NVR Logo
Home » News » Local
35 towed, three arrested at DUI checkpoint
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Save and Share Share
Email
Print
Comment
By MARSHA DORGAN
Register Staff Writer
Related
Police towed 35 cars as a result of last Friday’s DUI checkpoint, according to Napa Police Sgt. Tom Pieper.

The cars were towed because drivers did not have a valid driver’s license or the vehicles were not properly registered.
Three drivers were arrested for driving under the influence, Pieper said. One passenger was arrested for being drunk in public.

Three other citations for various violations were issued.
During the checkpoint, which went from 6:45 to 11 p.m., police stopped 900 vehicles, Pieper said.

The checkpoint was conducted in the 700 block of Lincoln Avenue, near the railroad tracks.
Funding for DUI checkpoints comes from a grant the police department received from the California Office of Traffic Safety.
101 comment(s)

funnyme wrote on Aug 26, 2008 5:43 AM:

" 35 cars off the road?

4 drunks/drug addicts?
How can you be "drunk in public" if you are the passenger in a car?
Does that mean that if I drink a bit too much and call a cab and the cab gets pulled over by the cops for "whatever" I get cited for being "drunk in public"?
Uh?
Marsha?
Anybody?...

The way I see it though, the DUI Checkpoint worked! "

tribal1 wrote on Aug 26, 2008 6:06 AM:

" what happend with the accident on pueblo? is the officer ok? whats happening with the driver of the SUV? "

kevin wrote on Aug 26, 2008 6:30 AM:

" They arrested the PASSENGER??

RWD. Riding While Drunk.

Way to go, Napa! "

cathyodom wrote on Aug 26, 2008 7:26 AM:

" Wait- the passenger was arrested for drunk in public? Was the driver arrested too? I thought if the the driver was sober, I could go out drinking and be safe and not get in trouble, as long as I had a sober driver. What's up with plans to have DUI checkpoints near hotels and tourist traps? "

plasticpinkflamingo wrote on Aug 26, 2008 8:05 AM:

" So if I go out drinking and have a designated sober driver, I can still be arrested? Turn over another freedom to your nanny government, please. Trust them, they know what is best for you. And there is a whole lot more coming at you too.

Or is there some missing information here? "

Napanee wrote on Aug 26, 2008 8:08 AM:

" Thank you NPD for taking these law breakers off the road. "

mafi wrote on Aug 26, 2008 8:13 AM:

" The passenger obviously failed the attitude test. Probably bad mouthing the Police for towing the vehicle, arresting the driver etc... "

napachica wrote on Aug 26, 2008 8:20 AM:

" WHAT the drunk passanger was arrested! Cathyodom, I don't think that NPD main target are the tourists all they are targeting are non-tourists. We can all tell that by the location of their DUI checkpoints. "

Up Valley Reader wrote on Aug 26, 2008 8:39 AM:

" If the person was arrested for being belligerent to the officer, it should say that in the article.

I am concerned that we can be arrested for being drunk in public because our designated driver doesn't have proper registration/licenses. That entire checkpoint seems like it is more often used to snag unregistered vehicles and harass people who live on Lincoln Avenue. "

crusherfan wrote on Aug 26, 2008 8:41 AM:

" Many tourist in that area on a friday night? 3 of 900,nice work.We all know there are better spots to have a check point.Lets hear your ideas.I bet the intersection of Trancus and Silverado trail would net more than .33 % of cars stopped. "

rangerdad wrote on Aug 26, 2008 8:42 AM:

" Mafi.. you are most likely correct ... passengers are typically not arrested if intoxicated...but its amazing how much liquid courage someone gets when they have been drinking...my guess and professional experience is the passanger engaged their mouth when they should have smiply kept quite....Also money on the driver was arrested for DUI..(so much for the designated driver ) "

greysack wrote on Aug 26, 2008 8:48 AM:

" mafi, that happened to my brother years ago, when they tell you to keep quiet and leave, start walking and don't look back. "

amazed wrote on Aug 26, 2008 8:57 AM:

" napachica, it doesn't matter whether they're "targeting" locals or non-locals. They're targeting people who shouldn't be driving, whether it's due to alcohol or the lack of a license or registration. And as to the drunk passenger, well, plasticpinkflamingo, MD wrote the article, so of course, there's missing information. "

knick-knack-at-thedam wrote on Aug 26, 2008 9:10 AM:

" Adding to my above comment: I just realized (smacks self on forehead with palm) that the GRANT must cover the cost for extra Officers. "

psychochik wrote on Aug 26, 2008 9:28 AM:

" crusherfan, I agree with that location. Its been a while since they've had a checkpoint there and if I recall, the last time they did they took a pretty decent chunk of people away for being DUI and even more for being unlicensed.

The spot they did this most recent checkpoint is the same place they did the last one. Way to be original guys !

