View Mobile Site
 

Ask the Expert

Signal Photos

UPDATE: Santa Clarita checkpoints net 14 arrests

Posted: February 22, 2014 1:16 p.m.
Updated: February 22, 2014 1:16 p.m.
 

A pair of checkpoints to check for those who may be unlicensed or driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol resulted in 14 arrests on Friday night, according to the Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff’s Station.

Friday’s checkpoints were conducted at Bouquet Canyon Road at Wellston Drive in Saugus and Whites Canyon Road at Delight Street in Canyon Country from 6 p.m. to 2 a.m., according to a news release from the Sheriff’s Station.

“These checkpoints were two of the many that have been or will be conducted throughout the year in the city of Santa Clarita,” the news release reads.

During the checkpoints, two people were arrested for DUI and another was arrested on suspicion of illegal possession of narcotics.

Another person was arrested for driving a vehicle not equipped with an ignition interlock device as is required by law and another was arrested on a $40,000 traffic warrant and sent to court, according to the news release.

Four people with licenses that had been suspended or revoked were arrested and sent to court and five unlicensed drivers were arrested and sent to court, according to the news release.

Additionally, three vehicles were impounded for 30 days and two others were stored for one day.

According to the news release, a major component of checkpoints is the deterrent effect it has on those who might drive while under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

Comments

stray: Posted: February 22, 2014 2:14 p.m.

Wow - good job! Hope the Sheriffs enjoyed all that overtime! Best of all, 14 imbeciles were removed from the roads! Losers!


ohhyaa: Posted: February 22, 2014 2:38 p.m.

My curiosity is so piqued by what "unlicensed driver" is all about. I assume this would be with a driver's permit but without an adult in the passenger seat or perhaps unlawful alien???


stray: Posted: February 22, 2014 2:47 p.m.

@ohhyaa -

Here ya go....

http://www.shouselaw.com/12500.html


ohhyaa: Posted: February 22, 2014 3:19 p.m.

Thanks Stray. I'm going to venture a guess and say most likely item #5. It makes the most sense and might even explain the 30 day impound on 3 vehicles. Perhaps some expired Resident Aliens Cards?


DMeyer: Posted: February 22, 2014 3:30 p.m.

Great job out there deputies! Big success!


joe91381: Posted: February 22, 2014 6:30 p.m.

Great job deputies!!!!!!!


chefgirl358: Posted: February 22, 2014 6:42 p.m.

Ohhyaa unlicensed drivers can be illegal aliens, underage kids, or anyone who doesn't have a valid current CDL. This does not include suspended or revoked licenses, but people who have either never been issued a license or who gave not kept it current, as in let it expire.


ricketzz: Posted: February 23, 2014 7:09 a.m.

It has a deterrent effect on people who would otherwise be shopping or dining or visiting at night, but are terrified of interacting with Imperial Storm Troopers.


garyr: Posted: February 23, 2014 11:29 a.m.

"Another person was arrested for driving a vehicle not equipped with an ignition interlock device as is required by law"

Whatever this is I'm sure my neighbour’s Model T does not have one nor do many cars older that - what - 1970?


oldman: Posted: February 23, 2014 11:44 a.m.

An ignition interlock device is required for some convicted of DUI.
The IID can be installed in a vehicle while you wait and after installation, it requires your breath sample before the engine will start. If the IID detects alcohol on your breath, the engine will not start. As you drive, you are periodically required to provide breath samples to ensure the continued absence of alcohol in your system.
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/brochures/fast_facts/ffdl31.htm


stevehw: Posted: February 23, 2014 2:00 p.m.

2 DUI arrests. Out of how many stopped? If they stopped what they usually do at one checkpoint, that'd be over 2,000 vehicles stopped and 1980+ innocent people harassed.

I thought these were about DUIs, not about other offenses, anyway?


garyr: Posted: February 23, 2014 3:02 p.m.

