 |
 |
By JIM FREMGEN
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
It seems simple enough. Set uniform rules for the operation of DUI checkpoints by police statewide.
But AB 1389 by Assemblyman Michael Allen, D-Santa Rosa, is stirring controversy about his bill’s target, especially with his provision in the bill to require police to publicize the specific location of checkpoints at least two hours in advance.
DUI checkpoints have become a flashpoint among 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. Often their cars are impounded for 30 days.
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 illegals will turn away from the checkpoints before it’s too late.
Allen’s bill is getting attention:
– A front-page 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, noting Allen’s concerns of illegals having their cars impounded and losing their ability to get to work or elsewhere.
–A Press Democrat editorial Tuesday urged Gov. Jerry Brown to sign the bill, noting that illegals are most affected by checkpoints.
–And numerous readers of the Press Democrat’s Road Warrior blog have weighed in on Allen’s bill, many raising the issue of unlicensed illegal immigrants.
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. 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.
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.
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 decided advance notice wasn’t necessary as long as the DUI checkpoint met the rest of its guidelines in Ingersoll.
It’s clear from Allen’s past statements that at least part of his concern about checkpoints is over the unlicensed drivers.
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.”
Press Democrat News Editor Jim Fremgen authors the Road Warrior blog on pressdemocrat.com
—–O—–
Loading ...
Subscribe by Email
Follow us on Twitter
“If you are sober, licensed and insured then you shouldn’t care about going through DUI checkpoints or be worried about where they are located…why don’t we call them safety checkpoints instead…safe drivers are licensed, insured and sober.”
I assume you are fine with all your emails being read and published as well? If you’re not doing anything wrong no reason why the government can’t review, right?
In San Diego last month an officer on routine patrol had a driver flash his lights at him so the officer pulled over into the right lane thinking it was a motorist in trouble. The driver of the car took a shotgun and blew a hole in the officer head, he died the next day surrounded by family and friends.
I don’t think we often give enough consideration to those who wear the badge and uniform. Who put their lives at risk each and everyday just by wearing the uniform.
I think at heart Allen’s bill undermines the integrity of the uniform and puts all of us at risk.
I always love this type of BS. If you question if cops overstep their authority, bully, abuse (see YouTube for Seatle cop shooting of deaf man)and think they are over paid… suddenly you don’t respect cops.
Why are copys not respected like they were when I was growing up? Because they routinely show they aren’t worthy of that respect.
“. . . we have a constitution (4th amendment) that protects us from *illegal* search and seizure.”
The 4th Amendment does not say what you think it does. Before quoting the Constitution it’s always a good idea to read it.
And sadly, what’s legal is whatever the cops say is legal.
We can’t afford the overtime. End the Nazi check points, fire half the cops and make the remainder work on more pressing issues.
Worry about gang violence before illegals.
A Modest Proposal: A Drinking Driver Endorsement to licenses. If you can blow, say, 1.5 and pass the DMV driving test, then you are licensed to drink and drive up to a blood alcohol level of 1.5.
Thanks so much for asking me which way I’ll pay you to violate my rights.
Now I feel like I’ve been involved in the ‘community consensus’.
My government really is out for my safety and wellbeing.
.
Say these words in your best German or Russian accent…PAPERS PLEASE!!!!…
Checkpoints, and Allen’s bill, are equally stupid.
If you want to catch more drunks, or unlicensed drivers, there are for more efficient means.
http://www.the-signal.com/section/35/article/48693/
“A 2009 University of Maryland study found that checkpoints don’t have “any impact on public perceptions, driver behaviors or alcohol-related crashes, police citations for impaired driving, and public perceptions of alcohol-impaired driving risk.”
County police should employ roving — or saturation — patrols in which police patrol the roadways for dangerous drivers.
State Supreme Court cases from both Pennsylvania and New Hampshire revealed that roving patrols caught 10 times more drunk drivers than checkpoints.
According to the FBI, “It is proven that saturation efforts will bring more DUI arrests than sobriety checkpoints.”
Patrols also stop distracted, speeding, aggressive and drowsy drivers because officers can catch them in the act.”
Insurance myth. You are absolutely right. You’re CAR has to have it’s registration up to date. The DMV does not ask you to produce your driver’s license.
You can go online and buy insurance and not be asked for your driver’s license. You are buying insurance for your CAR.
Now, whether it will be valid in an accident if you were driving illegally without a license might be an issue. This I don’t know, though lots of people receive infractions when in an accident and insurance still pays.
