View Mobile Site
 

Ask the Expert

Signal Photos

UPDATE: SCV Sheriff's Station weekend saturation patrol nets 10 arrests

Posted: April 28, 2014 8:51 a.m.
Updated: April 28, 2014 5:36 p.m.
 

Santa Clarita Valley sheriff’s deputies arrested 10 people during a weekend “saturation patrol” aimed at getting under-the-influence drivers off the road, a sheriff’s spokesman said Monday.

Because of slight rain Friday night, deputies abandoned the plan to run a checkpoint at a single location, which would require motorists on a single road to halt on potentially slippery pavement, and opted for an intense patrol looking for signs of impaired driving, Deputy Josh Dubin said.

Dubin said DUI checkpoints and saturation patrols are both effective in deterring impaired drivers and “encouraging everyone to use sober designated drivers.”

Those arrested included one person driving under the influence of marijuana, four driving on suspended or revoked driver’s licenses and five unlicensed drivers, Dubin said.

In addition, four vehicles were impounded for 30 days, he added.

The patrol was conducted from 6 p.m. Friday to 2 a,m, Saturday.

jholt@signal.scv
661-287-5527
on Twitter @jamesarthurholt

 

Comments

EgbertSouse4U: Posted: April 28, 2014 9:19 a.m.

Why does the headline say "checkpoint." There was NO checkpoint. Does the Signal even read their own stories?


stevehw: Posted: April 28, 2014 9:24 a.m.

Wrong headline...not a checkpoint, but a saturation patrol.

I don't get it...if we look at the arrest reports, every DAY there are numerous DUI arrests in the normal course of law enforcement activities.

Send out 26 cops for 6-8 hours on a Friday night, and they find NO drunk drivers? What are they *doing* out there?

This is just as bad a statistic as the DUI checkpoints which net 0 or 1 arrest in an entire evening.


stevehw: Posted: April 28, 2014 9:28 a.m.

Look at this list from last weekend:

http://www.signalscv.com/section/229/article/118476/

Now tell me how 26 cops didn't find a single DUI in SCV on a Friday night?


lars1: Posted: April 28, 2014 9:43 a.m.

Good job.
I have a drivers license.
I do not drive if I drink.
I pay for car registration.
I pay for car insurance.

I appreciate getting the drunk, unlicensed, suspended, revoked drivers off the road. They are causing the majority of accidents involving injury and deaths. The sheriffs vehicles should have messages on all vehicles that
"if you drink and drive: you will be caught"


stevehw: Posted: April 28, 2014 10:03 a.m.

Did you just miss the part where they caught ZERO drunk drivers?


stray: Posted: April 28, 2014 12:18 p.m.

@lars -"The drunk, unlicensed, suspended, revoked drivers are causing the majority of accidents involving injury and deaths"

Yep! And that's why people like you and me are paying dearly for it through our inflated insurance rates!

@steve - "Did you just miss the part where they caught ZERO drunk drivers?"

***Did YOU read the entire article ??? Intoxicated suffices !***

1 DUI – Drug (Marijuana) Suspect Arrested

Good job Deputies - pull these bums off the road!


SCV4ALL: Posted: April 28, 2014 12:28 p.m.

GREAT JOB AT WASTING OUR TAX PAYING MONEY!
Why don't we get our own Police Department so we can get real Police work done by Police who care about its citizens. Sorry these Sheriff stats don't impress me for the man power they wasted.


stevehw: Posted: April 28, 2014 12:49 p.m.

"***Did YOU read the entire article ??? Intoxicated suffices !***"

First of all, lars said "drunk". Second, even if they got a whole ONE person driving with a joint...

13 cars * 2 cops/car * 8 hours = 208 man-hours/arrest

Color me not impressed.


bobforte: Posted: April 28, 2014 12:53 p.m.

Another misleading article. In terms of physical arrests, only one, the DUI.

The other 9 "arrests" are tickets.


bobforte: Posted: April 28, 2014 12:56 p.m.

Correct STeve!!! No drunk drivers caught. I have a feeling since this was money intended for a checkpoint, the deputies were not really looking for DUI drivers since how the money is used is very specific and it most likely says it has to be used at a checkpoint only.

But I agree. How do you send out 26 deputies and not get one drunk driver off the road.


stray: Posted: April 28, 2014 1:25 p.m.

@steve - "Lars said "drunk"

If YOU re-read her post, you'll understand HER point. She stated "I appreciate getting the drunk, unlicensed, suspended, revoked drivers off the road" ... She is talking in general and NOT specifically to this ONE particular patrol...