And yes, what happened with that accident on Pueblo ?? My friend lives not far from where it occurred and nobody really knows what happened. Napa Register ?? Why no write up ? "

cathyodom wrote on Aug 26, 2008 9:30 AM:

" Hey there Barry Martin, City of Napa Public Information Guy, or Mark Van Gorder, can you check on why these "DUI checkpoints" are on Lincoln, near local hangouts and apartments where Hispanic locals live? It seems to be targeted racism or checking for expired car registrations, NOT DUIs. If this is really a DUI checkpoint, why isn't it near a big hotel/winery/bar? Having it so near the Corporation Yard seems a bit lazy. "

marine1/1 wrote on Aug 26, 2008 9:47 AM:

" I'm sure the passanger was shooting his mouth off and was asked numerous times to sit and be quiet. If you want to continue to be obnoxious, I don't blame them for arresting the person. I've seen it happen time and time again. I'm glad these check points are in place and are being done more frequently now. Most of those car's towed were unlicensed drivers, driving on a suspended license,etc. I'm glad we have a grant for this program. "

marine1/1 wrote on Aug 26, 2008 9:54 AM:

" A good spot to be fair to everyone.On silverado trail between Hagen road and Lincoln ave.Right where that old abandoned gas station is. There is an open center lane there. I'm sure alot of tourists would get popped, but that is a high traffic road and that's were they should be looking for violators.Just my thought. "

NAPA_GIRL wrote on Aug 26, 2008 10:23 AM:

" THEY SHOULD JUST CALL THIS A LICENSE CHECKPOINT INSTEAD OF DUI, SINCE ALL THE DUI'S ARE GOING TO BE BY THE WINERIES AND HOTELS, AND I WAS RIGHT ABOUT THE LOCATION...THIS SOUNDS LIKE THEY WANT TO MAKE MONEY OFF OF PEOPLE THAT WORK IN THE WINERIES INSTEAD OF THE PEOPLE THE "DRINK" IN THE WINERIES..OG YEAH FORGOT, THEY ARE TOURIST. "

VJ07 wrote on Aug 26, 2008 10:25 AM:

" A little over 4 hours and Napa police accomplished alot! All of those vehicles on the road ileagally, and without proper registration or license! That means no Insurance either. right? No wonder there are so many hit and runs in this town! Thank you Napa Police---- get them OFF the street! "

Rich wrote on Aug 26, 2008 10:29 AM:

" 35 more people heading for the auto auction to buy another vehicle and hitting the streets again till the next time. "

skeptic wrote on Aug 26, 2008 10:39 AM:

" let's make this the last time "d.u.i. checkpoint" is used. it is obviously an identity check to cull out the unliscensed and the few d.u.i.s are incidental.95% of the time was wasted hasseling innocent people which is the real purpose. getting us used to a police state where we are pulled over without probable cause. the good part is that it is from a grant from the state. since nobody pays state taxes here, it's, like, free for us. good thing only those who pay state taxes got ripped off and not us. seriously, if any of us drive around at random for 4 hours, won't we see at least one drunk weaving? if 4 of us did it, wouldn't we get 4 drivers who are actually drunk, off the road, instead of 3 ? that would be 33% more efficient than what we are doing now.i'd love to hear the opinion of any working the checkpoint. "

Barry Martin wrote on Aug 26, 2008 10:45 AM:

" To reply to cathyodom, the Police Department's media release in advance of this enforcement activity said "Officers will focus their patrols in areas where there have been a high number of DUI related traffic collisions and DUI arrests." That seems to make sense. "

shawana wrote on Aug 26, 2008 10:51 AM:

" We should get all drunks off the road. Here we have a check point between the poor area of town and Walmart. How about one between the wineries and hotels? Racial profiling perhaps? "

cathyodom wrote on Aug 26, 2008 10:53 AM:

" Thanks Barry for your quick reply... however it just seems more "convenient" for them to go to that spot on Lincoln, and it seems to be targeting more locals, rather then the tourists who are really out there getting drunk and driving all over the Valley. I'd like to see a different location, instead of the same spot over and over... "

Paddy wrote on Aug 26, 2008 11:29 AM:

" cathyodom - what's your problem? DUI stands for Don't Underestimate Intelligence..NPD was in exactly the right place to nab those scofflaws who continue to do so and the payoff for all of us was huge!! Nice job! "

tiredofcomplainingnapkins wrote on Aug 26, 2008 11:30 AM:

" Shawna,
So are you saying its ok for poor people to drive around drunk or drive without registration or insurance? Lincoln is one of the most highly traveled streets in Napa, I think its a great spot. The police will bust people who have been drinking already and then driving to 7-11 or Wal-mart to buy more cheap beer.

To Napagirl
There are way more DUI's from people leaving there houses after drinking then from Wineries or hotels. I have been wine tasting before and 99% of the people are responsible and do not drink over the legal limit at a winery then drive off. People who go wine tasting are typically upstanding people who have children and lives that they don't want to ruin by going and getting smashed at a winery then driving off. I'm more worried about the guy who gets off work at 5, downs an 18 pack by 9 oclock, jumps in his unregistered/uninsured car to drive to the nearest liquor store to buy more booze. "

judgeknot wrote on Aug 26, 2008 11:44 AM:

" Race, income, visitors or home boys, 3 drunk drivers off the streets is a good thing. Give the cops some credit. "

UncleStuy wrote on Aug 26, 2008 11:59 AM:

" The arrest of a passenger for "drunk in public" is somewhat baffling. I would think the Police would thank him for not driving drunk and his driver for not allowing him to drive. If the person was not creating a disturbance, cooperative and just needed a ride home, you would think common sense would be applied. No, I don't know what happened at the scene, but as an attorney I would dig deeper into this with a possibility of challenging the DA on his charges "

reality1 wrote on Aug 26, 2008 12:00 PM:

" I'd like to answer the questions about a passenger of a vehicle being arrested for "drunk in public". When a law enforcement officer arrests a driver of a vehicle, and the passenger is under the influence to the point where he or she "cannot take care of himself or herself", the officer has to make the drunk in public arrest for that person's safety. If the officer just turned that person loose and something happened to him or her, guess who would be sued. There really is no penalty for this type of arrest. The person is kept in custody until able to take care of himself or herself. Trust me, officers only do this if there is no other alternative. It is a major PAIN to hook this drunk up, get puked on, and do a booking that isn't going anywhere prosecution-wise. If the driver is not arrested and is able to care for you, you can be as drunk as is possible in the passenger seat, and that is not a violation of law. "

chunk wrote on Aug 26, 2008 12:10 PM:

" I was arrested as a passenger and taken to jail after the driver was taken away for a DUI. I wasn't running my mouth or anything and was only 2 blocks from my house. I pleaded with the police to let me go home but they still took me all the way to the drunk tank which was 20 miles away. This didn't happen in Napa by the way and I wasn't charged with drunk in public. I think it's a liability for the police to let the passenger go home if they're too drunk in case something were to happen to them. "

napa_girl wrote on Aug 26, 2008 12:12 PM:

" I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU SHAWANA...THEY ARE TARGETING ALL THE POOR PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THIS NEIGHBOR, HENCE THE LOW-INCOME APARTMENTS ON LINCOLN, WHY NOT DO THEIR "DUI CHECKPOINT" BY THE MERITAGE HOTEL? HMM...INTERESTING, I WONDER WHO GETS TO DECIDE WHERE THIS "SPECIAL EVENT" GET'S TO TAKE PLACE?? THEY ARE PROFILING INDEED! "

Winewoman wrote on Aug 26, 2008 12:26 PM:

" Hey, I don't have a problem with the police taking out 35 unlicensed drivers. That means 35 fewer unlicensed, undocumented, uninsured motorists on the road, potentially putting the safety of innocents at risk. "

14obama wrote on Aug 26, 2008 12:27 PM:

" The cops are being good little boys,putting money in the coffers to play more games. Thank you Saint Napanee ! "

funnyme wrote on Aug 26, 2008 1:32 PM:

" reality 1 and chunk,
Thank you for clarifying this "passenger arrested for public intoxication" issue.
It makes a lot of sense.

What is wrong with you people?
A DUI grant for DUI checkpoints is being used to get rid of illegals, tax evaders, and the like...oh, and drunks/drug addicts too.

In my family we pay plenty of taxes for car insurance, registration, drivers license renewals, etc., etc., etc...
Why is it OK for "some" to get away with it and still get your pity?
Pitiful it is!
Thank you NPD and CHP for a job well done...Was Ringo part of it? "

funnyme wrote on Aug 26, 2008 1:33 PM:

" napa_girl,

We can hear you just fine. No need to shout!
Please click on your "caps lock"...
Pity Please?! "

judgeknot wrote on Aug 26, 2008 1:35 PM:

" Reality1 is right. This isn't fun and games for the cops. If you think it is, just look up Chuck! "

Winewoman wrote on Aug 26, 2008 1:36 PM:

" 14obama - what ARE you talking about? Maybe you could explain your cryptic post to the rest of us? "

Napamouth wrote on Aug 26, 2008 1:38 PM:

" It never ceases to amaze me...People, get a clue. Napa PD, especially the Sheriffs Dept. Can And Will arrest you for Drunk in public, even if you are a passenger in a vehicle if they don't like you. It's a power trip that most Sheriff's Deputy's go on. If they were to come to your house for any reason and you step outside the door and talk with them, if they don't like you and you had a few drinks, they can and will arrest you. I've had a deputy threaten to arrest me for PD on July 4th for an altercation in a local Gas mart. I had 4 beers in celebration. The deputy smelled it on my breath. The gas clerk was cussing and screaming at my young kids and I countered back. Geez...Big Bro at it's best. What a joke Napa law enforcement is! "

blammo wrote on Aug 26, 2008 1:42 PM:

" You skeptics amaze me. I wonder how quickly you would bad mouth the police if you were in a traffic accident with an unlicensed/uninsured motorist who fled the scene. Then I'm sure you would be on here blogging that the PD isn't doing enough to stop this. As for stakin out the wineries and hotels. Well all of the wineries are in the County, thus you need to forward your complaints to CHP and the Sheriff's department. As for the hotels, if you review Barry Martin's response, the checkpoint area is chosen based on statistical data of the most alcohol related accidents, or arrests. It has nothing to do with race, income level, or any type of profiling. Be happy the police are taking a PRO-ACTIVE approach. "

napa_girl wrote on Aug 26, 2008 2:22 PM:

" TIREDOFCOMPLAININGNAPKINS, WHAT UR TRYING TO SAY IS THAT BECAUSE THEY ARE RICH AND HAVE FAMILIES TO GO HOME TO THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE? THAT'S A BUNCH OF BULL! HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU SEEN/HEARD OF AN UPVALLEY ACCIDENT BY NON-LOCALS WHO WERE WINE TASTING? REGARDLESS OF YOUR ECONOMIC CLASS AND FAMILIAL STATUS DRINKING AND DRIVING IS NOT RIGHT BUT THEY ARE NOT TARGETING THE "RICH" TOURIST WHO CONSTANTLY DRIVE OUR ROADS DRUNK! "

tiredofcomplainingnapkins wrote on Aug 26, 2008 2:22 PM:

" To Napagirl,

Your argument doesn't hold water. So what if they set it up in front of low income apartments, as long as the people who live there are driving legally and not intoxicatted then they should have nothing to worry about. Just because those people are poor doesn't give them the right to drive drunk or illegaly. And why would they go to the meritage, there might be 100 cars that drive in and out of there a night compared to 100 in a few minutes on Lincoln. And why would they target poor people? Poor people are more than likely the ones who won't pay the fines or even show up to court. Don't make the napa police out to be racist, Lincoln is a high traveled street in Napa and a perfect spot to bust people driving drunk or illegaly "

Suze wrote on Aug 26, 2008 2:25 PM:

" As usual, everyone is slamming the cops for simply doing their job - trying to protect law abiding citizens. There was plenty of indignation and anger at the drunk, unlicensed and uninsured driver who severed the legs of a local mother with his vehicle. You can't have it both ways, yes I am sure the P.D. knew they would pick up a lot of the unlicensed locals. But it gets the message across to them that it is just not OK to simply ignore the driving laws and expenses the rest of us have to pony up for. And yes, if you are rowdy enough, you will be arrested for being drunk in public. "

tiredofcomplainingnapkins wrote on Aug 26, 2008 2:35 PM:

" To napagirl,

Thats exactly what i'm saying, these people are responsilbe enough to go out and wine taste and not drive drunk home, unlike the people who live around here that drive drunk and don't care. I have been wine tasting and many people hame Limo's or don't actually drink the wine, they taste it and spit it out. The wineries aren't in business to get people wasted and let them drive out of there, they could end up being sued and losing there privelage to have tastings. Out of the thousands of tourists who drink here daily I only hear of a few accidents a year. And the reason they don't set up checkpoints around wineries is because the wineries are not in the city limits, they are in the county and that is the CHP or Sherrifs job not the Napa PD. "

cathyodom wrote on Aug 26, 2008 2:53 PM:

" Guys... I'm just questioning the "statistics" here. Also, in reviewing the monthly DUI's, over the past year, the bloggers have commented that there seem to be a unusually high percentage of Hispanic last names each month compared to the total number of Hispanics living here in Napa County. Also, the monthly rolls include the city/location, and it shows a larger number of locals. Bloggers are suspicious about the low number of tourists. For me, I'm questioning the police statement.... I'd like to see the facts and statistics from the yearly Police Report, where are the locations of DUI's really? Surely there is a statistical graph that someone has done? If Lincoln truly is a high area, then OK. But I'd like to see that report. "

cathyodom wrote on Aug 26, 2008 3:05 PM:

" for example... "funnyme" broke down the statistics for monthly DUIs for July, and noted that 51% appear to be Latino names. Does that look like racial profiling, or lying in wait in areas where Hispanic/Latino men congregate to buy beer? Hey I'm just curious about the stats, why are they so high? Are there that many drunk Latinos out on the road? Does the Napa PD need to advertise in Latino papers and markets about a DUI checkpoint?
"funnyme wrote on Jul 31, 2008 8:33 AM:
" Oh Boy!...Oh Boy!...

78 Convictions.

1) 26 of them are residents outside Napa County.
That is 33%

2) 1 of the drunks will be consider a local "celebrity". Please be sure to add the ones you can identify.
That is 1%

3) One drunk is either homeless and living out of his car or couldn't remember where he lives.
That is 1%

4) 40 of the names and last names of these drunks "resemble" to be of hispanic/latino origin.
That is 51%" "

freeport56 wrote on Aug 26, 2008 3:25 PM:

" Good job Napa PD. Our streets are a little safer. "

BKF wrote on Aug 26, 2008 4:28 PM:

" The bottom line here is that the police were protecting us from a large quantity of illegal and/or intoxicated drivers. They did a great job, and anyone who tries to argue that point is probably driving uninsured or unregistered.

The cries of "racial profiling" make me sick, by the way. What a ridiculous accusation... "

Dwayne wrote on Aug 26, 2008 4:44 PM:

" cathyodom wrote on Aug 26, 2008 3:05 PM: "Does the Napa PD need to advertise in Latino papers and markets about a DUI checkpoint?"

Nope, they need to learn English... Why are they driving if they can't read street signs, or follow an officer's directions when told, "Get out of the car and keep your hands where I can see them." Not really a good time to try and explain that you left your wallet in your other pair of pants, in Spanish.... "

leavintown wrote on Aug 26, 2008 4:49 PM:

" Most people don't agree with what I have to say about most things, but I will bet most will agree on this. You have got to have the intelligence of a rock to drive drunk or without insurance. Registration and license, EHH, Fix It Ticket, or a fine. You are not hurting anyone else.

