View Mobile Site
 

Ask the Expert

Signal Photos

DUI checkpoint scheduled for SCV Friday

Posted: July 23, 2014 1:33 p.m.
Updated: July 23, 2014 1:33 p.m.
 

The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department will hold a checkpoint Friday night to screen for drivers who may be under the influence of drugs or alcohol or operating their vehicles without a license.

The checkpoint will be held somewhere within Santa Clarita’s city limits from 6 p.m.Friday to 2 a.m. Saturday.

Locations of checkpoints are not released ahead of time but “are chosen with safety considerations for the officers and the public,” according to a news release from the Sheriff’s Department announcing the checkpoint.

“The deterrent effect of DUI checkpoints is a proven resource in reducing the number of persons killed and injured in alcohol- or drug-involved crashes,” the news release reads.

“Research shows that crashes involving alcohol drop by an average of 20 percent when well-publicized checkpoints are conducted often enough.”

Deputies will examine drivers for signs of alcohol or drug impairment as they pass through the checkpoint. Deputies will also make sure drivers are properly licensed and “will strive to delay motorists only momentarily,” according to the news release.

Funding for such checkpoints comes from a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety, through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

The most recent Sheriff’s Department DUI checkpoint within the Santa Valley was held in June. It was actually a pair of checkpoints — one held on westbound Newhall Avenue at Carl Court and the other on eastbound Magic Mountain Parkway at Avignon Drive. They resulted in 12 arrests.

One suspect was arrested and sent to court for a $5,000 traffic warrant and two were arrested and sent to court for driving with licenses that had been revoked or suspended, according to information from the Sheriff’s Department.
Additionally, nine unlicensed drivers were arrested and sent to court.

Lmoney@signalscv.com
661-287-5525
On Twitter @LukeMMoney

 

 

Comments

projalice11: Posted: July 23, 2014 5:29 p.m.


"DUI checkpoint scheduled for SCV Friday"

Watch out cynics you might be inconvenient again *********

Keep those checkpoints coming *****

“Research shows that crashes involving alcohol drop by an average of 20 percent when well-publicized checkpoints are conducted often enough.”


stevehw: Posted: July 23, 2014 6:08 p.m.

www.mrcheckpoint.com for the mobile app :)


17trillion: Posted: July 24, 2014 11:35 a.m.

Research shows that DUI stops really work. If they catch one it proves they work. If they don't catch anyone, it proves it works. Thus we have the epitome of government in action!


boneshark: Posted: July 24, 2014 12:14 p.m.

Well said 17trillion.


offramp: Posted: July 24, 2014 1:12 p.m.

17trillion, that's using a straw man argument. Those are two different tactics with two different expected outcomes. Patrols catch drunks and get them off the streets. Checkpoints deter people from driving drunk in the first place.


EgbertSouse4U: Posted: July 24, 2014 1:56 p.m.

More "FREE MONEY" for law enforcement to line their pockets... at overtime rate to boot!!!


offramp: Posted: July 24, 2014 2:10 p.m.

EgbertSouse4U, so the lives saved don't matter?


EgbertSouse4U: Posted: July 24, 2014 2:17 p.m.

Sorry, offramp, not convinced at all... and I do not think throwing a net over the entire city is the way to go. Lazy police work, nothing more. But I have a question for YOU. If this is truly all about making the streets safe, why are there no checkpoints on New Year's eve or SuperBowl Sunday? These are the two biggest drunk days of the year. Any answers???


offramp: Posted: July 24, 2014 2:27 p.m.

EgbertSouse4U, sorry you are not convinced by year after year of study after study that show they work. And how is having a checkpoint at one location "throwing a net over the entire city?" There aren't checkpoints on New Year's because the sheer overwhelming number of calls require more cops in cars to handle the calls. Then the go for saturation patrols, which are acknowledged to be great for catching drunks and lousy at deterrence. Checkpoints are just the opposite. That's why both tactics are used. Super Bowl is a little bit the same, but I have read where many cities do have checkpoints on that day, so it's not accurate to say there are no checkpoints then.


EgbertSouse4U: Posted: July 24, 2014 2:48 p.m.

Sorry, you'll never convince me of checkpoint effectiveness. And there are so many mitigating factors, there is no way to accurately gauge if they indeed work or not. I don't care which study you point to... too many variables involved. I agree with 17trillion. They can spin the results any way they feel will put out a positive message. And... if I am not doing anything wrong, you should not have the right to stop me for no reason. That is the way the law enforcement is SUPPOSED to work.


offramp: Posted: July 24, 2014 2:52 p.m.

Well, you can never convince an ostrich to pull his head out of the sand.


EgbertSouse4U: Posted: July 24, 2014 3:07 p.m.