@steve - "In all of my years of education"

For a guy who felt he had to TRY and *impress* us with all his years of education level on a different thread, it suggests that you didn't learn English Comprehension during your school years!

So steve, as you said - "Color me not impressed"


17trillion: Posted: April 28, 2014 1:33 p.m.

Picking another fight Stray?


stray: Posted: April 28, 2014 1:40 p.m.

It's called a debate...

Btw 17trillion, at least I'm not full of $h*t like you presented yourself on the water conservation thread! Care to dispute that ??? LoL !!!


stevehw: Posted: April 28, 2014 2:09 p.m.

Boy, somebody seems to have anger management issues.

BTW, bob...they can use the grant money for patrols in the event of inclement weather (we wouldn't want our deputies to get cold or wet, would we?), instead of setting up a checkpoint (but I think they have to document when/why it was used that way).


stevehw: Posted: April 28, 2014 2:14 p.m.

It wasn't even a very productive evening for *tickets*. 26 cops wrote a grand total of 9 tickets over a full shift?


ElizaS: Posted: April 28, 2014 2:18 p.m.

The debate for some time on these boards is whether a checkpoint or saturation patrol was more effective with most people saying the latter is more effective.

However, this seems to indicate that both methods are roughly equal. Of course this was only one data point for saturation patrol. I would be curious if they conducted a couple more if they would come up with the same result.


17trillion: Posted: April 28, 2014 2:32 p.m.

You're just mad because you got played. I have to admit it wasn't very hard but it was entertaining. Imagining you sitting in front of your computer ready to bust a gasket because I told you I was going to needlessly water my lawn was classic.


DMeyer: Posted: April 28, 2014 2:47 p.m.

Great point ElizaS.

Many a posters said that they would prefer saturation patrols instead of checkpoints. Well, here you are, just what you wanted.

Seems like some people would just rather have a forum to complain. Get a life cry babies.


stevehw: Posted: April 28, 2014 3:04 p.m.

I'm good with saturation patrols...I'm just shocked that they're apparently *LESS* effective than just regular ol' police work (if you go by the arrest reports on this website).

Why?


stray: Posted: April 28, 2014 3:22 p.m.

@17 - "You're just mad because you got played"

LoL!!! Trust me, you'll KNOW when I get mad. Besides, it takes a LOT more than just several, repeat whiners to razzle me!

@Eliza - "Most people say whether a checkpoint or saturation patrol was more effective - and if they conducted a couple more patrols would they come up with the same result?"

Agreed... Let's see in the next coming months. And, even if it doesn't equate to any or just a few arrests, just the VISUAL police presence is a great deterrence. That way, as a minimum, I feel my tax dollars are serving the public instead of having 13 patrol cars parked inside the Sheriff parking lot collecting dust.

I was waiting for you DMeyer! Glad you arrived... You have always been an advocate of LEOs and you are ALWAYS adamant towards throwing the book at losers and non-conformists. Yes, the usual whiners have arrived once again on the DUI threads! It is VERY clear that these same whiners - and others not here yet - are people who don't appreciate what LEOs goal is here... They're worried about ALL THAT MONEY that LEOs make while attempting to safeguard us!


boneshark: Posted: April 28, 2014 3:45 p.m.

I would tend to believe that the saturation patrols are more effective than the checkpoints. But I think a lot of people here are missing something very obvious as to why so few arrests occurred on Friday night...it was raining and more people tend to stay home when it's raining. So they weren't going to catch many offenders either way because fewer people were on the roads.


Bobs: Posted: April 28, 2014 4:47 p.m.

Boneshark, good point.

But, knowing what you said, would it not have made more sense for them to change the checkpoint to Saturday instead when it wasn't raining? Perhaps there is some regulation about changing it after it has been announced?


stray: Posted: April 28, 2014 5:45 p.m.

"Friday’s patrol included one DUI drug suspect, four suspended/revoked drivers and five unlicensed drivers - (10 Arrests, 35 Citations After Saturation Patrol In Santa Clarita)"

That's from another news article...

@Bobforte - "The other 9 "arrests" are tickets"

I'm not certain I fully understand your point Bob. Are you saying that four suspended/revoked drivers and five unlicensed drivers are simple tickets and not arrests? Even our own Signal article claims 10 arrests.