I like to drink beer on the weekends, but once I have had one beer, I don't drive anywhere. It is not worth it. What does a DUI cost now, $10,000 when all said and done? Even worse, if you get in an accident without insurance drunk or not imagine what that would cost with hospital expenses or car damage. People need to think of the consequences before they decide to drive drunk or without insurance. "

Joe wrote on Aug 26, 2008 5:02 PM:

" Lincoln is a perfect place for a DUI checkpoint. It would be hard to see it if you didn't hear about it and hard to drive around. I would rather the police target that area. I live around there and know of some illigals in the area. Most of them never have insurance, registration or a license. That's why they ditch there cars on the side of 29 when they break down because they won't be traced back to them. I don't want one of these guys crashing into me with no insurance. At least a wealthy tourist with insurance could cover the expenses. "

shareathought wrote on Aug 26, 2008 5:12 PM:

" If the officers were only looking for drunk drivers why would they have a checkpoint “…from 6:45 to 11 p.m…” does anyone remember the 20-something years? On weekends, the drinking hours in Napa have always been 10:00PM to 2:00AM (that is, unless, you have a different culture-base).

********************************

To believe that officers focused on areas of "a high number of DUI related traffic collisions and DUI arrests" shouldn't there be more than 3 DUI's?

If it had been an event meant to treat all living and working in Napa equally, it should've been posted in Spanish and English and this time, held on Jefferson, Soscol or Trancas Streets? Likewise, if it were an event meant to treat all drunk drivers equally, wouldn't it have been enforced by the Highway Patrol and held on Imola Ave or Silverado Trail?

Never-the-less, keep them from behind the wheel; I'd prefer they walk. "

savenapa wrote on Aug 26, 2008 5:29 PM:

" Good going NPD. Sounds like they picked an excellent spot. Picked up a few drunks and got people off the road that love to hit and run after chopping the legs off unsuspecting pedestrians. People with a license and Insurance typically dont hit and run. Heck, they even picked the same spot so everyone should have known better. "

shareathought wrote on Aug 26, 2008 7:30 PM:

" After reading these...

"I have been wine tasting before and 99% of the people are responsible... People who go wine tasting are typically upstanding people who have children and lives that they don't want to ruin by going and getting smashed at a winery then driving off."

"A DUI grant for DUI checkpoints is being used to get rid of illegals..."

"…it gets the message across to them that it is just not OK to simply ignore the driving laws"

"Poor people are more than likely the ones who won't pay the fines or even show up to court..."

I would agree "They are profiling indeed!"

Outside the county and state, Napa is known as being prejudiced.

*******************************

I don't appreciate unlicensed/uninsured driverseither; 1) after being "...in a traffic accident with an unlicensed/uninsured motorist who fled the scene..." a young white male, and 2) hit by an underage blond teenager who, "borrowed" a driver's license, and was speeding (his mother successfully prevented him from being held responsible); I know that it isn't the empty pocketbook or the darker shade of skin that makes a poor driver. "

kevin wrote on Aug 26, 2008 8:23 PM:

" Well, at least now we know why sales at Napa car dealers are still high... "

vocal-de-local wrote on Aug 26, 2008 8:43 PM:

" Just curious, is there something wrong with targeting uninsured and unlicensed motorists? Perhaps they shouldn't label it "DUI" checkpoint. Labeling it "checkpoint" would be more appropriate? "

xgrapecrusher wrote on Aug 26, 2008 9:06 PM:

" Taking your car for not being registered
sounds xtreme!!!!! "

Baraki wrote on Aug 26, 2008 9:18 PM:

" The code for drunk in public (647(f) pc) states that a person has to be so under the influence of something that they're "in a condition that he or she is unable to exercise care for his or her own safety or the safety of others" -- this is way open to interpretation.

I have no doubt it's been abused by law enforcement at some time, but I'd think that someone would have sued for unlawful detention if it was actually an un-warranted arrest. People who whine and complain and say, "I wasn't that drunk!" but aren't willing to stand up in court and say so don't really have much pull on my conscience. Good job NPD. "

WorksInNapa wrote on Aug 26, 2008 9:29 PM:

" Good work Napa PD! Traffic was just a little better today.

Just a little thought, if the PD was really targeting certain peoples wouldn’t they also be letting the others go? (“Rich – sure you’re DUI but have a nice trip home - OR - Tourist – no insurance? Be on your way but please return soon and spend more money”)

I wish people would think things through before speaking their thoughts. "

shareathought wrote on Aug 26, 2008 9:30 PM:

" Yes,
"Labeling it "checkpoint" would be more appropriate?" or motor vehicle violation check point.
I understand that police officers have an extremely difficult/dangerous job but there are many through out our city who violate driving laws. "

skeptic wrote on Aug 26, 2008 9:38 PM:

" nothing i say should be interpreted as anti-police. they are just doing as ordered. imagine, if, instead of having to run a check point , 2 officers were allowed 2 days each to catch drunk drivers using different methods.the 1st reports," well captain, i only caught 1 drunk driver after pulling over 200 people who were not, but look at the 3 people i found with no liscense or expired tags or no insurance. the 2nd says," i caught 1 drunk per hour which is 16 drunks. half had no insurance or liscense." which would the captain commend ? who is more efficient at catching drunk drivers ? having 2 cars totaled by hit and run drivers, i am not a fan of unliscensed or uninsured drivers, which is why i assume they fled the scenes.
reality1 , great clarification. it answeres the questions asked.
vocal-de-local , good suggestion but it would sound too much like the word used in our broadcasts about russia or china. just plain checkpoint doesn't have the divisive, us and them sound, like dui check does. why not have "anti-crime" or anti-drug," house to house searches without probable cause or warrants ? the name is important . the public would never go for "the kick down the doors of innocent , law abiding people's act." "

funnyme wrote on Aug 26, 2008 9:45 PM:

" VDL,
NPD gets the grant for "DUI Checkpoints".
Truth is we shouldn't care what it's labeled, where is it at, as long as it's not your tush the one that is being hauled away but the ones BREAKING THE LAW (any law).