Sure, offramp. If we disagree with you, we must be ostriches. YOU MUST BE A COP... you have that arrogant "I am always right" attitude.


offramp: Posted: July 24, 2014 3:31 p.m.

Not a cop, never been one, not allied with any. I'm not saying you have to agree with me. I'm just pointing out that that the dozens of studies done on checkpoints that show a drop in DUI fatalities afterwards have convinced me of their efficacy, especially when no studies show otherwise. I can never figure out why some won't acknowledge a fact when it and all of its proof is laid out in front of them.


17trillion: Posted: July 24, 2014 3:32 p.m.

Offramp, you are blissfully naïve if you think checkpoints do anything. Most people these days have smart phones. Mine tells me when and where so what are you preventing? All these do is prevent people from driving here instead of there. These things are a waste of time, and infringement on my rights, and are just plain idiotic. They are manna for the ignorant! Catch drunks the old fashioned and far more successful way, patrols!

What other metric on the planet says that something is successful if they don't do the thing they were meant to prevent? "Oh, we caught no drunks, aren't we doing a great job!" Are you that stupid to think that a dozen cops couldn't catch more drunks doing, you know, cop stuff like driving around and observing drunken behavior? God, what is wrong with people?


EgbertSouse4U: Posted: July 24, 2014 3:59 p.m.

It's much easier standing around socializing and shining lights in peoples' cars then actually going out and patrolling. I mean, c'mon.... that's WORK.


stevehw: Posted: July 24, 2014 5:32 p.m.

"I'm just pointing out that that the dozens of studies done on checkpoints that show a drop in DUI fatalities "

Dozens of studies, many of which were done decades ago, a number of which were done in other countries, and a large number of which even the CDC rated as having "poor" methodology.

How about something recent, in California? Or even within the last couple of years in the U.S.?


stevehw: Posted: July 24, 2014 5:33 p.m.

"It's much easier standing around socializing and shining lights in peoples' cars then actually going out and patrolling. I mean, c'mon.... that's WORK."

Not to mention getting paid time-and-a-half while socializing and shooting the s**t.


DMeyer: Posted: July 24, 2014 6:07 p.m.

Here ya go all you whiners and complainers: Since you are either too lazy or too busy socializing and shooting the s**t to realize that your hot air is being wasted on this thread I have provided for you the contact information of the agencies who plan and fund the DUI checkpoints. These are the folks you need to cry a river to. Oh by the way, they're not cops. Please direct your complaints to them, and make sure you get back to us on how it all worked out.


http://www.ots.ca.gov/OTS_and_Traffic_Safety/Contact_Us.asp

http://www.nhtsa.gov/Contact


offramp: Posted: July 24, 2014 6:37 p.m.

SteveHW, how about 2012? Is that new enough for you? http://www.thecommunityguide.org/mvoi/AID/sobrietyckpts.html


offramp: Posted: July 24, 2014 6:42 p.m.

17trillion -once again, a straw man argument. Listen to the words coming out of my mouth. Two different tactics with two different expected outcomes. Patrols catch drunks and get them off the streets. Checkpoints deter people from driving drunk in the first place. Why is that so hard to comprehend?

And do you really think that everybody driving around out there has an app telling them where the checkpoints are? The download figures for those apps are in the tens of thousands - nationally. And they all rely on police departments publicizing the location, which only about half do.


EgbertSouse4U: Posted: July 24, 2014 7:08 p.m.

"And do you really think that everybody driving around out there has an app telling them where the checkpoints are?"

Actually, within minutes of a checkpoint, the location gets posted on various facebook pages and on mrcheckpoint.com as well. You don't need an app. The secret is out within a half hour.


stevehw: Posted: July 24, 2014 7:40 p.m.

That's better. I'd still like to see the *actual* studies, though...that's just a summary sheet.

In any event, I've always maintained that *it doesn't matter* if it reduces crashes by X%. There are many things that would reduce various crimes by large percentages, but we don't do them because they violate the Constitution (yes, yes...DUI checkpoints are Constitutional because the Supreme Court said so). We could cut drug crimes by a ton if we just let the cops search every home in certain "drug-infested" neighborhoods, too...but we don't allow that.

Why do we allow the cops to detain thousands of people with no reasonable suspicion?


stevehw: Posted: July 24, 2014 7:45 p.m.

" Two different tactics with two different expected outcomes. Patrols catch drunks and get them off the streets. Checkpoints deter people from driving drunk in the first place. "

Let's assume that's true.

Why would a checkpoint be more effective at deterring people than highly publicized saturation patrols?

Checkpoint: LASD sends out press releases that between 6 and 2, in a fixed location, marked with signs and providing an opportunity to avoid going through it if you don't want to, 2 dozen officers will be stopping and questioning innocent people.

