The Antelope Valley Times

Your community. Your issues. Your news.

One arrested for DUI at Palmdale checkpoint

by •

PALMDALE – One motorist was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol and several motorists were arrested for license violations at a DUI/driver’s license checkpoint in Palmdale Friday night and early Saturday morning, authorities said.

The checkpoint was conducted in the the westbound lanes of East Palmdale Boulevard at 5th Street East, between the hours of 6 p.m. Friday, July 6, and 2 a.m. Saturday, July 7, according to a news release from the Sheriff’s Information Bureau.

The results of the checkpoint are as follows:

* 1217 vehicles traveled through the checkpoint.

* One DUI – alcohol suspect was arrested.

* 13 drivers were cited/ arrested for operating a vehicle unlicensed or while suspended/revoked.

* 14 citations were issued.

* Eight vehicles released per DUI/CDL checkpoint release procedures.

The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department will be conducting additional DUI/driver’s license checkpoints and DUI saturation patrols throughout the year as part of an ongoing commitment to lowering deaths and injuries upon streets and highways.

Funding for these operations is provided by a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

–

38 comments for "One arrested for DUI at Palmdale checkpoint"

  1. Traffic ticket revenue. No gentle way of putting it, these East-German style checkpoints have nothing whatsoever to do, with sobriety, much less safety. And, everybody knows it.

    • Have you been through the checkpoints of east germany?
      Are you mad that 14 people breaking the law,got caught?

  2. Do u all know about THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL AND FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT read the Constitution they cannot legally have check points freedom of movement without being incombered this also is not a stop and id state

    • Chiming in… your argument is invalid.
      You still have the right to travel freely between states in this wonderful country. You are not allowed to drive intoxicated in any state of this country.

  3. Every time there is a notice for a sobriety checkpoint, people complain that it is a Fourth Amendment violation. Well, the U.S. Supreme Court found in the case of The Department of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S., 444 (190) that DUI checkpoints do not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, and sobriety checkpoints outweighed the Constitutions rights of the individuals freedom. The California Supreme Court put forward the best safeguards required for the sobriety checkpoint to comply with the Constitution- Ingersoll v. Palmer, 743 P.2d 1299 (Cal.1987). There are states that don’t agree with the interpretation, but California complies. Get an app so you can avoid the checkpoints, then maybe you won’t complain. You’re welcome.

    • You don’t understand, Alexis. People just LOvE to complain, complain, complain. If they aren’t writing or speaking their complaints, nearly all their thoughts are complaints.

      Now, it’s appropriate to complain to someone who can fix the problem rather than kvetching here, there and everwhere. Contact their elected representatives. Readers here on the Times site can’t do anything about checkpoints.

      Nah, they’d rather complain here like it does some good. Year in. Year out. Same with fireworks.

      If complaining here got it off their chests, once would do but it’s likely they do it whenever they can. Like broken records. (Records were round disks on which music was played in the last century. If they got scratched, the same passage would repeat endlessly…..like their complaints.)

    • You are missing the point.

      I wouldn’t care about an actual “sobriety checkpoint.” I don’t drink and drive, so it wouldn’t matter to me personally. I also happen to agree with the basis of the supreme court decision; that the societal benefit of removing impaired drivers outweighs a minor infringement of the fourth amendment.

      My complaint is, was, and always will be, that these are NOT sobriety checkpoints. Law enforcement personnel have perverted them into a general fund raiser opportunity. Nowhere in the supreme court’s decision do they say “and the societal benefits of impounding cars and collecting fines also outweighs a minor infringement of the fourth amendment, so soviet style ‘papers please’ checkpoints would be okay as well.”

      My larger complaint though doesn’t have anything to do with law enforcement personnel. I expect them to be jackbooted thugs any time they are given the opportunity, so their behavior in this matter is nothing surprising. My biggest complaint is with the people who excuse their behavior, yet expect that the constitutional rights that they are willing to see eroded as long as it only affects someone else will somehow be protected when it is their own case. If you won’t fight for someone else’s rights you don’t deserve your own.

