drivers license and car insurance- but if we don't need one- then no one needs one and I could save $$$$... and who will pay for the damages?

And now you may tell me that this poor people seldom cause accidents... my car was hit twice by an uninsured driver and I am only one person...

I guess in a so very free country- nobody needs law enforcement or should I say it's hard to balance the rights for all.

["Mad" Miles]

Edie,

Undocumented workers can't get insurance or registration because they can't get Driver's Licenses. Used to be, they could. Now, they can't. It's really that simple.

The rest of what you bring up, while relevant to you obviously, does nothing to solve the problem. A problem that didn't use to exist.

That's what blind, irrational xenophobia gets you guys. But I don't expect you and Imagery to see that. You've both repeatedly proven that you can't. And since you're not alone, not by far, we're all going to have to pay for the consequences. We already are.

Teaching for three years in prison didn't teach me much about our society that I didn't already know, but it did introduce me to many of the people who, yes, are guilty, they broke the law, but are there because the laws are irrational and seem, if designed for anything at all, to guarantee a continuous supply of convicted felons to keep the money coming in.

Or as the inmates put it, "Somebody is getting paid."

Guess where that money comes from? Pay up!

[Dixon]

"Petaluma police arrested five drivers during checkpoints Friday night — three for driving without valid licenses and two for driving on suspended licenses. No drivers were found to be driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs."

The fact that no one was arrested for DUI doesn't mean that no good was done by these checkpoints. They busted 5 people for driving without a current, valid license. Probably, some if not all of these had their license taken away because of previous DUIs or other dangerous driving behavior. Thus busting them protects you and me. Not only that, but occasional, unpredictable checkpoints presumably have a deterrent effect, making it a little less likely that people will drive drunk. Again, this protects you and me, regardless of whether this particular checkpoint busted anyone specifically for DUI.

If not checkpoints, how would you suggest the cops protect us from drunk drivers? Wait for them to kill someone, then imprison them? They could hang around outside bars and pull people over to check them out, but guess what--when they do that, people bitch and moan about it. So what's your plan for handling the threat of drunk driving?

[Dixon]

I'm against announcing police checkpoints ahead of time, because that means drunk drivers will just avoid the checkpoints and continue driving--and periodically killing or maiming innocent men, women and children. The effectiveness of the checkpoints will be severely compromised if they're publicly announced, thus we won't be protected from the drunk drivers. The slight inconvenience and delay of a checkpoint is an inconvenience I'm happy to accept if it decreases my chance of being killed/maimed by some drunken dipshit. There are many manifestations of police state fascism that I oppose, but police checkpoints to weed out drunk drivers isn't one of them.

I understand that "illegal" immigrants' being inappropriately forbidden to have drivers' licenses complicates this issue. My solution: legalize all immigrants, grant them equal rights, and continue to go after drunk drivers with checkpoints, etc.

[pbrinton]

So where does it end?

I'd bet Paul Hobbs is all for this bill as well. It helps provide more protection for his cheap labor, therefore increasing profits to his business. It's the rich and powerful people who want the cheapest labor who are really behind this. They sell the idea to well-meaning immigrant rights groups, disguised as "human rights". They obviously don't give one damn about the rights of the victims of drunk drivers, they don't give a damn about children who get run over, they just care that their cheap labor source is protected.

I think this is a stretch. And what does Paul Hobbs have to do with this issue, anyway? Perhaps if you put it forward as a tentative speculation, or better yet actually pointed to some kind of evidence for your theory, the rest might have some value, but as you phrase it, it is just inflammatory rhetoric that appeals to the emotions without adding anything useful to the debate.

Last I've read, there is no "right" to drive a car, it's a privilege. While it may be a necessity in this day and age, given the lack of efficient and effective public transportation, it still doesn't mean that everyone has the "right" to drive.

Yes, this one gets trotted out a lot. Perhaps if something is a necessity in today's world it should be a right rather than a privilege. The difference is just one of social attitudes; it is not written in stone. Other things that in the past were privileges accorded to certain members of society have been properly seen as general rights (voting, for instance) why not driving?

I see some who are quoting ONE of the DUI checkpoint statistics in which there were zero arrests made for DUI. You fail to mention (it won't support your case) how many other DUI checkpoints nab drunk drivers and remove them before they can run over someone, or crash into an innocent driver whose bad luck it was to share that stretch of road.