Saturation patrol: LASD sends out press releases that between 6 and 2, all over town and in no fixed locations, 2 dozen officers will be pulling over anyone who exhibits signs of drinking and driving.

Which one is *really* more effective?

I guess it depends on what you think a checkpoint is supposed to be effective at...if it's reinforcing on people that the cops are in charge, they're not question them, they have to submit to suspicionless questioning AND that the cops deserve time-and-a-half of taxpayer money while they stand around and chitchat, well, I guess they're effective.


stevehw: Posted: July 24, 2014 8:01 p.m.

An example of why it's important to look at the actual studies:

"Analysis of fatal crash data indicated a reduction in alcohol-involved drivers in fatal crashes on the order of 7% when compared to the rest of the United States."

Hey, sounds good! 7%! Except:

"This reduction approached, but did not reach, statistical significance."

Which means...you can't claim that dui checkpoints reduce fatal crashes by any amount. (Based on this study).


offramp: Posted: July 24, 2014 8:06 p.m.

Stevehw, you would be correct if, in the real world, as many people heard about/saw/went through/had an app for DUI patrols as there are for checkpoints. A press release goes out for a patrol and the people who read the paper find out about it. A press release goes out about a checkpoint and apps broadcast it, bartenders announce it, people who see it down the street or actually go through it talk about to their friends and family. Everybody knows what's going on when there is a DUI checkpoint. They know it's all about DUI. Cop cars driving around doesn't cause that buzz.

Which is more effective? It depends on your measurement of effectiveness. If effectiveness is arresting drunks, then patrols are more effective. If the measurement is lower fatal crash rates, then checkpoints are more effective. That's why they do both.


stevehw: Posted: July 24, 2014 8:12 p.m.

And like I said...suspicionless searches of persons on the street, or homes in some particular neighborhoods, or random stops of vehicles would all be "effective" at reducing certain crimes. But we don't allow them. For some reason, we now allow the cops to stop everyone on a particular street, without any particularized suspicion, and insist on seeing their ID and questioning them.

Talk about a "police state"...you're living in a nascent one now.


offramp: Posted: July 24, 2014 8:16 p.m.

Stevehw, regarding the constitutionality of checkpoints, we all have differing opinions on Supreme Court rulings. No problem with that. However, we are a nation of laws. We place restrictions on ourselves for various reasons. There is no ultimate freedom to do anything you wish, nor would I think any reasonable person would want that. There are extremes to be had at both ends of the liberty spectrum. Where the Fourth Amendment comes into play, much hinges on the single word "reasonable." Obviously what's reasonable to me, and to a majority of the Supreme Court, is not reasonable in your eyes. So be it.


In the real world, not some slippery-slope into police state world, the reality is that there are more restrictions on DUI checkpoints today than there were 15 years ago, and there is no credible voice advocating searching every home for drugs.


DMeyer: Posted: July 24, 2014 10:41 p.m.

Do DUI checkpoints raise awareness?

Absolutely, stevehw always does his part, thank you stevehw. Everyone who has that mrcheckpoint app is of course aware of them and constantly on the lookout for them. And as Egbert points out, word is also being spread on Facebook.

Even the naysayers are doing their part to make the streets safer, albeit unintentionally. But there is no doubt those who do drink and drive are definitely thinking twice about it now.





chefgirl358: Posted: July 25, 2014 12:00 a.m.

I went through a CHP checkpoint last Fri night on Old Rd basically next to Wood Ranch. I never saw it advertised either...

Luckily, I am licensed and don't drink and drive but seriously, these things are so freaking stupid.


ohhyaa: Posted: July 25, 2014 10:34 a.m.

And eggy becomes a cop hater again in 5-4-3-2-1.


EgbertSouse4U: Posted: July 25, 2014 11:11 a.m.

Effin' cops!!!!


CaptGene: Posted: July 25, 2014 11:18 a.m.

I looked at the dui arrests for the two week period prior to the checkpoint on Friday, June 6th, and then checked the dui arrests for the two week period following the June 6th checkpoint. The results were 41 dui arrests in the period prior to the checkpoint and 40 arrests in the period after the checkpoint. Effectiveness? 0%.


offramp: Posted: July 25, 2014 12:47 p.m.

Capt.Gene, as has been said repeated, and repeatedly, and repeatedly, the effectiveness of checkpoints is not in the short term arrests, it's in the long term lowering of fatal crashes.


EgbertSouse4U: Posted: July 25, 2014 1:06 p.m.

Sell it, offramp. Sell it!


offramp: Posted: July 25, 2014 2:04 p.m.

EgbertSouse4U, it sells itself, at least to the 89% of Californians who approve of DUI checkpoints. Unfortunately, they aren't normally among the slippery-slope-to-police-state, you're-killing-my-rights, they're-no-damn-good crowd of trolls who biatch, moan, misrepresent and just plain ignore the facts.