I don't know LE policies, but my best guess is that those people were arrested. Why would LE purposely let an unlicensed driver roam the streets? Can you imagine the liability if LE did that and then two blocks further, that same driver killed someone ??? All it takes is ONE witness who happens to be at that same scene of the accident and proves that LE just released him. (P.S. I'm not talking about a driver who forget his license at home - I'm talking about a driver who deliberately drove with a revoked or suspended license.)

Even OUR own Signal article states that there were 10 arrests - including ONE DUI (pot) with 9 totalling suspended/revoked.

Can you please clarify your point Bob ???


stevehw: Posted: April 28, 2014 5:55 p.m.

They changed the article...it previously said they were "arrested and sent to court".

Technically, tickets constitute an "arrest", but you are released (not free to drive, as you allude to) when you agree to appear in court by signing the ticket.

So they can claim it as an "arrest", but it's not what most people think of when they hear the word "arrest".

Which, of course, is the point and why they don't say "ticketed". A bit of deceptive wordplay.


stevehw: Posted: April 28, 2014 5:56 p.m.

Bobs...

No problem cancelling checkpoints due to weather (I've seen that happened) nor to publicizing them a mere few hours prior to the checkpoint (seen that, too...a couple of times, right about the time it starts...which is skirting the law pretty closely).

So yes, they could have rescheduled it for Saturday.


stray: Posted: April 28, 2014 6:24 p.m.

Thanks for your statement steve, but either I'm so tired or confused, or both. Yes, I agree - the article previously stated that drivers were arrested and sent to court.

Your statement still doesn't explain if they were cuffed and driven to the jail house, but released when they signed a ticket to appear in court. There is nothing in the article that states there was another passenger in the car who took the wheel. So, did they get cuffed or is it deceptive wordplay as you say?

Here's my scenerio: I'm driving in my car alone at midnight. I get stopped and LE now learns I don't have a driver's license with me. They investigate and find out I have a revoked license for six months. Are they going to ticket me, or arrest me and tow my car, or ALL the above ???


DMeyer: Posted: April 28, 2014 6:37 p.m.

"Technically, tickets constitute an "arrest","

Only if the offense was for a misdemeanor crime, such as driving with a suspended license, driving without a license or possession of less than an ounce of weed. The citations for those offenses are considered arrests, but it saves the officers and the jails with the cumbersome booking process for minor offenses,

"Tickets" for violations such as failing to stop at a stop sign, non functioning brake lights and tinted windows are infractions and are what most attribute to a ticket but are not legally considered an arrest.


stray: Posted: April 28, 2014 6:57 p.m.

Thanks DMeyer -

But, I'm still fishing for the answer to my scenario above. Will a driver get cuffed when LE realizes the driver won't get his license re-instated for six more months ??? I'm driving alone and there is nobody else to take the wheel. Do I get cuffed, or do they ticket me and let me drive home ???

Sorry to make my point redundant, but I'm curious what LE will do to me in that scenerio...


DMeyer: Posted: April 28, 2014 7:10 p.m.

Stray

In your scenario I believe that you would be issued a citation for driving with a suspended or revoked drivers license, that would be considered an arrest, but you would not be handcuffed and hauled off to jail, but you would be required to appear in court at a later date for the offense. And your car would be towed away.

Just my thoughts, perhaps a LEO could provide further insight.


stray: Posted: April 28, 2014 7:23 p.m.

@DMeyer - "Your car would be towed away & Perhaps a LEO could provide further insight"

So, DMeyer, that means I'll be walking home or thumbing a ride! :)

Yes, I'll have to ask my nephew who is a CHP... I'll give everyone here that first hand info as soon as I talk to him.


bobforte: Posted: April 28, 2014 8:42 p.m.

Suspended license and no license are cited on a Traffic notice to appear. It is not an arrest. You can be physically booked for those violations, but only if you refuse to sign the ticket.


DMeyer: Posted: April 28, 2014 8:43 p.m.

@stray

If you do get caught driving with a revoked license you BETTER be walking home...;)


stray: Posted: April 29, 2014 9:02 p.m.

Here it is straight from the web... I couldn't reach my nephew - he's still on the job...

Is It a Crime to Drive without a License in California?

Yes. In California, driving without a valid driver’s license is considered a criminal offense and not just a simple traffic violation. Section 125000 of the California Vehicle Code makes driving without a license a criminal misdemeanor. Punishments for violating this section include:

◾Fines of up to $1,000, in addition to court fees
◾Probation
◾Towing and impoundment of the car that the unlicensed person was operating
◾Possible jail time, although this is rare

For first time offenders, many prosecutors will reduce the criminal charges to an infraction if the defendant is able to secure a license before any court hearings.