Ah. I was thinking it was the column lock where you can't turn the wheels without turning the key. So it's part of a contract you make when convicted of a DUI so they don't yank your license? Fair enough. Must be odd not to able to drive a friends car or rent a u-haul if you need to move, but a deal's a deal. Break a deal, face the wheel as they say.


Rick54: Posted: February 24, 2014 7:12 a.m.

Great work deputies! Maybe saved someone from being maimed or killed.


bobforte: Posted: February 24, 2014 8:49 a.m.

Very misleading headline. I doubt the unlicensed and suspended licensed drivers were actually arrested. They were most likely issued citations because nothing is showing up in the Sheriff's arrest log for these people.


boneshark: Posted: February 24, 2014 9:29 a.m.

@stevehw: The Signal's smart phone edition listed over 2,700 vehicles as being screened in these two checkpoints. That an effective rate of .00074% for the DUI arrests. And I'm curious just how many of these people had to go through both checkpoints. Because if you were heading from Canyon Country to Saugus via the White Canyon/Plum Canyon route (or vice versa), then you probably got stuck in both. Talk about feeling like you're living in a police state!

And from my understanding of the DUI checkpoint guidelines, one of these checkpoints appears to have been in violation of those guidelines. Under the guidelines established by the SCOTUS, public announcements must be made prior to any checkpoint being set up. So unless I missed it, I saw an announcement stating that there would be "A" DUI checkpoint on Friday night. There was no announcement stating there would be two checkpoints, putting one of the checkpoints in violation of the SCOTUS guidelines. And by not following the guidelines, anyone arrested MAY be able to have charges dropped because of this violation. Did anyone see a mention in any of the local papers that there were going to be TWO checkpoints on Friday night?


stevehw: Posted: February 24, 2014 9:55 a.m.

boneshark is right...the original announcement said:

"The Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff’s Station will conduct *****a***** checkpoint Friday evening to get drunken or unlicensed drivers off the road.

*****The***** checkpoint will run 6 p.m. Friday to 1:30 a.m. Saturday inside Santa Clarita city boundaries, but *****its***** exact location was not revealed."

A. The. Its. All singular, meaning one checkpoint. If I were one of the arrestees, I'd bring this to my attorney's attention.

"Great work deputies! Maybe saved someone from being maimed or killed. "

Then again, maybe not. There's no way of knowing this. Was the person arrested at .08? That's something like 2 glasses of wine with dinner. Or perhaps they were less than that...you can still be arrested even if below 0.08 BAC (all they have to do is claim you were "impaired"). Or they might have been blind stinking drunk.

Nobody knows, so saying they "may have saved someone from being killed" is just flat guessing.
"


DMeyer: Posted: February 24, 2014 2:42 p.m.

"boneshark is right"

Yep, the SCOTUS has ruled that the DUI checkpoints are legal and not in violation of the constitution as so many uninformed had incorrectly thought.


cuervoatlaplaya: Posted: February 24, 2014 2:42 p.m.

I am shocked at how many people comment that the checkpoints are a waste of time and tax dollars. Removing two drunk drivers that could have killed a family member or friend on Friday night were removed from the street before killing someone. Why is that not a success?


DMeyer: Posted: February 24, 2014 2:54 p.m.

"Talk about feeling like you're living in a police state! "

Like government dictating what our healthcare will be and how it will be administered and using the IRS to strong arm us into compliance? Or like having the NSA spying on American citizens?

Never mind, when a libturd imposes police state actions it's perfectly fine, right?


bobforte: Posted: February 24, 2014 3:41 p.m.

LASD showing only 1 DUI arrest during this checkpoint. The person who was arrested for DUI also was arrested on the $40,000 warrant listed above. So, the statistics are not accurate.

Also, the LASD is only showing one DUI arrest for that time period.


boneshark: Posted: February 24, 2014 4:13 p.m.

@DMeyer: Not so fast there! Rehnquist stated in the majority ruling by the SCOTUS that even though the checkpoints violate the constitution, that they ruled in favor of them to serve the greater good (that being taking drunk drivers off the road). So even the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS said these checkpoints are unconstitutional, but were made legal by their ruling. However, if the LASD do not follow the very strict guidelines for operating these checkpoints, then anyone caught in these checkpoints can challenge their legality and have the arrest thrown out of court.

And libturb...oh that is SO funny and clever of you! Whatcha got for us next...???


stevehw: Posted: February 24, 2014 4:53 p.m.

"Removing two drunk drivers that could have killed a family member or friend on Friday night were removed from the street before killing someone. Why is that not a success?"

First of all, they *could have* killed someone, or they might not. Second, every time these checkpoints net zero arrests, the cops (and the pro-police-state posters here) will say "it's about *deterring* people from drunk driving, so even if they don't arrest anyone, it's a success!". Third, they arrested two people while stopping over 2,700 other (innocent) people. Fourth, assume at least a dozen deputies at each checkpoint, for possibly 24 or more deputies practicing passive policing rather than being out actively patrolling for drunk drivers...since active, saturation patrols are admitted (even by police agencies and the FBI) as being more effective at arresting DUIs, that many officers on patrol should have had a much greater arrest rate. It's a waste of taxpayer money to pay 24 deputies 8 hours of overtime each to net 2 DUIs out of 2,700 drivers (.07%), when even California's *own surveys and studies* show a rate of 7% with some level of alcohol, and fully 14% of drivers with drugs in their system (both legal and illegal). But they didn't catch *anyone* for driving while impaired based on *drugs*, did they?

What these *are* successful at is a) letting cops make easy overtime, b) ensuring that people get used to being randomly stopped, detained and questioned for no reason whatsoever, and c) making the fearful among us feel good about themselves because "it's for our own good" (alternatively, "if it keeps us safe, then I guess it's okay!").


DMeyer: Posted: February 24, 2014 7:45 p.m.

@boneshark

496 U.S. 444

Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz (No. 88-1897)

Argued: Feb. 27, 1990

Decided: June 14, 1990

170 Mich.App. 433, 429 N.W.2d 180 (1988), reversed and remanded.

Chief Justice REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court.

"This case poses the question whether a State's use of highway sobriety checkpoints violates the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. We hold that it does not, and therefore reverse the contrary holding of the Court of Appeals of Michigan."



ohhyaa: Posted: February 24, 2014 7:47 p.m.

Wait stevehw. Not all were so innocent. An outstanding warrant, suspended/revoked licenses (most likely for prior DUI conviction), another fool trying to buck the terms of his driving agreement, from a prior DUI conviction. You make the biggest deal about the checkpoints being an inconvenience. Since you always seem to know and post the location, how are you personally being inconvenienced? Why do you feel the need to make sure you post the location? I find that really odd.


stevehw: Posted: February 24, 2014 8:09 p.m.

So, DM...since the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare, that makes it okay by you? And when the courts uphold the NSA data gathering activities (as they will), that will be okay with you? And since SCOTUS decided Roe v Wade, abortion on demand is okay with you?

Like DUI checkpoints, those all have been (or will be) found constitutional by the court.


stevehw: Posted: February 24, 2014 8:11 p.m.

ohhyaa...okay, 2,700 - 14 innocent people. I still think that 2 dozen officers could manage to make more than 14 traffic stops over an 8 hour period on a Friday night, don't you?


bobforte: Posted: February 24, 2014 8:19 p.m.

Yes Steve. You are right! If there was 2 DUI arrests, why aren't we getting the names. The LASD is only showing one DUI arrest that night. I am all for getting drunks off the road, but spreading these guys out on patrol, even on overtime, will net more arrests.


ohhyaa: Posted: February 24, 2014 8:22 p.m.

Sure. But I also believe they are a deterrent.


DMeyer: Posted: February 24, 2014 8:49 p.m.

stevehw I was merely correcting boneshark's false claim...you know the one, the same one you tried to claim time and again on this site until I finally set you straight. The DUI checkpoints are legal and are not in violation of the Constitution. Enough already, stop spreading bovine manure.


stevehw: Posted: February 25, 2014 9:48 p.m.

"Petitioners concede, correctly in our view, that a Fourth Amendment "seizure" occurs when a vehicle is stopped at a checkpoint."

Michigan v Sitz

I've never argued that, under current rulings by the Supreme Court, they are illegal. I freely admit the Supreme Court found them to be a "slight" intrusion on the 4th Amendment, which they found "consistent" with the 4th Amendment. I've only said that I believe the decision was incorrect, and that seizing thousands of civilians, even "briefly", under the guise of "it's for your own good", is exactly what the Constitution is meant to *prevent*.

And it's a prime example of "scope creep"...first it was DUI checkpoints. Then drug checkpoints (found to be unconstitutional). Then "safety checkpoints". There are DHS/CBP checkpoints, where you can pretty much be detained indefinitely and searched at will. DUI checkpoints now include driver's license checks, and presumably, checks for wants and warrants along with that. They use drug-sniffing dogs at most of these, as well, giving them yet more "reasons" to detain and harass people who were *stopped initially with complete lack of any reasonable suspicion whatsoever*.

Nobody wants drunk drivers on the road. But some of us would like to keep our civil rights and be free from a government which feels it can detain you for no reason, insist on seeing your papers, run criminal checks on you, etc., unless they have a good reason to do so. A generalized "there are bad people out there" isn't good enough.

And where is the information being gathered about those people detained and questioned at checkpoints going? Think it might be going into a federal government database somewhere? Think it might someday be used against you if, say, you were up for a security clearance, for example?

I find it odd that people who hate the government doing things like regulating health insurance, or who (rightly, in my opinion) don't want the government tracking their phone calls, financial records or whereabouts have *no* problem with the government randomly detaining them and interrogating them, absent any reasonable, articulable, particularized suspicion.


DMeyer: Posted: February 25, 2014 8:59 a.m.

"I've never argued that, under current rulings by the Supreme Court, they are illegal."

Yeah right, many of us remember very well of all the rants you went on when you declared that the checkpoints were illegal and a violation of our rights. You no longer try and make those claims because you got put in your place every time you did try and get away with that. It's the same thing with boneshark, he tried to slip in some bogus information, well it ain't true and it needs to be corrected. That's all I did, I corrected him since you didn't.

"I find it odd that people who hate the government doing things like regulating health insurance, or who (rightly, in my opinion) don't want the government tracking their phone calls, financial records or whereabouts have *no* problem with the government randomly detaining them and interrogating them, absent any reasonable, articulable, particularized suspicion."

First of all there is no requirement for any reasonable, articulable, particularized suspicion at DUI checkpoints, so please stop trying to say there is, the SCOTUS has already made that ruling. The law is clear on that. Your worthless opinion is just that, worthless.

But what is more odd is that when a raging libturd like Obozo wants to implement big brother on society your silence is deafening........why is that?

It must be that 'selective outrage' we've all heard about.


stevehw: Posted: February 25, 2014 10:12 a.m.

Uh, sorry, but you're wrong. I've *always* known and said that the Supreme Court found them to just a *little* violation of the 4th amendment, and okayed them. I never said anything different. What I said was always the same: I disagreed with their ruling, and believe it to be incorrect. I'm in good company, 4 other Supreme Court justices felt the same way. And the majority *did* find that it was an "intrusion" on the 4th amendment...they justified it by claiming it was just a minor intrusion, and the government's interest in arresting drunk drivers was sufficient to justify it. You might try reading the opinion once in a while.

Second, there is no requirement for reasonable suspicion for the DUI checkpoint *stop*, that's true. But beyond your stopping at the checkpoint (and, in California, providing a driver's license on request to the cops), there must be reasonable suspicion to detain you further. That means specific, articulable facts which lead a reasonable person to believe you have, are about to, or are committing a crime. Refusal to cooperate, refusal to answer questions, refusal to submit to having them smell your breath or look in your eyes, etc., are NOT sufficient grounds for reasonable suspicion.