EgbertSouse4U: Posted: July 25, 2014 2:15 p.m.

And the most hamburgers in the US are sold by McDonalds. Doesn't make them the best, does it? I don't care what percentage of Californians are in favor of DUI/license/equipment violations/paperwork checkpoints (although I bet those numbers are cooked). I have my own opinions. Justin Bieber is a big hit too. How many of his CDs do you own?


EgbertSouse4U: Posted: July 25, 2014 2:33 p.m.

As of April 2014, there are legal restrictions against using checkpoints in 12 states: Alaska, Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming. These states have decided that checkpoints are illegal under either the state law or constitution, not authorized by state law, or illegal under the state's interpretation of the federal constitution.

I guess 12 states full of millions upon millions of trolls, eh Officer Offramp??


DMeyer: Posted: July 25, 2014 3:23 p.m.

"And the most hamburgers in the US are sold by McDonalds. Doesn't make them the best, does it?"

The best, no.

But are they successful? Oh yeah.


EgbertSouse4U: Posted: July 25, 2014 3:40 p.m.

Depends on your definition of "success." Dollar-wise, yes, successful. Nutritionally? You make the call, DMeyer.


offramp: Posted: July 25, 2014 4:57 p.m.

If 89% of the hamburgers in the state were sold by McDonalds, I would hazard to say that people approved of them, not that they were the best. See, I'm not mixing metaphors. I quote "approved of" not "the best."

I have no problem with any state that chooses to not allow checkpoints. That's their prerogative. What I would have a problem with is them contending that they aren't a useful tool against DUI.


CaptGene: Posted: July 25, 2014 5:07 p.m.

Some people enjoy submitting to the cops even though the cops have zero probable cause, we call those people sheep.


offramp: Posted: July 25, 2014 5:23 p.m.

And some might call you sheep for stop at red lights or not driving 100 mph or filing income taxes or wearing clothes or not beating up your jerk of a neighbor.


17trillion: Posted: July 25, 2014 6:02 p.m.

Silly offramp, stopping at a red law is the law and failure to do so could cause injury or death to you and others. Driving around, not breaking any law, is not against the law, at least not yet, and being pulled over without cause deserves no submission nor a comparison to beating up your neighbor. When and if this happens, I will provide my papers but I will not submit to any questions to the gestapo.

You know offramp, kiddie porn is illegal too. I think they should be able to come into your house without notice or a warrant and search your computer. It's all for public safety after all.


EgbertSouse4U: Posted: July 25, 2014 6:19 p.m.

Careful, 17. Standing up for your personal rights makes you a "subversive" according to Officer Offramp.


offramp: Posted: July 25, 2014 7:04 p.m.

There's just a basic difference between us. I don't see jackbooted gestapo demanding to see papers that will tell them whether my religion is okay and if I have permission to be there and if my answers are wrong they send me off to a concentration camp. You see eroding rights and I see more and more legal restrictions on DUI checkpoints. The way things were handled in your good old days were a lot rougher and with more disregard for rights, but there weren't any cameras or internet or investigative reporters to shine the light on abuses then.


DMeyer: Posted: July 25, 2014 7:08 p.m.

Going with 17 trillion's kiddie porn apples to oranges statement. The ironic thing is that there are actually people who think that the laws against possessing child pornography infringe on their rIghts.


DMeyer: Posted: July 25, 2014 7:12 p.m.

I've been through 2 checkpoints in the past 3 years. I was not asked for my papers either time. Thank God because I don't have any papers. Lucky for me they only asked to see my drivers license and waved me through both times.


offramp: Posted: July 25, 2014 7:29 p.m.

Dmeyer, you must have been drunk! You didn't see the storm troopers lining up the people they didn't like and strangling them with the Constitution? I swear they were there and no facts or egg-headed studies will tell me any different! Another blind sheep off to slaughter!


tpaul: Posted: July 25, 2014 7:53 p.m.

I can't wait until next months checkpoint so we can do this ALL OVER AGAIN


offramp: Posted: July 25, 2014 8:11 p.m.

tpaul, LOL, doesn't it just get old?!


CaptGene: Posted: July 25, 2014 8:12 p.m.

offramp: "And some might call you sheep for stop at red lights or not driving 100 mph or filing income taxes or wearing clothes or not beating up your jerk of a neighbor."

What you describe is a law abiding citizen. What I described is someone willing to give up their liberty for a false sense of security. Submissive little sheep. Now go get in line like a good little sheep.


DMeyer: Posted: July 25, 2014 8:58 p.m.

CaptGene

What do you do when you go to board a flight? Attend an event at Staples Center? Take your family to Disneyland?