Don't drink and drive I've heard somewhere...Oh yea, my kids told me they are being taught at school through DARE and a Science class at school.

Behave yourselves, your mom always told ya! "

bob2 wrote on Aug 26, 2008 9:53 PM:

" Just my observation, that those that defend lawbreakers are usually lawless themselves, in one form or another. "

lakeco wrote on Aug 26, 2008 10:19 PM:

" to all the law enforcements, why don't you have a (dui) checkpoint on all the major streets, imola, lincoln, trancas, solano av., soscol av., jefferson st. and then no one can say that you are tarketing any certain st.......all on the same night or 2 nights in a row. "

tiredofcomplainingnapkins wrote on Aug 26, 2008 10:57 PM:

" To Lakeco

There isn't enough officers to have checkpoints on all the major streets on the same night. It takes up to six cars to have a checkpoint and there isn't enough officers to have checkpoints and serve the community for basic calls "

local81 wrote on Aug 27, 2008 8:41 AM:

" im glad that the check point was where it was do you know how many hit and runs occur there? now we know why. "

marine1/1 wrote on Aug 27, 2008 9:41 AM:

" It sounds like the people that are all uptight here have had problems with law enforcement and no matter what anyone says, the will still hate law enforcement. This all sounds to familiar to me. But what happens when their homes or cars get broken into? These DUI check points are awesome. They get a small fraction of the bad people off the road if only for a short time. There is no tollerence when it comes to driving drunk. The most common phrase I have heard , "but I've only had a couple beers". If you take that number and times it by three, you are normally in the ball park of what the person has had to drink. I'm glad to get these unlicesed drivers and folks with no insurance off the road and their vehicles towed. These are the same people that YOU could be involved in an accident with. Good work to all of napa law enforcement.NapaMouth : I can tell you've had run in's with the Sheriff's office.Don't blame officers when you are in the wrong.They are only doing their jobs. You should also talk respectful to officers or how you would talk to your wife or kids.Having a bad attitude will get you nowhere. "

marine1/1 wrote on Aug 27, 2008 9:57 AM:

" Baraki : you are correct on the 647(f). As long as a person isn't being beligerant and attempting to kick or hit the windows on the patrol car and are not a threat to themselves, the 647(f) is normally followed with a 849b form which is no complaint. The subject ddoes not have to go to court and as long as an 849b form is submitted,it also does not go on your record and the paperwork is almost nill for the officer. "

anticommie wrote on Aug 27, 2008 2:47 PM:

" To be arrested for a Drunk in Public, one MUST show signs of "danger to self and/or others." The person was probably making a scene, causing problems with the cops. "

Baraki wrote on Aug 27, 2008 3:42 PM:

" got it, marine -- but can't that still open the officer / department up for civil liability related to unlawful arrest / detainment? i'm talking about with what's-his-name's comment about deputies being a bit too liberal on the use of 647f... "

barefoot wrote on Aug 27, 2008 9:31 PM:

" This was a DUI checkpoint. I think it's a good idea, but you are basically getting pulled over for no reason. Without probable cause, the police should have no reason to ask any other question than; "Have you been drinking tonight?". Otherwise, change the name to Law Breaking Citizen checkpoint. There's no funding for that name? Ooops, my bad. Might as well start pulling people over that are walking down the street. "

lakeco wrote on Aug 27, 2008 10:02 PM:

" to tiredofcomplainingnapkins,....that was just a figure of speech, but if they could do more than 1 street at any given weekend night might get a few of these people off the road "

John Richards wrote on Aug 27, 2008 11:27 PM:

" Judgeknot, you would be OK with the cops holding up 10,000 legal drivers so they could catch one DUI driver?
This is beginning to look more and more like a police dragnet, which is constitutionally unlawful.
Why are they still called "DUI checkpoints" when the majority of violations being found are for something entirely different? "

Joe wrote on Aug 27, 2008 11:55 PM:

" Barefoot is right. There are better ways to catch drunk drivers. They could have a undercover officer hang out at a bar and radio in whenever someone who appears to be drunk drives away from the bar. "

Joe wrote on Aug 27, 2008 11:57 PM:

" I bet the police could catch a lot of drivers under the influence leaving Kennedy park on a Sunday evening. "

cellsitegod wrote on Aug 28, 2008 6:59 AM:

" The PD can't win for losing with these people complaining. If the DUI checkpoint came out of local funds.. you'd complain. If they called it a registration checkpoint..you'd complain.
If the PD didn't catch anybody..you'd complain."
Those of you that worry and complain about "profiling" and "Police State" and "constitutional rights" Probably never have experienced being hit by a unlicenced, un-insured or illegal immigrant driver.
You have no recourse from your losses.
How would all of you complainers like to be that mother that lost her legs to that illegal, drunk, un-insured driver a while back?
I don't mind going through a checkpoint once in a while. Sure, it's a pain.
But, I also realize the PD are trying to stem an epidemic of law breakers the best way they can.
If you break the law, you give up some of your "constitutional rights"
If your an illegal, YOU HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!
I applaud the PD for doing the best job they can, with the resources they have.
Who cares what it's called.
It's very effective at catching people breaking the law. "

Paddy wrote on Aug 28, 2008 7:58 AM:

" I'd like to see a weekly, roving checkpoint throughout the county. Imagine taking 140 illegal cars off the road every month?! It would solve so many problems and insurance companies would be using Napa as an example of how to manage unlawful drivers.