@ Insurance Myth…
Please support your comment that “Every person irrespective of whether or not they have a California license CAN AND DO purchase auto insurance”
Guess you have never have been hit by an illegal alien driving without a license. I have. Luckily I PAID for UNINSURED MOTORIST insurance. Yep, I PAID for higher coverage because they don’t buy insurance. I know 4 people who didn’t buy uninsured motorist and they were out of luck when hit by an illegal driver without insurance.
Please support your statement that they do buy insurance.
To Mr. Johnson and all others who write without knowing or investigating what the real facts are: Every person irrespective of whether or not they have a California license can and do purchase auto insurance. Just listen to your local radio station ads or contact your local police officer to ask whether this is true.
Check your facts prior to writing.
Libertarian Progressive-just so you know, there have been checkpoints in the past. In the 1960′s and 1970′s I used to regularly drive through Guerneville. I often encountered a checkpoint. However, the difference was they were SAFETY CHECKPOINTS. Checking your equipment on your car and giving you fix it tickets if there were problems. So checkpoints aren’t new.
Of course, it cost money to repair the problem but once repaired there was no fine. Not a money maker for the cities or county.
No the dates, times and locations of checkpoints should not be announced.
The claim that the checkpoints unfairly target illegal immigrants driving illegally does not keep the focus on the true targets.
ANYONE DRIVING WITHOUT A LICENSE AND
ANYONE DRIVING WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE
PERIOD!
Is it not the law in all 50 states that you are required to have a valid driver’s license to operate a vehicle?
Is it not the law in all 50 states that you cannot operate a vehicle while under the influence of drugs or alcohol?
If you can’t get a license because you’re here illegally, then don’t use the checkpoints to fix that. Do what you need to do to become a legal resident of the state or country.
Why should you be able to put all others in harms way to fix your choice to live here illegally, drive a car, truck, or ? without a license and/or under the influence.
All of this is aimed at making illegal aliens legal to drive without a license or insurance.
Why is it a bad thing that drunks, illegal aliens and others with warrants are stopped and arrested at checkpoints? How are our “rights” violated?
The cops aren’t stopping people on the streets and searching them or arresting illegal aliens who are mowing lawns or washing dishes in California. This isn’t a police state although many on the left believe it is.
The more drunk drivers arrested, the more illegal alien drivers arrested and deported the better off our communities will be.
“. . . we have a constitution (4th amendment) that protects us from *illegal* search and seizure.”
The 4th Amendment does not say what you think it does. Before quoting the Constitution it’s always a good idea to read it.
To answer the headline…. NO!!!!!
@Dogs Rule
How would you have a rapist check point?? If there was a way to have all kinds of check points then there would be other money to be made.
DUI check points are a slippery slope. DUI driving is awful and should be stopped, however we have a constitution (4th amendment) that protects us from illegal search and seizure.
Checkpoints within US borders should be unconstitutional for any reason.
Where is this going to stop, should I produce papers and submit to a breath test when I am walking down the street or leaving a restaurant (public drunkeness is a crime too) it gives the police and the govt. way too much power over are everyday lives.
This is all about the $$$$ DUI checkpoints don’t work and the police get overtime to pad their pensions before retirement the city gets money from fees, etc. etc.
When are the feel-good, do-gooder liberals going to wake up and grow a brain.
I know I will take crap over this posting but being delayed and stopped for no reason and then asked to prove my innocence does not make me feel like like I live in the “home of of the brave and the land of the FREE!!!!!
jimmy
ps this is from Wikipedia -
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
This was written by Franklin, with quotation marks but almost certainly his original thought, sometime shortly before February 17, 1775 as part of his notes for a proposition at the Pennsylvania Assembly, as published in Memoirs of the life and writings of Benjamin Franklin (1818).
Oh, I see it passed. Isn’t that special.
Thanks to our liberal hotbed known as CA Lee For Ne ah, we’ll never get anything blocked or stopped that these liberal “progressives” that are putting forth. And I doubt that we’ll ever see a Republican governor again. The last one we had was a RINO. A liar and a deceiver in his own marriage and in the statehouse as well.
@ Anti-Checkpointers
Just because you think you know how to “drive buzzed”,don’t expect the rest of us to be o.k. with giving you free reign to put others at risk.
Jim, good points, but other than the 8′ limit on “good neighbor” fences, those things you listed are part and parcel of the liberal nanny state we’ve got goin’ for us. That’s why “they” don’t complain about those things, because they were born out of liberalism, which is a mental disorder.
It doesn’t make a bit of sense to warn about where and when a DUI checkpoint will be set up, if we are really and truly trying to get drivers who are over the legal limit off the road, and that includes drivers who are driving without a license and insurance. Neither should be on the road putting everyone else at risk.
Excellent points Reality Check!
No Jim, don’t submit any more….ya really TICKED me off with what ya already wrote…. Oh, I’m not ticked at YOU, I’m ticked at the reality of what you wrote.
If cops are really interested in keeping our roads safer why don’t they get their political pushers to draft a bill to impound drunken drivers vehicles for 30 days.
My brother was almost killed by a drunk driver – and now requires 24 hour care.
Don’t you dare publicize them. If you’re not driving drunk, you have nothing to worry about.
If you are, then I am for any means possible to get you off the road, before you hurt or kill someone else I love.
Are the truck inspection stations in California a threat to civil liberty or a legitimate function of government to protect public safety? If it’s unreasonable to inconvenience motorists, why shouldn’t the same apply to truckers. They have rights too.
The Constitution protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures. Does verifying that someone is properly licensed and insured to use public highways, and sober, violate the Fourth Amendment? I know of no court ruling to supports such a view.
As far as public notification that enforcement of the law lies ahead, hmm, should we post a sigh outside a bank when a police officer is inside? After all, we sure want to give law breakers a heads up, no!?
If you are sober, licensed and insured then you shouldn’t care about going through DUI checkpoints or be worried about where they are located…why don’t we call them safety checkpoints instead…safe drivers are licensed, insured and sober.
DUI check points are profit centers for the state and nothing more. That’s why there aren’t any rapist check points. No money in crimes like that.
No.
In San Diego last month an officer on routine patrol had a driver flash his lights at him so the officer pulled over into the right lane thinking it was a motorist in trouble. The driver of the car took a shotgun and blew a hole in the officer head, he died the next day surrounded by family and friends.
I don’t think we often give enough consideration to those who wear the badge and uniform. Who put their lives at risk each and everyday just by wearing the uniform.
I think at heart Allen’s bill undermines the integrity of the uniform and puts all of us at risk.
It is interesting that people are so outraged at the “police state” and attack on “free citizenry” that stems from these checkpoints but…
– there is NO mention of the invasion into your freedom when you want to put up a fence higher than 8ft on YOUR OWN PROPERTY (not while using the privilege of driving on PUBLIC STREETS)…
– or when a totally appointed group of nobodies called the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) fines you for heating YOUR house with wood…
– or when public schools TAKE the lunch you packed for YOUR kids because the SCHOOL thinks it isn’t what YOUR kid should eat…
Shall I continue?
Should DUI checkpoints be publicized in advance?
NO!
They should have to circulate a petition & get a representative number of signatures BEFORE they set one up AND do it each time.
…just in case we change our minds.
Of course they should announce the location of checkpoints. The police are just too mean.
While we’re at it, we should replace their Glocks with squirt guns, their handcuffs with Silly String, and make them exchange their polluting police cars for eco-friendly bicycles.
It would be so much funner, and we would finally have the kind of police the voters of Sonoma County deserve.
Bravo PD, job well done, finally fighting for the liberal majority you serve in Sonoma County.
Allen’s bill is controversial but most great pieces of legislation begin as such, most civil liberties cases don’t come easily, change is hard but its often right.
Making sure that checkpoints are in high risk areas of town means that the frequency in catching drunk drivers will be greater, that should be all that matters. And knowing a few people who have been arrested for DUI, all 4 of them have been caught outside of a checkpoint, I have the faith in the extensive training we give our police personnel to recognize the signs of drunk driving in the “lower” risk areas of town.
P.s. Drunk people aren’t going to look up locations, drunk people are stupid, they do stupid things, driving drunk is a stupid thing.
The DUI checkpoints shouldn’t be published beforehand. Should police publicize when they are going to execute a search warrant?
So you are driving down some road and end up in a checkpoint. They ask you if you’ve been drinking. Hand you that stupid card about DUIs and you drive on. I don’t understand why people make a big deal about them besides the pro-illegal alien group. That’s a whole other topic.
Thank you, Michael Allen, for having the guts to finally put the checkpoints on the table for closer inspection. The ever growing number of checkpoints that we are compelled to submit to as we go about our daily lives is an affront to a free citizenry. The fact that younger people accept this as a fact of life shows how far we have gone down the road to a high-tech police state. When I was growing up back in the sixties, we would have been shocked to be forced into a mandatory checkpoint. That’s the kind of thing that they would do in East Berlin under the Stasi. Now we are expected to just bend over and take it. That’s not the America I grew up in.