Do you say baaaa.......baaaa when you're in line? Or do you just give them the tough guy routine to avoid being screened?


CaptGene: Posted: July 25, 2014 9:27 p.m.

If I am in one of those situations, I am there of my own free will and know what to expect. Not the same thing as heading home from work or whatever and getting stopped at random for no reason.

Obviously people like you and offramp are perfectly comfortable rolling over to a man in uniform, I understand, we've seen compliant types like that all through history. It still amazes me that you exist though. --edited.


zra: Posted: July 25, 2014 11:06 p.m.

CaptGene,

You and I had it out over the left lane bandit thing a while back, but I have to say I agree with you 100% on this one.

Fight the good fight!

Still think you should yield the left lane to faster traffic though. :)


CaptGene: Posted: July 26, 2014 12:43 a.m.

Thanks zra. I have pointed out to the sheep here that even people that are polar opposites on everything else will agree on this. That should be enough to make someone seriously reconsider their position. But, I guess if they did that they wouldn't be sheep!

Oh yeah, one more thing... GO AROUND! :)


DMeyer: Posted: July 26, 2014 1:12 a.m.

@CaptGene

When you are driving on public roads you do so on your own free will, no one will ever force you to do so, just like no one can force you to board a plane or go to Disneyland. And you *should* know that when you drive on public roads that you could possibly come across a DUI checkpoint.

Just because someone doesn't whine and complain about checkpoints, whether it's at Disneyland or one set up for DUI it doesn't mean that they "are rolling over for a man in uniform". It means they understand that certain privileges have conditions. Most people grasped that concept long ago.

You want to take a trip to Hawaii, then you will "rollover" for the TSA screener if you want to fly.

You want to go to a Dodger game, then you will "rollover" for the part time usher as he searches through your backpack or purse if you want to enter the stadium.

You want to drive a car on public roads then you will be subject to the laws and regulations that come along with that privilege.

We all are. You're not special.

But according to you anyone who realizes that there is a price of admission for all of those activities must be a sheep. Maybe you're wrong. Maybe they realize what you haven't figured out yet. But this is a free country, and you have the right to cry about it all you want. So keep crying, but just understand that some things you can't control.


stevehw: Posted: July 26, 2014 1:16 a.m.

Newhall Ranch road westbound just after McBean.


stevehw: Posted: July 26, 2014 1:23 a.m.

"You want to drive a car on public roads then you will be subject to the laws and regulations that come along with that privilege."

I thought that included the Constitution...you know, that whole thing about how the cops had to have a warrant or probable cause before they could search you? Or that they needed reasonable, articulable, particularized suspicion that you'd committed a crime before they could detain you?

For those who don't know this already...all that you are required to do at a checkpoint is stop (and show your license if asked to provide it). You don't have to answer any questions, you don't have to roll you window all the way down, you don't have to let them look in your eyes or smell your breath, you don't have to submit to any hokey "field sobriety tests". Nothing.

Learn the magic words: "Am I being detained or am I free to go?"


DMeyer: Posted: July 26, 2014 1:56 a.m.

Thanks again stevehw for bringing up the Constitution.

Remind everyone once more about the DUI checkpoints.......are they or are they not......Constitutional? Are they or are they not .....legal?


CaptGene: Posted: July 26, 2014 8:10 a.m.

dmeyer: "Just because someone doesn't whine and complain about checkpoints, whether it's at Disneyland or one set up for DUI it doesn't mean that they "are rolling over for a man in uniform""

Actually, that's exactly what it means. You keep trying to make the two things equivalent, they are not the same thing. But if believing that is what gets you through the night, then by all means my little sheep, cling to it.


ohhyaa: Posted: July 26, 2014 11:17 a.m.

Stevehw drools and salivates until the moment he can post his public service announcement. Thanks you slobbering fool.


DMeyer: Posted: July 26, 2014 12:37 p.m.

CaptGene I'm not trying to make anything equivalent. I'm just pointing out that just because someone doesn't cry about the rules it doesn't mean that they are a sheep. Crying and complaining because you don't like the way it is makes you bitter and I'm guessing the reason you choose to call other people names is a way you alleviate frustration. If that prevents you from having an aneurysm then please continue on with that coping mechanism. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I don't care about you.


ohhyaa: Posted: July 26, 2014 12:40 p.m.

You missed one. Railroad around Lyons Ave. Some sitting down waiting for Field Sobriety Test, some waived through, and a long line of provisional female drivers (1 girl in each car) coming from a cheer function all stopped for approximately two minutes each to show their drivers licenses then waived on. It's so easy when you obey the rules and conditions of having a drivers license.


zra: Posted: July 26, 2014 1:50 p.m.


"You want to take a trip to Hawaii, then you will "rollover" for the TSA screener if you want to fly. "

DMeyer,

This is absolutely not true. I can charter a Gulfstream 550 out of VNY airport to any island in Hawaii and not be subjected to any security check point.






CaptGene: Posted: July 26, 2014 2:15 p.m.

You may have a point there dmeyer. The more timid, compliant, acquiescent types probably have a much lower stress level and thus a longer, albeit less free life than those that refuse to roll over and play dead. As much as I appreciate your concern, living like a sheep has never been for me.


ohhyaa: Posted: July 26, 2014 2:28 p.m.

Driving is not a constitutional right. It's a privilege that is granted with conditions. Next time you renew your license at DMV read what you're signing.


DMeyer: Posted: July 26, 2014 2:44 p.m.

@zra

Thank you for proving my point. If you charter a *private* jet you will not be subject to any security checkpoint. If you take a public flight then you will be subject to the security checkpoint.

If you want to drive a car on *private* property you will not be subject to any checkpoint. But if you want to drive on a public road then you could be subject to a DUI checkpoint.

The *choice* is all yours.


zra: Posted: July 26, 2014 3:00 p.m.

Your comparison is in-congruent because airspace and airways are NOT private.

"If you charter a *private* jet you will not be subject to any security checkpoint. If you take a public flight then you will be subject to the security checkpoint. " - OK True

vs

"If you want to drive a car on *private* property you will not be subject to any checkpoint. But if you want to drive on a public road then you could be subject to a DUI checkpoint. "

A private jet is not traveling on private property it is, in fact, a PRIVATE vehicle traveling in public airspace via public airways.

So in the same way that a private jet can travel in PUBLIC airspace without being subjected to security screening or being stopped without probable cause a private automobile traveling on PUBLIC roadways should be permitted to travel without security screening or being stopped without probable cause.








DMeyer: Posted: July 26, 2014 3:01 p.m.

@CaptGene

You really should try and take your family to an event at Staples Center, a concert at LA Live, to a Dodgers or Angels ballgame, to Magic Mountain, Disneyland, Universal City, or even to a European vacation, visit the Sistine Chapel, the Louvre, the Colloseum. Seeing the joy in their faces may just be the thing you need to alleviate your pent up anger and rage. Or would exposing your family to events like that crush your sense of living free? After all you would not want them to rollover and play dead would you? Then what would you think of them? They would just be sheep too, huh?


DMeyer: Posted: July 26, 2014 3:19 p.m.

zra

Interesting. Since occupants of a private jet can join the mile high club, drink alcohol at their leisure and don't have to wear their safety belts when the private jet is traveling in public airspace.......then that means that the occupants of a car should also be able to partake in coitus, consume alcohol and not have to wear their seat belts while they are on a public road, right?


ohhyaa: Posted: July 26, 2014 3:31 p.m.

If joe schmo charters a private jet out of Van Nuys airport, I guarantee joe schmo is subject to the same scruitny as would be imposed at LAX, Burbank, etc. they are just more discrete about it. If it's your plane then I'm sure it's a little different. When you can afford your own jet let us all know until then get in line or petition to change the law.


zra: Posted: July 26, 2014 3:36 p.m.

DMeyer,

Were you attempting to rebut my rebuttal to you? If you were, you failed pretty badly.

http://california.drivinguniversity.com/driving-safety/california-seat-belt-law

"According to the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, in a private passenger vehicle, the driver and all passengers are required to be secured by a safety belt. In a taxicab or a limo, only front seat passengers are required to buckle up, but there must be seat belts provided for back seat passengers to use. "

Passengers in a limo can, consume alcohol, don't have to be restrained in a seat belt, and can enjoy the backseat club if they wish.

What else you got?


CaptGene: Posted: July 26, 2014 3:38 p.m.

Your attempts at equating a visit to a high value target, like the Staples Center with returning home from a trip to the store is laughable. Not at all surprising, given your almost Stockholm Syndrome like defense of those to which you have rolled over.

Now, don't you have some boots to lick?


ohhyaa: Posted: July 26, 2014 3:41 p.m.

Last time I rented a limo it came with a driver. I didn't struggle with him for the keys.


zra: Posted: July 26, 2014 3:41 p.m.

ohhyaa,

you would be wrong. I've flown private in private charters, fractionals, and in small private aircraft. In all cases I was able to walk right up to the jet, after one person in the party checked in with the FBO office, make my way up the stairs and sat down. no security.


ohhyaa: Posted: July 26, 2014 3:53 p.m.