Nice job CHP and NPD! Encore! "

Kracker wrote on Aug 28, 2008 8:28 AM:

" Well said Cellsite, we are lucky to have the officers we have in the Valley. I applaud there efforts to rid our streets of drunks and illegals. Keep up the good work boys!

NO GREEN CARD
NO RIGHTS!!!!!!! "

cathyodom wrote on Aug 28, 2008 9:50 AM:

" Cellsite.... I see your point.... Mu argument was, why do the monthly DUI reports show 50% or greater Hispanic names? Do Hispanic/Latino people go out drinking and driving more, or are they targeted more? "

AO1982 wrote on Aug 28, 2008 10:34 AM:

" I KNEW IT!!! I called it. I said they would be right in front of Lincoln Apartments. I wonder why??? no I dont. Those apartments are predominatley inhabited by hispanics...coincidence? I think not. "

skeptic wrote on Aug 28, 2008 1:49 PM:

" cellsitegod i have had 2 cars totaled . very likely by those without insurance at the least. a friend has a permanent limp and brace because an illegal cut him off in traffic and then fled the country while on bail. my sisters boyfriend was killed and she was in the hospital 3 months with serious injuries because a drunk ran a red light. that's why i don't like to see the police tied up in 95% to 99% timewasters like checking hundreds of innocent people when they could be catching criminals and making us safer. the innocent 95% do not give up their rights. the supreme court has ruled aliens do have rights. read the constitution. everyone has inalienable rights because they are born with them . they are not given by the state . of course lawbreakers give up some but not all of them, such as the right to be represented in court and not to be tortured.
of course we will complain, whether the money and time of police are wasted by the county or the state.you may enjoy giving up your freedoms in order to feel safer but at least check your numbers on the "epidemic". try the fbi . they will show that crime is down about 50% in the last 20 years. if you think it's epidemic, turn off the tv. that's where crime is up 400% in the news and on hour long shows every week, mostly about murder. what is so wrong about police patrolling in cars to catch drunks? it's much more efficient than checkpoints. if 5% productivity looks "very effective" to you, i wonder , relative to what ? "

reality1 wrote on Aug 29, 2008 1:13 PM:

" One more thing to those who seem to resent "upvalley" wineries and tourists, concerning perceived DUI problems north of Napa. I think a major factor in reducing this problem has been the fact that winery tasting rooms now charge for tasting. In the "good old days", you could drive around the valley, get free tasting everywhere, and get absolutely blotto. I read the paper and pay attention to things, and it just does not seem like there are many DUI crashes upvalley any more. Some, for sure, but not a lot. "

kck wrote on Aug 29, 2008 4:21 PM:

" If the PD can tow that many cars and make that many arrests in one area, then please go back until the message is sent. To all that are complaining about traffic enforcement actions; When somebody you know or love is killed by an unlicensed, drunk or uninsured motorist, call me. I can't wait to hear what you have to say then. Wait, why not call the families of last people killed by drunk drivers or unlicensed drivers that fled the scene. Call them. I'm sure they will see your position.The law is the law. It doesnt matter if your black, white, brown, rich, poor, legal or illegal; break the law, suffer the consequences. Hopefully CHP will start doing the same thing on a more frequent basis. Right outside the city limits. "

kck wrote on Aug 29, 2008 4:34 PM:

" One other thing; sure its a DUI checkpoint. But if you come through without a license, no current tabs or no insurance, are the officers, sworn to uphold the laws, ALL LAWS, supposed to just say "Sir/Maam youre breaking the law, but we're only looking for drunk drivers",
"go home, we'll catch you next time. sorry we troubled you fine citizen" THAT WORKS. Some of the most PATHETIC agruments I have ever seen. OK I'm done. Blast away. I think I can take it. "

napamom21 wrote on Aug 30, 2008 4:50 PM:

" All of these unlicensed drivers will likely have another car by Monday - Undocumented workers & drivers aren't going anywhere as long as there is work for them here. "

citylights012 wrote on Aug 30, 2008 7:22 PM:

" Thank you napamom21.

All they want is to work and have a normal life like you, like me, and like everyone else. Yes, I know, at some points they can do the most ridiculous things, like their annoying beat music. But it's their culture. "

barefoot wrote on Aug 31, 2008 8:13 PM:

" Good point! If people who weren't drinking and driving were given a warning for their registration, or some other minor infraction, there would be a substantial loss of revenue. By the way, California requires a housewife to boil their dust rags or face jail time. Should all laws be followed "to-the-t"? "

opiniagirl wrote on Sep 1, 2008 12:31 PM:

" DUH - Sorry to burst bubbles, but ALL people have to follow ALL the laws of America! Even the poor and undocumented have to follow BASIC LAWS.

If that's too hard for you to swallow...cry a river and then build a bridge and climb over it...right back to the border!