If you did have a valid driver’s license, but simply did not have it in your possession, this is a different violation. This type of infraction is listed under Section 12591 and may be dismissed if you are able to prove that you were validly licensed at the time you were pulled over.


Is This Different from Driving with a Suspended or Revoked License?

Yes. In California, driving with a suspended or revoked license is an entirely different offense than driving without a license. Driving with a suspended or revoked license is punishable under Sections 14601-14611 of the Vehicle Code. Moreover, the penalties for driving with a suspended or revoked license are more severe than for driving without a license. Penalties include:

◾A fine at least $300, but no greater than $1000.
◾Possible jail time. First time offenders may be subject to jail periods of at least 5 days, but no greater than 6 months.
◾Subsequent repeat convictions will result in increased penalties.


http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/driving-without-a-license-in-california.html


stray: Posted: April 29, 2014 9:04 p.m.

@DMeyer - "If you do get caught driving with a revoked license you BETTER be walking home..."


Gee, I thought you would see me thumbing and give me a ride! :)


stray: Posted: April 29, 2014 9:16 p.m.

What Are the Penalties for Driving with a Suspended or Revoked License?

The penalties for driving without a license vary depending on the reason why the license was revoked. This is covered in section 14601 of California's Vehicle Code. For non-DUI related offenses, the sentencing includes:

◾First time conviction: A fine ranging anywhere from $300 to $1000, plus possible jail time ranging from five days to six months.
◾Second offense within five years: Fines from $500 to $2000, plus jail time of no less than 10 days and no greater than 1 year.

The penalties are harsher if the license was revoked due to a charge involving a DUI offense. They are the same as listed above for the first offense. However, a second offense will result in fines ranging from $500 to $2000, and a minimum of 30 days in a county jail, up to one year maximum. At this point the court will require the offender to install an interlock mechanism on the vehicle’s ignition in order to monitor their driving.


stevehw: Posted: April 29, 2014 9:17 p.m.

Technically (and this no doubt why the press release uses the term), you are "arrested" when you are no longer free to leave unless and until the officer allows you to go.

Even a traffic stop is an "arrest", until you sign the promise to appear and are released by the officer.

It's a bit of tricky legalese and wordplay, but I'm quite certain that they did not take the offenders with the suspended licenses, etc., into custody in the sense most people think of (taken to jail, fingerprinted, booked, locked up).

So the LASO can use the words "arrested" in their press release to scare people, as they're *technically* correct. (I learned this years ago from relatives and friends who were either law enforcement officers or officers of the court or attorneys, albeit in a different state...even when you're stopped for driving with a busted taillight, you are technically "under arrest" when you are no longer free to leave; there's some overlap and confusion with "being detained", of course, but IANAL, so we'll leave that for others to debate).


stray: Posted: April 29, 2014 9:33 p.m.

@steve -I'm quite certain that they did not take the offenders with the suspended licenses, etc., into custody"

You could be right, but I'm contacting my nephew tomorrow, and I want to hear it straight from the CHP himself.

Personally, I hope that ANYBODY who got caught with a revoked license (ie... because of 5 DUI convictions) would not JUST be ticketed at the scene. He definitely needs to be arrested and thrown in the Hotel California!


stevehw: Posted: April 29, 2014 9:40 p.m.

I'll be interested to hear what he says about it *in general* (because we have no information about the actual cases in question in the article above).

See, e.g., the first example at

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/justifies-arrest-probable-cause.html

This squares with what the LEOs, attorneys, et al., told me (years ago, I'll admit, but I doubt the law on what defines an "arrest" has moved much).

It may be the practice of local LE to actually book someone into jail if they were driving on a suspended license, but they don't *have* to...they can issue a "citation in lieu of arrest".

Of course, they impound the vehicle... :)


stray: Posted: April 29, 2014 9:55 p.m.

@steve - "We have no information about the actual cases in question in the article above"

True... It's very vague and it could be up to the discretion of the LEO when he runs his DL at the time he's pulled over.

@steve - "They can issue a citation in lieu of arrest"

Possibly true, as that could be a departmental policy - maybe different than CHP's freeways and highways' normal policy. But, yeah, it will be interesting to hear it straight from the horses mouth tomorrow.


stevehw: Posted: April 29, 2014 10:55 p.m.

Would also be enlightening to know the facts in these cases...were they cited and released, or actually taken to jail and booked?

My money is on the former...but we'll never know, I bet, given the Signal's poor journalism standards.


ricketzz: Posted: April 29, 2014 6:10 a.m.

You can be arrested by citation or by detention. "Saturation Patrol" means "we still get overtime pay".


stray: Posted: April 29, 2014 9:02 a.m.

Here is what I wanted to know...

His words:

"In regards to revoked / suspended licences, in Los Angeles, if the driver has valid identification we cite them and tow their vehicle. Then, they show up in court and go before the judge. Other smaller cities actually tow their car and book the driver in jail." He further said "We have so many of these drivers out there that we can't lose officers booking for a low grade misdemeanor. Furthermore, the good part is that they get their car taken for 30 days, and thus are unable to use the vehicle for that duration. Plus, they have to pay the impound fees for 30 days! Most importantly, there are NO exceptions to an arrest if the unlicensed/revoked driver is intoxicated and tested at the roadside. He/she WILL be given a joyous ride to the clinker!"
=====

So, this basically comes down to a departmental policy. We still don't know what our local Sheriff's policy is - and we don't know the details of those individual, unlicensed drivers who recently got caught at the saturation patrol.
--edited.


offramp: Posted: April 29, 2014 9:53 a.m.

DUI Checkpoints vs. DUI 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 20 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.


17trillion: Posted: April 29, 2014 10:18 a.m.

It's very confusing Stray.


stray: Posted: April 29, 2014 10:20 a.m.

@offramp -

Thank you for your contribution! To me, you appear to be a LEO and have shared valuable information which I personally was unaware of. You display yourself like a professional; so, thankyou for your service and commitment to saving lives...


stray: Posted: April 29, 2014 10:24 a.m.

@17 - "It's very confusing Stray"

What is confusing ??? The way I wrote it up or the actual policy with the different agencies ??


stevehw: Posted: April 29, 2014 10:52 a.m.

Well, there ya go.

"In regards to revoked / suspended licences, in Los Angeles, if the driver has valid identification we cite them and tow their vehicle."

So, as I said, the use of the word "arrested" in the press release (which is what this article is) is misleading.

BTW, I have NO problem with saturation patrols...presumably, they're doing the same kind of policing that normal patrols do, and require probable cause to stop a motorist, etc. That's fine by me, and what I've said should be the case *all* the time.

"Checkpoints have been shown to have the potential to lower DUI fatality rates by up to 20 percent by virtue of their deterrence."

This is a dodgy statistic, based on some rather dubious meta-analysis in a single report.

But even if it *did*, and yes, I know the Supreme Court said it's only a small violation of the Constitution, it's still detaining people and questioning them without any particularized suspicion.

What I want to know is...if "Patrols are meant to catch active drunks, get them off the streets and prosecute them" and they have "high enforcement value", how did we end up with not a single drunk driving arrest, and only a single arrest for pot? (And was that arrest even the result of pulling them over for their driving behavior, or something else...e.g., registration, etc.?).

It's only one data point, but this roving patrol didn't seem effective AT ALL in catching DUIs.


offramp: Posted: April 29, 2014 11:22 a.m.

@stray - No, I'm not law enforcement, just an interested party who does his research before pontificating.

@stevehw, actually I de-emphasized the statistic, since the original report showed up to 26 percent reductions in fatal crashes, but the average was 20 percent. And rather than being "dodgy" or "dubious," the original meta-analysis was undertaken by the Centers for Disease Control and aggregated 23 studies done worldwide. A later one, also by the CDC, aggregated 14 independent studies. It showed a lower, but still very significant, reduction in fatal crashes.

And concerning the Supreme Court decision, it did not say that checkpoints are a "small violation of the Constitution." Rather, it said that checkpoints did not rise to the level of being "unreasonable." Since the 4th Amendment prohibits "unreasonable search and seizure" and DUI checkpoints were found to be not "unreasonable" (sorry for the double negative), therefore no violation is found.

Regarding why the patrols didn't catch anyone, there could be a plethora of reasons, from bad police work to no drunk drivers to good luck/bad luck, and everything in between. I don't presume to have that answer, since I wasn't (nor was anyone else) in every police car or bar or street corner in the city.


boneshark: Posted: April 29, 2014 11:31 a.m.

@Bobs...in answer to your question about moving the checkpoint to Saturday night, legally they wouldn't be able to do that and even if they could it would a logistical nightmare. Part of the guidelines that law enforcement must follow in setting up these checkpoints is there must be official notification (usually an announcement in the local paper) several days prior to any checkpoint. So a checkpoint that was scheduled for Friday can't simply be moved to Saturday because the official notifications were for Friday and not Saturday. It may sound trivial, but law enforcement has to follow these guidelines or any arrests made while not in compliance with these guidelines can be thrown out of court.


stevehw: Posted: April 29, 2014 11:41 a.m.

"Part of the guidelines that law enforcement must follow in setting up these checkpoints is there must be official notification (usually an announcement in the local paper) several days prior to any checkpoint. "

This is NOT true. There is no set timetable for prior announcement.

In fact, SCV SO has, in the past, announced them publicly only hours beforehand.


offramp: Posted: April 29, 2014 11:45 a.m.

@boneshark ... actually, not technically correct. The CA Supreme Court ruling of People vs. Banks held that prior notification did not need to be in place for a DUI checkpoint to be valid. However, it is both best practice and logically follows the purpose for there to be advanced notice. Best practice keeps DUI defense lawyers from wrongly claiming an Ingersoll vs. Palmer problem, and publicizing it is what the purpose is all about. While moving it to the next night at the last minute would not be illegal, it would be counterproductive. You are correct about it being a logistical nightmare, though.


offramp: Posted: April 29, 2014 11:49 a.m.

@stevehw, most jurisdictions put out a press release days ahead of time, but some only release the exact location a few hours ahead of time. Some give all details up front; some never give any time or location, just day and city. All legal, just different policies from city to city.


stevehw: Posted: April 29, 2014 12:18 p.m.

offramp...yeah, I know they're all a little different (most that I've seen around here in SoCal *never* release the exact location, and advance notice times have run from 2-3 weeks to right before it starts...both extremes are which, IMO, examples of trying to obscure the information to the public, which sorta violates the "they're a *deterrent* argument).

I was only correcting, for the second time, the misperception that they could not move a checkpoint to a different day.


offramp: Posted: April 29, 2014 12:36 p.m.

stevehw ... just goes to show that not all law enforcement, just like people, are of the same mind and do things the same way.


stray: Posted: April 29, 2014 2:05 p.m.

Wow, I'm amazed at this. And yes, offramp, you are correct. I was under the impression that DUI checkpoints HAD to be previously ANNOUNCED publically, but DID NOT have to mention the location. I was wrong on the announcement.

"A 1993 California Supreme Court decision, People v. Banks, ruled that the police were not required to provide advance notice when scheduling DUI sobriety checkpoints as a prerequisite for a sobriety checkpoint. The court ruled that publicly announcing the location is not constitutionally required, but is one of several safeguards for 'the maintenance of a constitutionally permissible sobriety checkpoint.'"

====

Here is an old article, but it is still relevant to the current policy. This will chap several posters here: "Mayor Pro Tem Jim Righeimer is critical of the traffic delays and points out that most DUI arrests occur later at night. Righeimer said the 6 p.m. to midnight timing was chosen for the end of a shift to give police officers extra overtime pay, which is paid by the federal government."

http://articles.dailypilot.com/2011-06-15/news/tn-dpt-0616-dui-20110615_1_checkpoints-dui-arrest


DMeyer: Posted: April 29, 2014 4:08 p.m.

Thanks offramp for the enlightening information, and thanks for correcting stevehw's erroneous claim about the checkpoints being a violation of the Constitution, something I've had to do many times.


DMeyer: Posted: April 29, 2014 4:15 p.m.

As for the original point from stray, my understanding now is that those who are caught driving with suspended or revoked licenses are arrested. And if they can be properly identified they can be cited and ordered to go to court at a later date at the officers discretion instead of being "booked" at a jail.

Perhaps some posters would rather know how many people were booked instead of how many were arrested.


offramp: Posted: April 29, 2014 4:32 p.m.

DMeyer, another reason for not booking them into the jail is jail overcrowding. You might cite and release a "simple" DUI, but would certainly book anyone in a felony or crash situation or who so far looped as to be a danger to themselves or others if left alone. --edited.


stray: Posted: April 29, 2014 4:52 p.m.

@DMeyer - "Posters would rather know how many people were booked instead of how many were arrested"

Precisely!

Mr. Holt, can you do that for us in the future while breaking down the arrest totals??? Please...


ricketzz: Posted: April 30, 2014 6:57 a.m.

Santa Clarita is a mediocre place that plays along with whatever the Feds decide to impose on our citizens. Checkpoints are demeaning and imply we are a bunch of out of control impaired drivers, etc. Most accidents lately seem to be caused by distraction, not medication. Unless cops search for warm smart phones they are not accomplishing their stated goal. The Courts have been taken over by pigs. I say the dragnets are illegal.



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 ...