Your impression on NO security is completely wrong. You were a sheep and you didn't even know it. You're finding every reason possible to say that DUI checkpoints are a violation of your civil liberties. They aren't since you agreed to the terms of driving when you signed at the DMV. Here's an idea. Take a limo next time. Then you can drink and have sex in the back. Seatbelts are optional.


zra: Posted: July 26, 2014 3:57 p.m.

ohhyaa:

"Your impression on NO security is completely wrong"

oh yeah? tell me what I missed?


ohhyaa: Posted: July 26, 2014 4:03 p.m.

The instant you game them your name you were subject to a security check. And just for clarification on my earlier post, it actually isn't lawful to have sex in the back of a limo if it is being driven on a public road. Just another violation of our freedoms.


DMeyer: Posted: July 26, 2014 7:43 p.m.

CaptGene

What's laughable is your inability to comprehend that there are rules and laws in place in this country, and if you want to go to a public event or drive on a public road then you are subject to those rules and laws. It's even more hilarious that you refer to law abiding folks as being sheep.

Your unrelenting crying and complaining about it does nothing to change that. But don't let me stop you, pick up another Kleenex box and have at it.


CaptGene: Posted: July 26, 2014 10:22 p.m.

Well, the World has always had the mindless follower types like you, DMeyer. All the people in charge have to do is tell you "it's for your own good" and you will gladly submit to whatever indignity they have selected for you.

It's unfortunate that you have probably taught your children to be just as acquiescent as you; "don't resist the man little girl, he's doing this for your own good". Some women just can't say no to a man in uniform.

Sad, pathetic.


DMeyer: Posted: July 26, 2014 10:53 p.m.

What's sad and pathetic is that you refuse to take your kids to any place fun because of your insecurities and feelings of inadequacy. I'm sure you've raised them to be rule breakers and rebel rousers because you think the man is out to get you.

There's a great big world out there, but you just keep the No Trespassing sign on your lawn, the shutters closed and your hand clenched on your double barrel shotgun, remember they're out to get you!

Poor scared little guy.


CaptGene: Posted: July 27, 2014 1:05 a.m.

You continue at your failed attempt to equate say a TSA search with a dui checkpoint. Aren't you the determined little sheep!

Your analogy fails right out of the gate because the TSA type search is intended to actually discover and stop bad guys. At your beloved dui checkpoint they have no expectation of actually catching any law breakers. As you have said ad nauseum the dui checkpoints are there to "raise awareness", remember? Nice try though.


DMeyer: Posted: July 27, 2014 1:30 a.m.

83 comments so far just on this thread.

Do other stories in our local paper get this type of attention? Awareness has been raised, again.

And you with the incessant whining and crying about the DUI checkpoints has helped to get the word out, so for that you deserve thanks. Keep spreading the word.

And it's good to know that you rollover to the TSA Jack Booted Gestapo thugs, even when they find it necessary to strip search Anglo grandmas (who pose no threats) just to make sure their unwarranted searches based on no probable cause cannot not be labeled as racial profiling. Next time you fly out of town make sure to say baaa...baaa....when you get in line for them.

What a sellout.


CaptGene: Posted: July 27, 2014 2:15 a.m.

You're comical. Again, nice try. You have failed to make the case that the TSA and the dui checkpoints are the same, so now you're trying to make it sound like I am somehow in favor of the TSA searches?...it must be a sheep thing.

Of all the posters here it is you, DMeyer, that has been the most vocal cheerleader for the dui circle jerks. You like them, you are in favor of them, you are actually happy to submit. That's something you have to live with. One day you may wish you were different, but for now you are just a happy little sheep.


DMeyer: Posted: July 27, 2014 10:47 a.m.

You are so dense CaptGene, you're inability to grasp a philosophical point is certainly troublesome.

Let me try to type slower, maybe that will help. If you want to drive a car there are inconveniences that you must endure, a lot actually. When driving a car you are subject to rules, regulations and laws.

When you want to take a flight you are also subject to many inconveniences, rules, laws, etc. Are you with me so far?

When following the rules, regulations and laws of a public event or activity does that make you a sheep or a law abiding citizen? Remember the philosophical point before you answer the question. Remember, any event or activity.

Ok, I assume you are with me so far. Now let's back it up to the very basic core of this topic. A point that you have conceded before, a point that merits no further argument. DUI checkpoints are legally established Constitutionally approved measure to ensure safety. In simple terms for someone like you, it's a rule, regulation or law that you must adhere to if you want the freedom to drive your car in society. *The fact that you don't like them or agree with them has absolutely no bearing whatsoever*.

I could be against speed limit laws, in my opinion they are an infringement on my rights, and I will not conform to them willingly and everyone else out who does is a sheep! They are not law abiding citizens who recognize that they are subject to certain inconveniences that come with driving a car, no they are just happy little sheep.

I could give you hundreds of more examples but that would overwhelm you and I want you to grasp the basics before you move on to more critical thinking.


CaptGene: Posted: July 27, 2014 11:23 a.m.