The law is VERY clear on that.

Nice authoritarian follower rant, though, DM. Even included false accusations and ad hominem attacks.


stevehw: Posted: February 25, 2014 10:15 a.m.

"Detention of particular motorists for more extensive field sobriety testing may require satisfaction of an individualized suspicion standard."

Michigan v Sitz


stevehw: Posted: February 25, 2014 11:51 a.m.

And if you want a perfect example of why we shouldn't have suspicionless checkpoints:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-WMn_zHCVo

He's done nothing wrong, is well within his rights to not answer questions, and becomes subject to intimidation and harassment for exercising his *Constitutional rights*. Pay close attention at the 5:00 mark, when the cop (illegally) searching his vehicle says "He's perfectly innocent and he knows his rights. He knows the Constitution."

Then watch their reaction when they realize they're being recorded on video. Uh oh!


DMeyer: Posted: February 25, 2014 3:29 p.m.

More lies and misinformation from stevehw

"the Supreme Court found them to just a *little* violation of the 4th amendment, and okayed them."

"And the majority *did* find that it was an "intrusion" on the 4th amendment"


The SCOTUS found that the DUI checkpoints did not violate the 4th amendment. There is a minor intrusion on individuals who were briefly stopped but certainly not a violation of the 4th amendment.

boneshark did the same thing when he said that Chief Justice Rhenquist and the SCOTUS said the checkpoints were unconstitutional yet still made them legal.

I have read the majority opinion, you need a refresher course. Unless you are deliberately trying to lie to us again.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/496/444#writing-USSC_CR_0496_0444_ZO


stevehw: Posted: February 25, 2014 8:55 p.m.

"Where a ***********Fourth Amendment intrusion************ serves special governmental needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, it is necessary to balance the individual's privacy expectations against the Government's interests to determine whether it is impractical to require a warrant [p450] or some level of individualized suspicion in the particular context."

"Petitioners concede, correctly in our view, that a Fourth Amendment "seizure" occurs when a vehicle is stopped at a checkpoint. Tr. of Oral Arg. 11; see Martinez-Fuerte, supra, at 556 ("It is agreed that checkpoint stops are ‘seizures' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment"); Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593, 597 (1989) (Fourth Amendment seizure occurs "when there is a governmental termination of freedom of movement through means intentionally applied" (emphasis in original)). The question thus becomes whether such seizures are "reasonable" under the Fourth Amendment."

"In sum, the balance of the State's interest in preventing drunken driving, the extent to which this system can reasonably be said to advance that interest, and the degree of intrusion upon individual motorists who are briefly stopped, weighs in favor of the state program. We therefore hold that it is consistent with the Fourth Amendment. "

It's clear that court agrees that at a DUI checkpoint, a seizure as defined by the 4th Amendment occurs, that the stop is an "intrusion" on the individual stopped, and that the government's interest outweighs the individual's 4th Amendment rights against suspicionless detention.


stevehw: Posted: February 25, 2014 8:59 p.m.

BTW, please point out the asserted lies.

You don't have to cooperate or answer questions (true).
The cops must have reasonable suspicion to detain you further after you've stopped (true).
Reasonable suspicion is a well-defined legal concept, and means "specific, articulable facts which would lead a reasonable person to believe that the person being detained has committed, is in the process of committing, or is about to commit a crime." It is NOT merely a cop's "hunch" or "guess".
Refusal to answer questions or cooperate cannot by themselves generate reasonable suspicion. (True)



You need to be a registered user to post a comment. Please click here to register.

The Signal encourages readers to interact with one another, following the guidelines outlined in our Comment/Moderation Policy. Click here to read it.

To report offensive or inappropriate comments, e-mail abuse@signalscv.com. The content posted from readers of signalscv.com does not necessarily represent the views of The Signal or Morris Multimedia. By submitting this form you agree to the terms and conditions listed above. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

 
 

Powered By
Morris Technology
Please wait ...