        • Just think how many criminals would probably be caught if the LASD were allowed to go door to door doing no warrant searches at every house! Just think how many crimes would be prevented if law enforcement only had a camera in every room in every house in the city!

          Obviously these are more extreme violations, but it is the same principle. Every person stopped at a “sobriety” checkpoint is having the rights they are guaranteed by the US constitution violated, not just the handful of “criminals.” The supreme court has determined that the cost of this widespread violation is worth the benefit; removing impaired drivers. But, if the intention is something OTHER than the removal of impaired drivers the justification is lost, and all those people who are having their rights violated have a valid complaint that they should press, and press hard.

          • Just think how many Fourth Amendment rights of individuals were and are violated by Obama signing a renewal of the Patriot Act, allowing roaming wiretaps. Just think, just think, just think. Are you a “lone wolf?” The government can justify whatever they want under any administration. So stay paranoid with all your “just think” scenarios.

          • I love the Constitution. It is a sacred document. Unfortunately it gives racist groups like the Antelope Valley Viice a platform. Plus their ex con gets to own a gun. I wouldn’t change the Constitution, but I would be aware.

      • I’m not missing the point at all. The point is that in California checkpoints are legal, period. I don’t have control over what the Supreme Court decides, and I don’t have control over what the California Supreme Court decides. I also don’t have control over cars being impounded for revenue. I’m not in control of anything except how I conduct myself on the pilgrimage to my destination. There are millions of people that are fighting, including you. In case you haven’t noticed corruption and erosion permeate this society. You’re not happy with the politicians in Palmdale, Rex Parris is always on your mind, jack-booted thugs all around, and on and on. Your choice to be angry with everything and then die. You don’t fight battles in the comments section with just words.

        • What makes you think this is my only venue? Or that carrying the fight in other venues means that this one should be ignored?

          Yes, finding the right lawyer to challenge the way LASD implements their “sobriety” checkpoints on behalf of the right plaintiffs would be more productive, but until I latch on to that situation this is as good a place to mine for those people as any.

      • I wonder how you feel about The Patriot Act. Wiretapping without probable cause is a lot sneakier, than the in your face checkpoints. So are you manning the checkpoints, fighting for those that are having their cars impounded, or are you just complaining about it?

  4. Last time I went through a check point I noticed a huge electric sign CHECK POINT ahead, and at least one opportunity to make an easy right turn beforehand. If you didn’t see this, maybe you went through with the sheep….

  5. Soviet style checkpoints, brought to you in conjunction by the over-bloated bureaucracies of the Michael D. Antonovich Superior Court and the LASD, keeping tabs on your comings and goings, making opportunity for a grab at your assets, and a chunk of your disposable income.

  6. “Papers please”
    Hand over my license, cause I am who I am. Hand over registration and proof of insurance. Because I am law abiding.
    “Have a great evening sir”
    The secret to not getting questioned more… act calm and collected, be polite, have your car in good order, no smell of marijuana, no booze, not loopy on pills, not exhausted (that last one could be an issue from time to time)

    • The “papers please” is where the line gets crossed. The supreme court has ruled that the benefits of getting impaired drivers off the road outweigh the violation of your right to not be investigated when there has been no indication that you are anything other than the law abiding citizen that you talk about being. So, pull people over, en masse, and remove those who are impaired; societal good, minimal violation of constitutional rights.

      But, law enforcement has taken the opportunity to say “well, as long as we are pulling people over to see if they are impaired, let’s create a situation where we can ‘just happen to observe’ other crimes being committed.” That’s where the intent of the court’s ruling is exceeded.

      Of course, plenty of people just don’t care. They are the people who would invariably trade their liberty for security; who deserve neither and will lose both.

  7. No room for argument, make no mistake, no two ways about it, grander scheme of these checkpoints are a blatant, wanton, reckless incursion, into our 4th amendment guarantee. But, zoom down to rank and file direct operating level at the LASD, these checkpoints merely constitute a form of on-the-job entertainment. A slap in the face of our Founding Fathers, LASD pulls these Soviet style checkpoints stunts, for their amusement and merriment.

    • @Roger…Except you’re wrong. Checkpoints are an exception to the search and seizure provisions of the U.S. Constitution. Subsequently the NHSTB has issued guidelines for police when administering a sobriety checkpoint. Police following those guidelines is another matter, and that’s why there are lawyers that specialize in this matter. Always a lawyer that specializes in something.

      • He calls it a “blatant, wanton, reckless incursion,” and you call it an “exception.” I don’t see how you can agree with him while calling him “wrong.”

        The fact is that these checkpoints ARE in conflict with the guarantees of the fourth amendment. You may think that such a violation is “justifiable,” but that doesn’t make it suddenly not exist. Roger apparently disagrees with the justification.

        I personally find the justification reasonable, but the consequences predictable. As soon as law enforcement is given the opportunity to violate rights “under certain circumstances” they invariably exploit the situation and try to destroy civil rights as widely as possible.

        • He is wrong. I don’t call it an exception, the Supreme Court does. Sobriety checkpoints are an exception to the search and seizure provisions of the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the “degree of intrusion” of sobriety checkpoints are outweighed by the dangers of drunk driving. You and Roger can disagree with the Supreme Court decisions all you want, and you and Roger can disagree with the State Constitution, that says it is legal. I, on the other hand will submit, because it is legal. I choose not to complain every time a checkpoint is set up. This is a minor intrusion for me, but apparently for you and many others it is a “blatant, wanton, reckless incursion. Woe is you, and the horrors of life.

          • Checkpoints are NOT conducted in Texas or Idaho. They are considered illegal under their interpretation of federal Constitution. They agree with you, and they are red states. Oh, the horror of it all, right?

        • Texas prohibits checkpoints. Is that state better for you? You frequently tell other commenters that if they don’t like the state laws they can move to Kansas, or some other place. I would like you to stay, but if you’re so unhappy with the state of things here, maybe you should consider other options.

  8. Too bad Rexie can’t help him out like he has for others he controls. Problem is, once Rexie bails you out, he owns you and makes you do his dirty work like character smearing.

      • Did Rexie get you out of a DUI Ale..Ale…Ale…Lexie? Does he own you too? I ho ho hope not.

        • No, Mr. Brooks, he doesn’t own me. I don’t like him, and I’m not for sale. Sending love your way, Mr. Brooks.

          • Well that goo goo good Ale Ale Ale Lexie. Rexie owns a lot of people in this tow tow tow city.

    • She didn’t put together the state Constitution. If you feel so strongly about the Soviet style checkpoints, then move to a state that does not have them.

      • I’d be interested in a citation of where in the state constitution this is covered. AFAIK the applicable law is the vehicle code, not the constitution. I’ve let Alexis slide on this, but since you want to jump in pay the freight.

        • It’s very simple, Tim. What she has tried to get through to you is not registering. In many states, the judiciary has stepped in to uphold or restrict sobriety checkpoints based on interpretation of state or federal Constitutions. In California, checkpoints are conducted annually. Their legality is upheld under state and federal Constitution. It doesn’t take a genius to find this out. Now I have stepped in to back up what is a Constitutional issue. You keep screaming 4th Amendment violation (Constitution), so I suggest you do your own homework. Maybe you and Theresa can share the cost of moving to a state that doesn’t have checkpoints, and you will have one less thing to cry about.

        • So back it up, “Putin.” I can tell you the section numbers that apply from the VEHICLE CODE. Since YOU claim that it is covered in the state constitution how about you cough up a section number? Or choke to death on it, if you’d rather. I’m good with either one.

  10. … it is high time you people cease and desist referring to them, as DUI checkpoints, and start calling them what they indeed really are. The greatest nuisance in the history of law enforcement, your Founding Father’s 4th amendment to the constitution. Crafted for the specific purpose of winnowing away and atritting your Founding Father’s 4th amendment guarantee, make no mistake, they are not DUI checkpoints. They never were. They’re 4th amendment checkpoints. And, they know it –

    • Calling a spade a spade, it should otherwise be called exactly what it is: a 4th amendment shakedown. And, we’re the ones who have to pay for it.