You can call me names all you like, it does not change the fact that you have demonstrated the fact that you are all too willing to roll over and submit, even if the purpose is little more than "raising awareness". That's hysterical.

You accuse me of being dense yet you continue to try and conflate being law abiding with submitting to searches without probable cause. I have tried to explain it to you, but you obviously can't grasp the not so subtle difference.

Oh, and you may want to do your research on the SCOTUS ruling before you go off describing the checkpoints as "Constitutionally approved". That is about as inaccurate as you can get.

"Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither"

- Ben franklin --edited.


DMeyer: Posted: July 27, 2014 12:23 p.m.

CG-"You can call me names all you like"

CaptGene you are the one who started calling people names.

CG-"you continue to try and conflate being law abiding with submitting to searches without probable cause"

You mean like the TSA does, when they are,...what did you say...oh yeah "discover and stop bad guys"

CG-"submitting to searches without probable cause"

Wow, again failure to grasp the most basic points. The checkpoints are considered a seizure, not a search.

But your issue is that the Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause, right?

Ok back to basics again, SCOTUS has already told us that DUI checkpoints *do not* constitute an unreasonable search and seizure. The probable cause standard does not apply with checkpoints the balancing test does! Stop trying to put in the terms unreasonable and probable cause into the DUI checkpoint discussion, those issues have already been decided.

Sorry for calling you dense but it gets frustrating trying to explain those most basic points to you. Just remember that unreasonable search and seizure and probable cause issues have already been argued and ruled upon by SCOTUS, the checkpoints are not unreasonable and the probable cause standard does not apply.

The opinions of CaptGene on those issues are wrong and means nothing. And it's rather ridiculous that you call other people names because you think they are "submitting to searches without probable cause", because they're not!


Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid.
-John Wayne




CaptGene: Posted: July 27, 2014 12:35 p.m.

"Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid.
-John Wayne "

I'll take your word for it. --edited.


zra: Posted: July 27, 2014 1:54 p.m.

User Removed Comment.


zra: Posted: July 27, 2014 1:57 p.m.

User Removed Comment.


zra: Posted: July 27, 2014 1:58 p.m.

User Removed Comment.


zra: Posted: July 27, 2014 2:04 p.m.

Forgive me Capt, I hope I didn't mischaracterize your point of view.


zra: Posted: July 27, 2014 2:08 p.m.



DMeyer wrote:


"You mean like the TSA does, when they are,...what did you say...oh yeah "discover and stop bad guys" "

TSA is securing public transportation. Driving a private vehicle is not public transportation.

So you are comparing apples and oranges.

The ruling by the supreme court on the issue of whether DUI checkpoints violate the 4th amendment was to acknowledge that they do, but they made a ruling that an exception could be made in this particular case.

What people like myself and CaptGene are arguing is that this exception was an incorrect ruling. That exceptions to the constitution are a slippery slope.

So while we know that these checkpoints are out there we have a right(and a strong argument) to reject their validity, and we see people like who just rollover as accept them as being dangerous the future out our republic.



EDIT: This was the original post. Having formatting issues


zra: Posted: July 27, 2014 2:09 p.m.

User Removed Comment.


zra: Posted: July 27, 2014 2:10 p.m.

User Removed Comment.


DMeyer: Posted: July 27, 2014 2:11 p.m.

Those weren't my words, the Duke said it. But please take heed in that phrase and perhaps it won't take you as long to grasp the concept in the future.

It's part my fault for not recognizing earlier what you were confused about. I'll end this discussion by reiterating the main points you were wrong about so you don't look as foolish again in the future.

1) DUI Checkpoints are not an unreasonable search and seizure.
2) The probable cause standard is not applicable when it comes to the DUI checkpoint discussion.
3) The fact that you don't agree with the first two points is irrelevant.



And just so you don't have to look it up

irrelevant (ɪˈrɛləvənt)
adj

not relevant; not applicable or pertinent; not important


DMeyer: Posted: July 27, 2014 2:55 p.m.

zra

I'm about to take the family out for the day, but a quick point to make re your incorrect statement:

"The ruling by the supreme court on the issue of whether DUI checkpoints violate the 4th amendment was to acknowledge that they do, but they made a ruling that an exception could be made in this particular case."

Point of fact, SCOTUS never said they violate the 4th Amendment. We used to hear the same wrong statement from stevehw.

Here are the facts....

Michigan v. Sitz

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."


See the first part of the second sentence for clarification. Gotta go. Have a great day.





CaptGene: Posted: July 27, 2014 3:14 p.m.

"The shepherd always tries to persuade the sheep that their interests and his own are the same."

- Stendahl


DMeyer: Posted: July 27, 2014 9:26 p.m.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."

-Benjamin Franklin



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 ...