So the appropriate response would be to quote the statistics that have gone unmentioned. I would be very interested to know what proportion of arrests made at these checkpoints are for DUI. I doubt that anyone would favor coddling drunk drivers; the question is how far are we prepared to go in trying to catch them.

In this country we have always jealously guarded our freedoms, even at the risk of making it harder to catch criminals. These freedoms have been severely eroded of late. Many people find the idea of checkpoints a little to redolent of police states to be really comfortable with them, and when they suspect that they are in fact aimed as much at harassing undocumented workers under the guise of targeting drunks drivers it intensifies these feelings.

Now, the next time someone without car insurance causes damage to my car, will you help me paying for the damage?
Cause I can't.

...and several more similar questions

Undocumented immigrants cannot purchase insurance because they cannot get licenses. The practical truth is that they are here, and they need to drive in order to work, so they are going to drive. So why on earth do we not allow them to obtain licenses and thus get themselves insured, and solve this aspect of the problem while at the same time gaining revenue for the State and allowing the insurance company to make more money? What exactly is the case for the present policy? That we would be encouraging illegal immigration by allowing them licenses? Then let us consider making it illegal for them to buy food or get cell phones or rent accommodation. These measures would make just as much sense; more, actually, since they only affect the immigrants themselves unlike the lack of insurance problem which potentially affects everyone on the road.

Patrick Brinton

[edie]

"Mad" Miles,
You must have overlooked my first line, I said I agree with every thing you said and I mean it.

Undocumented workers can't get insurance or registration because they can't get Driver's Licenses. Used to be, they could. Now, they can't. It's really that simple.

Perhaps when it "used' to be, there where less undocumented workers coming into this country and it was not a problem then?

The rest of what you bring up, while relevant to you obviously, does nothing to solve the problem.

No, I can't solve the problem- can you? Can we? Did you ever talk to the one who can? Do you know who they are?
I am trying to see a given situation from different sides. It's never just black and white, not just your way of thinking or mine or a dozen others, the law, not to mention politics.

This thread is about publicizing DUI checkpoints and not about undocumented workers.
The two drivers without insurance that hit my car were not undocumented worker; how many parent with suspended license do to delinquent child support are still driving?

I believe to publish a DUI checkpoint would not make sense; I do think this a public safety issue.

[zenekar]

"Mad" Miles,
You must have overlooked my first line, I said I agree with every thing you said and I mean it.


Perhaps when it "used' to be, there where less undocumented workers coming into this country and it was not a problem then?


No, I can't solve the problem- can you? Can we? Did you ever talk to the one who can? Do you know who they are?
I am trying to see a given situation from different sides. It's never just black and white, not just your way of thinking or mine or a dozen others, the law, not to mention politics.

This thread is about publicizing DUI checkpoints and not about undocumented workers.
The two drivers without insurance that hit my car were not undocumented worker; how many parent with suspended license do to delinquent child support are still driving?

I believe to publish a DUI checkpoint would not make sense; I do think this a public safety issue.

It's a public safety issue AND an immigrant/civil/human rights issue. As long as we (I mean everyone who relies on the labor of immigrants -- documented or not -- for agriculture work, etc.), the people who do the work should be able to drive to work without harassment, exorbitant fines and possible deportation.

[zenekar]

A bill for License for undocumented immigrants will likely be introduced in the California Assembly next year. Be sure to support that legislation when it comes up.

["Mad" Miles]

Edie, the ability for undocumented workers to get Driver's Licenses was taken away about ten years ago. At a time in which the economy was more active and there were more of them. Changing the law was a result of the anti-immigration movement that has taken off in the last fifteen years or so.

You wrote that you agreed with what I said, and then proceeded to list various problems and costs you've had with unlicensed, unregistered and uninsured drivers. I took that to imply that you think that checkpoints, preferably unannounced ones, would somehow get those drivers off of the road, and save you and all of us future grief.

But the two go together, law enforcement efforts targeting drunk and/or paperless uninsured drivers and the impact on the group which is predominantly affected by those checkpoints. You can't have the checkpoints, under current law which prevents licensing (and consequently registration and insurance) without the main impact being on the undocumented.

By the way, because of the economy, many undocumented workers have returned to their countries of origin. Not all because there is still cheap labor exploitation going on, and jobs that no one will do for the prevailing pay, unless they're desperate enough. This topic has been well discussed, from all sides, here on waccobb.net in recent years.

I recall both you and Imagery taking an active role in those discussions. Coming from a position of enforcing the existing laws and letting the chips fall where they may. And I don't recall much acknowledgment of the plight of those workers who come because they must and we need and benefit from them. But that's just my memory, and I've not got the time or inclination to revisit those threads to verify my memory. If I've misremembered, I apologize, but I don't think I have.

Here's the deal, checkpoints will have some impact on drunk driving and driving on suspended licenses, or without licenses and other documentation. But we already know from the stats that it targets undocumented workers far more than anyone else.

Those complaining here that there are no stats provided, are not reading the news. That's why it's an issue. That's why Assemblyperson Allen has tried to come up with a compromise to address the problem.

Those driving so shit-faced they can't see the road, are less likely to check announced roadblocks and take them into account when going home from a night out drinking.

Those here for work, and who are unable to get papers, will have enough awareness to avoid checkpoints. The stone drunks get popped, those just trying to get by while having to fly under the radar, are much less likely to lose their rides and their investments.

It's not a perfect compromise, but it's one that takes reality into account. Rather than cookie cutter law and order stances which are based on simple logic and not on a view of a complex social reality.

The change doesn't solve the problem of undocumented workers, but it does attempt to avoid targeting that population for something the current law isn't designed to address in a focused manner, drunk driving and driving on suspended licenses without insurance. Guess who falls into the latter category more than most? People with DUI convictions.

I know it's hard for those of you who approach these matters with simple binary oppositional logic to wrap your minds around, but this is not just about drunk driving and warning drunk drivers where to not drive. If that were the case, there would be no need for this bill. There are other considerations of law and social justice involved. You may be willing to ignore those complications, in the name of simple "Law 'an Order, Get those drunks off the road!!!", but there are those of us not willing to be so reductive.

A valuable discussion, which has also been held here in the past, would be what is the best treatment for addiction in our society? The current one of criminalization? Or one that focuses on addiction as a medical disease. I know one thing for sure, the current strategy does not work. Check out the proposed new DSM V definition of addiction for an approach that might, if invested in for the long run (And good luck to us all for that!?) actually work.

[unclebillballadeer]

Adding 2 cents or so here, (only regarding the sub issue of immigrants not being able to legally drive). I've driven thousands of miles in Mexico (mostly), but also Centro America, always with a tourist visa, but my American/Californian DL was always a legal permit to drive on their roads (even commercially driving a (American) tour bus one time). It was always legally required to carry liability insurance, but could buy it with my foreign DL. I also drove cars in parts of Europe and the same sort of situation prevailed. OK, maybe that was 3 cents, but, food for thought...

[pbrinton]

Dixon, you disappoint me. I always think of you as a rational and logical person.

Probably, some if not all of these had their license taken away because of previous DUIs or other dangerous driving behavior. Thus busting them protects you and me.

You have no valid reason for making such an assumption. For one thing, only two were suspended (as opposed to simply not possessing a license) and you do not have any means of knowing what for. You are certainly not entitled to assume that it was probably for DUI or other dangerous driving.

Not only that, but occasional, unpredictable checkpoints presumably have a deterrent effect, making it a little less likely that people will drive drunk. Again, this protects you and me, regardless of whether this particular checkpoint busted anyone specifically for DUI.

I would not be so sure that checkpoints deter drunken driving. People go out in their cars, usually sober, then get drunk. At this point they make the decision as to whether or not to drive home in this condition. People make poor decision when drunk, and seldom think things through. I suspect the thought of a possible checkpoint would seldom even cross someone's mind in that condition. One of the effects of alcohol is to reduce the apparent risks of any given course of action.

If not checkpoints, how would you suggest the cops protect us from drunk drivers? Wait for them to kill someone, then imprison them? They could hang around outside bars and pull people over to check them out, but guess what--when they do that, people bitch and moan about it. So what's your plan for handling the threat of drunk driving?

Straw man. You should have ended this paragraph at the and of the first sentence.

Patrick Brinton

[Dixon]

Dixon, you disappoint me. I always think of you as a rational and logical person.

Ouch!

You have no valid reason for making such an assumption. For one thing, only two were suspended (as opposed to simply not possessing a license) and you do not have any means of knowing what for. You are certainly not entitled to assume that it was probably for DUI or other dangerous driving.

Wanna bet? According to this research report, most of those with suspended licenses got them suspended for driving-related issues, and those who got their licenses suspended for driving-related issues are quite a bit more likely than others to be involved in auto accidents! Thus, statistically, my assertion of probability was valid, supported by good research. And so, checkpoints that bust people for driving with suspended licenses are indeed protecting us, regardless of whether the 2 folks busted for that in this particular checkpoint had gotten their licenses suspended for driving unsafely.

I would not be so sure that checkpoints deter drunken driving. People go out in their cars, usually sober, then get drunk. At this point they make the decision as to whether or not to drive home in this condition. People make poor decision when drunk, and seldom think things through. I suspect the thought of a possible checkpoint would seldom even cross someone's mind in that condition. One of the effects of alcohol is to reduce the apparent risks of any given course of action.

I'm sure what you say is true in some instances. But consider: 1. For many, the point of intoxication at which their driving is impaired comes well before the point where their judgment is gone; these folks may decide not to drive in case of checkpoints. And 2. Even those whose judgment is gone due to intoxication have more sober friends who may insist they not drive because of the possibility of checkpoints.

Straw man. You should have ended this paragraph at the and of the first sentence.

Bullshit, Patrick! That paragraph of mine was not a straw man (I prefer the gender-neutral term "straw figure") argument, because I did not misrepresent dysbtwn's position. I didn't make any assertions about his or her position on the issue at hand ("...how would you suggest the cops protect us from drunk drivers?"). I simply asked him/her what their position was, and asked if it might be either of a couple of possibilities I mentioned. That's not the straw figure fallacy--but ironically, your assertion that it is might be!

[traindays]

Ouch!


Wanna bet? According to this research report, most of those with suspended licenses got them suspended for driving-related issues, and those who got their licenses suspended for driving-related issues are quite a bit more likely than others to be involved in auto accidents! Thus, statistically, my assertion of probability was valid, supported by good research. And so, checkpoints that bust people for driving with suspended licenses are indeed protecting us, regardless of whether the 2 folks busted for that in this particular checkpoint had gotten their licenses suspended for driving unsafely.


I'm sure what you say is true in some instances. But consider: 1. For many, the point of intoxication at which their driving is impaired comes well before the point where their judgment is gone; these folks may decide not to drive in case of checkpoints. And 2. Even those whose judgment is gone due to intoxication have more sober friends who may insist they not drive because of the possibility of checkpoints.


Bullshit, Patrick! That paragraph of mine was not a straw man (I prefer the gender-neutral term "straw figure") argument, because I did not misrepresent dysbtwn's position. I didn't make any assertions about his or her position on the issue at hand ("...how would you suggest the cops protect us from drunk drivers?"). I simply asked him/her what their position was, and asked if it might be either of a couple of possibilities I mentioned. That's not the straw figure fallacy--but ironically, your assertion that it is might be!

I believe we need to be more stringent with drunk drivers. Myself and a family member were almost killed by a guy (was not checked for drinking-in a diff state) who was on a suspended license. Looking at his past record, there's a DUI on there too. Our medical expenses are enormous, thank goodness the family member driving had excellent insurance to at least cover our injuries.

I knew two people who have been killed by drunk drivers.

I also was hit, while pregnant, by a guy who had a suspended license. Did his insurance pay for my injuries? No (because *duh* insurance isn't exactly working at that point) Thank God - as in case above, I had excellent insurance.

As a matter of fact, I pay a very high insurance rate monthly, and I am below the poverty level. Why? Because I don't trust drivers and I don't trust the law to make people who drive either 1. have insurance or have several DUI's to not be on the road, 2. If I ever accidentally hit someone, or we get hit - my child gets maimed, or I get maimed again - I want to make sure there is enough insurance available to take care of me and my family, because I cannot trust societies measures for providing that for me - even when these accidents are clearly the other parties' fault.

It is unfortunate that random sober checkpoints affect illegal immigrants so much - although, those driving - do they know how to drive?

I think checkpoints are probably a tiny fraction of dealing with drunk drivers in the first place...I suspect most would figure out (if they could) where they are and avoid them. That comes from talking with a regular bar-goer, and carpooling the other night with a sober driver - we wanted to avoid the traffic caused by the checkpoint.

I vote for doing whatever we can to avoid major physical injuries and deaths to humans as a result of drunk driving. I also believe those with a suspended license need to get off the road. I have no compassion for someone who can smash someone else's car, the persons inside, and have NO recourse as to helping those people with their medical needs or death.
(and I wish this were melodramatic...I believe the 3rd highest cause of death for teens is drunk driving)

[Barry]

October 10th, 2011 11:02am
Brown vetoes tougher DUI checkpoint rules
https://roadwarrior.blogs.pressdemoc...ckpoint-rules/

by Road.Warrior

Gov. Jerry Brown has vetoed a bill that would have set stricter rules for police in operating DUI checkpoints, including giving two hours notice of a checkpoint’s specific location.

The bill, AB1389, by Assemblyman Michael Allen, D-Santa Rosa, would have set uniform standards for how DUI checkpoints operate across the state, based on a 1987 state Supreme Court ruling, Ingersoll v. Palmer, that allowed the checkpoints if certain factors are met. Local checkpoints have been operated in accordance with the court’s ruling. But AB 1389 would have made some changes to local DUI checkpoints, including:

–Police would have had to provide at least 48 hours notice of the checkpoint’s general location and two hours notice of the specific location. Now, local police typically are as general as possible in giving the location, such as somewhere in Santa Rosa or somewhere in Sonoma County, and refuse to give a specific spot.

–Drivers who encounter a checkpoint could have avoided being stopped “by simply making a legal turn within the confines of the existing traffic laws.” Now, some drivers who turn away are stopped by officers.
In vetoing AB1389, Brown said, “While I understand there are concerns that sobriety checkpoints are being operated improperly, this bill is far too restrictive on local law enforcement.”

Brown, in his veto statement, singled out two aspects of the bill that he apparently had issue with: The 48-hour notice and a statement of preference for checkpoints to be conducted after dusk “even though fatal driving injuries involving drug use occur between 2 p.m. and 7 p.m.”

DUI checkpoints are a key issue for Sonoma County’s social activists because in addition to arresting a handful of DUI suspects at the checkpoints, police often arrest many more unlicensed drivers. Those suspects typically are illegal immigrants who are barred under state law from getting licenses, so their cars often get impounded. That’s why nearly every local DUI checkpoint has activists down the street with signs in Spanish warning of the checkpoints. Their hope is that illegal immigrants will turn away from the checkpoints before it’s too late.

Follow the Road Warrior on Twitter via @PDRoadWarrior

[Hotspring 44]

Brown vetoes tougher DUI checkpoint rules[/SIZE]
https://roadwarrior.blogs.pressdemoc...ckpoint-rules/

by Road.Warrior
...DUI checkpoints are a key issue for Sonoma County’s social activists because in addition to arresting a handful of DUI suspects at the checkpoints, police often arrest many more unlicensed drivers. Those suspects typically are illegal immigrants who are barred under state law from getting licenses, so their cars often get impounded. That’s why nearly every local DUI checkpoint has activists down the street with signs in Spanish warning of the checkpoints. Their hope is that illegal immigrants will turn away from the checkpoints before it’s too late.

Follow the Road Warrior on Twitter via @PDRoadWarrior

But Jerry Brown apparently singed AB353

..."Brown also signed a bill prohibiting police from arresting many unlicensed drivers and impounding their cars at drunken-driving checkpoints. Advocates for illegal immigrants backed the bill, AB353 by Assemblyman Gil Cedillo, D-Los Angeles, saying the immigrants are in a costly bind. They can't obtain driver's licenses, but must drive to support themselves, and were significantly impacted by the fees for impounded cars. Under the law, police cannot impound a car at a checkpoint if the only offense was driving without a license." "Citation, no arrest Officers must make a reasonable effort to contact the registered owner of the car, or a licensed driver authorized by the registered owner to pick up the car. Police may issue a citation for driving without a license but cannot arrest the driver. Mark Silverman, director of immigration policy at the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, said the law helps build trust between police and the immigrant community." The rest of that part of the article> https://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...LFFK4.DTL&ao=2