Tow away Napa PD....tow tow away! "

savenapa wrote on Sep 1, 2008 2:02 PM:

" Yes barefoot... all laws should be followed to a tee. If you dont like the laws on the books then you should go somewhere where laws are not an issue for you, or become more involved in public policy. "

savenapa wrote on Sep 1, 2008 2:10 PM:

" Loss of revenue? Do you think the tow companies tow for free? How much do you think it costs to deal with all of these now abandoned junk mobiles? How about the cost of insuring the non-insured that crash into you or take your legs off at the knees after having 14 too many beers? Oh.... I guess we are all just trying to unjustly charge the poor huh? Give me a break. Perhaps they should just go back to the dirt roads that they came from and there will be no compliance issues for them. "

asahigo wrote on Sep 1, 2008 4:23 PM:

" It's more efficient money (gas, wear and tear on the cars, and some other stuff I probably forgot to mention) and time wise (if they could catch more law breakers roving they would do so. There's this silly little thing called probable cause which makes it quicker to just set up a check point) to set up check points than having roving patrols. Especially when the check points are set up in areas known for dui incidents and other illegal activities. "

barefoot wrote on Sep 1, 2008 7:17 PM:

" By your standards, we should be pulled over for going 1 mph over the speed limit. I've got an idea. Next time the fair is in Napa, let's set up a sobriety check point for everyone entering or exiting the fair. Being drunk in public is against the law. By the standards in place right now, we need to check everyone for being drunk in public, just because they are in public. Since you are checking them for being drunk in public, why not check to see if they have warrants, identification, etc...Some of you are missing my point. I am glad the drunks were taken off the road. Less than 1/2 of 1 percent. That's great! But where does it end? In 1973 my little sister (4 years old at the time) was given a ticket for riding her bicycle on the sidewalk. Wow! I guess by you standards we should be knowledgeable of all laws from birth. Give me a break! "

xgrapecrusher wrote on Sep 1, 2008 7:20 PM:

" If All people have to follow All the laws of America why is half of Napa illegal? "

barefoot wrote on Sep 1, 2008 7:28 PM:

" The whole "Loss of revenue" Let me explain. Of course the tow companies aren't free. So if you give people a warning....NO REVENUE. If you don't give someone a ticket for expired registration, NO REVENUE. If you only arrest 3 people out of 900, NO REVENUE. Again, call it by another name than "DUI Checkpoint", maybe then I will be satisfied. "

barefoot wrote on Sep 1, 2008 7:52 PM:

" Great point! Maybe we should just start going house to house to see if people are legal or not. "

John Richards wrote on Sep 1, 2008 8:15 PM:

" The problem with just calling it a "Checkpoint" is that the courts have not authorized having a checkpoint for a purpose other than DUI. In other to stop a motorist for other reasons, the cops need probable cause. So, as long as they call it a DUI Checkpoint, it is legal, even though the actual results obtained say otherwise. "

savenapa wrote on Sep 1, 2008 8:36 PM:

" I doubt whether anything satisfies you barefooty. But I'll tell you what...going door to door to check zi papers? I'd vote for it in a heartbeat. And please no Nazi or police state rhetoric. My family came here from Nazi Occupied Germany legally. Don't insult those that have truely lived the horror. "

barefoot wrote on Sep 1, 2008 9:42 PM:

" Okay, now how much is that going to cost? Are you willing to pay for your part? Are you willing to pay for your neighbor's part that aren't even there legally? Are you willing to pay for everybody's part that can't pay for themselves? "

barefoot wrote on Sep 1, 2008 9:44 PM:

" This is America. No matter what the government does, you have to pay for it in one way or another. It's not a bad thing, don't get me wrong. As long as the government is doing the right thing. Going door to door checking for proper I.D. is not only a waste of time, but a waste of money. MY MONEY. "

savenapa wrote on Sep 2, 2008 5:06 PM:

" It wouldnt be a waste of money if it got rid of the squatters. In the end we would save money. "

barefoot wrote on Sep 2, 2008 9:42 PM:

" Okay, let's look at the facts related to this subject. Less than one half of one percent of the subjects they were after were arrested. How is that profitable? At least now you are starting to see my point. It's all about making money. By the way, thank you for all of your comments. You have made the past few days memorable. I may be wrong, I may be right, the thing is, we made a difference. I appreciate your dialog. "

Comment guidelines
All comments will be screened and may take several hours to be posted.
• Keep comments clear, concise and focused on the topic in the story.
• Comments exceeding 300 words will not be posted.
• Refrain from personal attacks, degrading comments or remarks that do not add to a constructive dialogue.
• Comments implying suspects in crime-related stories are guilty before they have been proven so in a court of law will be deleted.
• Do not post e-mail addresses or links except for pages on Napavalleyregister.com or government Web sites.
• Comments will not be edited - they will be approved or declined.
• Comments may be used in the print edition of the newspaper.
• If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact dross@napanews.com or bkennedy@napanews.com
For further information on the comment guidelines, click here.
Search:
Advanced searchWeb Search Powered By Yahoo! Search
Back to top
Contact: News | Advertising | Subscriber Services | Work for us | Buy photos
More local news: American Canyon Eagle | St. Helena Star | Weekly Calistogan
Local tourism: Inside Napa Valley
Copyright © 2008 Napa Valley Publishing, a member of Lee Enterprises, Inc.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy