LANCASTER – No one was arrested for driving under the influence, but eight people were cited for license violations at a DUI checkpoint in Lancaster Friday night and early Saturday morning, authorities said.
The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department conducted the checkpoint from 6 p.m. Friday, June 10, to 2 a.m. Saturday, June 11, near the intersection of Avenue J and Genoa Avenue, according to a news release from the Sheriff’s Information Bureau.
The results of the checkpoint are as follows:
- 952 vehicles were contacted at the checkpoint.
- Six motorists were cited for driving without a license.
- Two motorists were cited for driving with a suspended/revoked license.
Sheriff’s officials said the primary purpose of DUI checkpoints is to promote public safety by taking suspected impaired drivers off roads. Checkpoint locations are chosen based on reported incidents of impaired driving-related crashes, according to the sheriff’s department.
Funding for this checkpoint was provided by a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety, through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
27 comments for "Multiple drivers cited, none for DUI at Lancaster checkpoint"
HERE’S THE REASON WHY BOOZE IS SO EASILY EVERYWHERE –
AND WHY THE GOVERNMENT DOESN’T WANT TO CURTAIL DRINKING…
NO MATTER HOW HARMFUL AND DEADLY IT IS…
BOOZE IS EASY TO MAKE AND CHEAP…
IT COSTS SO MUCH NOW AND IS AVAILABLE EVEYWHERE BECAUSE…
THE GOVERNMENT TAXES THE HECK OUT OF IT…
WHICH MAKES THE GOVERNMENT FULL PARTNERS WITH THE BOOZE COMPANIES…
– HOW TO STOP DRUNK DRIVING –
USE AN UNDERCOVER CAR OR VAN AND STAKE OUT BUSINESSES THAT SELL BOOZE LIKE:
RESTAURANTS WITH BARS…
BANQUET HALLS FOR WEDDINGS…
WHEN A DRUNK IS REPORTED LEAVING A SQUAD CAR PULLS THEM OVER AND ARRESTS THEM PUTTING THEM ALL IN A HOLDING BUS…
TAKING AWAY THEIR PHONES SO THEY CAN’T WARN THE BEER JOINT OR BANQUET HALL…
THEY CAN MAKE THEIR ONE CALL FROM THE STATION AFTER THEY ARE BOOKED…
ANOTHER OFFICER THEN GOES DIRECTLY TO THE BUSINESS THAT SERVED THE DRUNKS AND ARRESTS THE BARTENDERS…
FINE AND CLOSE THE BUSINESS AS A PUBLIC NUISANCE…
THEY’LL NEVER DO THIS HOWEVER…
GEE, I WONDER WHY..?
DO YOU TOO..?
Police have to have probable cause to arrest for DUI, which means they have to see behavior that would lead them to believe someone might be under the influence, not just “when a drunk is reported.” Bar tenders or owners can’t just arrested on the spot. There has to be an investigation that shows they knew the person was inebriated. The same goes for “fine and close the business.” There’s a little Constitutional thing called due process involved.
Tim Scott says
Dave, what ACE suggested here actually would work. A cop sitting in the parking lot of a bar has plenty of opportunity to witness events that provide probable cause. Someone stumbling on their way to their car, someone displaying poor control while backing out of their parking space, etc. So that part is easy.
As to the business, yeah that would require a cop inside, but again it would be pretty easy to get probable cause. California Business and Professions Code 220.127.116.11602(a)
“Every person who sells, furnishes, gives, or causes to be sold, furnished, or given away, any alcoholic beverage to any habitual or common drunkard or to any obviously intoxicated person is guilty of a misdemeanor.”
It might take a few enforcement runs to force a closure, but there’s definitely immediate fines possible there.
These things aren’t done because “protect our businesses” is far more politically expedient than protecting people from drunk drivers. Sham checkpoints set up where drunks don’t go so the cops can convert federal grant money into general fund fines is what we get instead.
I never said it wouldn’t work. It does work, but not in the manner that Ace suggested. It’s much more complicated than just “git ‘er done!” And there are a whole panoply of methods, which should work together. As to your final paragraph, that’s unproven political view, not a fact. Plus, those federal grant monies are tracked carefully, to insure they are spent only on checkpoint-related expenditures, and don’t make their way into general funds.
That tracking is the point Dave. Spend the grant as directed, and use the checkpoint to generate a bunch of fines. Those fines feed the general fund. Impounded cars feed the cop fund. Shifting earmarked money into more free spending pockets.
Tell me, ‘t’, how do impounded vehicles ‘feed the cop fund,’ specifically? Also, what is, ‘the cop fund,’ as you put it?
Your suggestion would not “stop” drunk driving. There’s not enough cops in the country to sit and wait for all the drunks to walk out of all the bars and catch them. And that does account for all those who drink at home or at parties. We have dropped the DUI death rate by more than 60 percent in the last 40 years by a combination of enforcement and education.
DUI Checkpoints vs. Patrols – two different tactics with two different expected outcomes. Patrols are meant to catch active drunks, get them off the streets and prosecute them. Checkpoints are highly visible, highly publicized events meant to deter drinking and driving in the first place.
Patrols have little deterrent value, but high enforcement value. Checkpoints have been shown to have the potential to lower DUI fatality rates by up to 26 percent by virtue of their deterrence. People go through them, drive past them, hear about them via multiple grapevines and get the ongoing impression that drunk driving is dangerous, socially unacceptable, and that law enforcement is actively looking for it.
They are both good tactics and both should be in the arsenal of DUI combating tactics, along with others. In terms of catching drunks, nothing beats patrols. In terms of saving lives, nothing beats checkpoints.
Tim Scott says
I don’t think I said it would “stop drunk driving.” I think it would potentially beat patrols as far as enforcement goes, and I think it would be a more effective deterrent than the sham checkpoints. Once word got around that the cops were looking for drunks at bars, where they are far more likely to find them, instead of checkpoints where they are really just looking to generate fines, the drunk drivers would really have something to consider.
As to dropping the DUI death rate over the last 40 years, there’s lies, there’s damn lies, and there’s statistics. In this case the statistic you are citing is very likely due more to improvements in cars than it is due to any law enforcement action.
I wasn’t aiming that comment at you, but ACE, who did say just that. For more than 20 years studies have been done comparing checkpoints to all other forms of enforcement. The aggregate averages out to a 26% drop in fatalities from DUI at-fault crashes after a well-publicized series of checkpoints. Regarding the DUI fatality rate overall, the stats reflect DUI at-fault crashes as proportion of all crashes. All crashes would benefit from vehicle improvements, so any significant change in any one segment is due to some other factor. The primary change in DUI is higher enforcement and vastly increased education, leading to more people choosing not to drive under the influence.
Tim Scott says
Fair. I think the ambiguity of the word “stop” is a complication. If one person chooses not to take the risk then we “stopped drunk driving.” It doesn’t mean “there is no more drunk driving in that case, but if there were really no more drunk driving we would still say we “stopped drunk driving.”
Good to see you include education, because (being me) I am loathe to credit enforcement, but I’ll accept your numbers for the moment. I still think that enforcement/publicized efforts that were targeted more on the source would be more effective, and ACE has a valid suggestion for methodology…which will never be instituted because the “down low” on checkpoints is that they generate too much tax revenue from the poorest for the richest to ever stop supporting them, and as I said protecting businesses, even businesses in the business of killing the citizens, have to be protected.
Tim Scott says
Hmmm. Waiting moderation.
Good talk Dave.
Tim, a tip of the hat back. As you mentioned you being you, part of me being me is not letting something be the last word that can be corrected.
Your comments on revenue could use some foundational facts. The police normally get little and often nothing from the tickets they write. Cities get a little, counties get some, the courts get a pretty big share for building, operating and security, emergency medical services get some for cleaning up after crashes, the State gets some, there is some for getting DNA samples from those in jail, and the list goes on. Only the smallest jurisdictions sometimes try to rely on income from traffic fines. I’ve been subject to that myself.
If one really wants to protest the cost of a ticket, there is a foolproof way to do it, to thwart their evil, money grubbing intentions. Just don’t break the laws! No violation, no ticket, no revenue generated to the government! What could be simpler? Done deal. Starve them with compliance.
America's Most Puffed-Up Pedant says
Wow, hat tipping. Very cool. Class acts, both. I’d tip my hat to you two, if I could only find it. My red MAGA hat (just kidding, I don’t have one).
LET’S ALL NEVER FORGET…
IN NAZI GERMANY…
IT WAS THE GERMAN POLICE THAT ROUNDED UP JEWS, GYPSIES, COMMUNISTS, HOMOSEXUALS AND
FOR CROWDED, DRAFTY, CATTLE CAR TRAIN RIDES TO RE-SETTLE THEM ALL IN THE EAST…
WHERE THEY WOULD BE SAFE FROM PERSECUTION BY THOSE THAT LOVED THEIR FUHRER, THE FATHERLAND AND WANTED ORDER…
THE NAZI COPS WERE TERRIBLY EFFECTIVE IN FIGHTING CRIME AS WELL AS ARRESTING ENEMIES OF THE STATE…
Tim Scott says
Well chosen location. Managed to fund raise without any adverse impact on alcohol sales.
DO THE COPS CALL AHEAD..?
TO THE DONUT SHOP NEAREST THEIR NIGHT LONG DUI ROAD BLOCKS..?
TO MAKE SURE THEY’LL HAVE ENOUGH DONUTS ON HAND..?
STOP FOR POLICE ROADBLOCK AHEAD..!
VAIR ARE YOUR P-A-P-E-R-S..?
ZEEZ ARE YOUR PAPERS..?
VAIR DID YOU GET ZEEZ PAPERS..?
VEE HAFT VAYS UFT MAKING YOU TALK..!
When people complain about checkpoints, calling them Nazi or Soviet tactics, they are forgetting one thing. When those regimes “asked for papers,” that meant show me your state-issued internal passport that often said who you were, what job you had, where you were allowed to travel too, what restrictions on your movements had been placed on you, what religion you were. If you were someplace you weren’t supposed to be, you got arrested. At DUI checkpoints, they ask for your drivers license, which you must have to operate the vehicle you are driving. And they check to see if you show signs of impairment. That is vastly different than Nazi or Soviet “show me your papers,” shows a lack of understanding of history as well as demeans what the citizens of Germany and the Soviet Union went through.
Tim Scott says
Those regimes came to power on paths laid clear before them by their apologists among the citizens.
I trust you aren’t equating the use of DUI checkpoints with the horrors of the Third Reich. Don’t even try to use any “slippery slope” contention, since checkpoints have been used, legally and with many restrictions, for more than 30 years. In fact, there are more restrictions now than ever before.
Tim Scott says
But I am pointing out that the people get the government they deserve. The German electorate CHOSE Hitler. It may have been a choice made under influence of disinformation, and they certainly suffered for it so I bear them no ill will, but they aren’t innocent victims.
We have our own significant fraction of people divorced from reality who would happily elect charlatans that would unwind all those restrictions in the name of “law and order.”
“We have our own significant fraction of people divorced from reality who would happily elect charlatans that would unwind all those restrictions in the name of “law and order.”
Standard protocol to pool anything that is hitler with DrUmpH…
Gee, Sonya, it is odd that you presume that Tim is referring to your dear leader when the name wasn’t mentioned or even alluded to. That’s probably because you already KNOW what he is, yet you support him, anyways.
Stinker lays another warm steamer.
No, Sonya – just pointing yours out.