DUI checkpoint catches three drunk drivers

Home » News » Local

Monday, September 08, 2008

Comment

By CARLOS VILLATORO
Register Staff Writer

August 2008 DUI Report

Carlos Villatoro articles

November 21st, 2009

Computer stolen from Volunteer Center

November 16th, 2009

Shoot 'em up

Screams, giggles at the library as teens present scary films

November 15th, 2009

Napa teens jailed after car stolen

Fair highlights street painting vs. 'tagging'

A Napa Police Department checkpoint yielded three DUI arrests Saturday evening.

Officers conducted the DUI-Drivers License checkpoint at the intersection of Coombs and Third Streets from 6 p.m. until midnight. Police checked 487 cars and towed 18 vehicles because the drivers were either driving on a suspended or revoked license or driving with no license, according to the police department.

In addition, police wrote seven moving violation citations and checked six individuals who had been drinking but were not under the influence police said.

35 comment(s)

funnyme wrote on Sep 8, 2008 5:34 AM:

" Job well done again. Kudos NPD! "

skippert wrote on Sep 8, 2008 7:03 AM:

" I find it funny that people without insurance or licence drive right where the check points are. They must be without brain too. Happy checkpointing. "

Sickothis wrote on Sep 8, 2008 9:37 AM:

" Seemed like a pretty ridiculous place for a checkpoint. "

4gnapan wrote on Sep 8, 2008 9:50 AM:

" 3rd and Coombs?..
just Walk em on over to the jail afterwards, eh? "

napalocal wrote on Sep 8, 2008 10:59 AM:

" too bad none of the unlisenced drivers have the funds to fight this illegeal search and siezure of their automobiles... Supposedly it is legal to stop drivers for "no reason" now to check for intoxication, but it should still be illegal to request lisence and registration with out having broken any law... When will you all learn that giving up these constitutional rights is a slippery slope... Just wait till it affects you! "

chunk wrote on Sep 8, 2008 11:20 AM:

" hey napalocal. How can you assume that unlicensed drivers don't have the funds to take care of this. Nowhere does it mention how much money any of these people make. "

local81 wrote on Sep 8, 2008 11:30 AM:

" dear napalocal i dont understand why u are defending these criminals. Driving is a privlage not a right. I hate the fact that me and many others like myself have to pay more for uninsured motorist insurance just because people like you defend these criminals. By the way most of the cars they were impounding were new cars. So how do you figure they dont have any money? "

Dwayne wrote on Sep 8, 2008 11:45 AM:

" local81 wrote on Sep 8, 2008 11:30 AM:
".....most of the cars they were impounding were new cars. So how do you figure they dont have any money? "

Commercial: You can own any newer car on our lot for no money down and only $289 per month. Bad credit, no problem. COMMON DOWN.... Se habla Espanol..... "

LocalNapa wrote on Sep 8, 2008 11:47 AM:

" Napalocal: How about my right - as a licensed driver of a registered vehicle - to drive safely on the streets without the threat of encountering people with suspended licenses?? Your arguement for defending criminals over the innocent is ridiculous and I am so tired of hearing this slant. People need to take responsibility for themselves. Follow the law. Have a license. Register your car. Have valid insurance. It's pretty basic stuff we're talking about here. "

napalynn wrote on Sep 8, 2008 11:51 AM:

" napalocal - Most of us have more sense than to drive under the influence, and hopefully, you do, too.

The comment at the end of your blog really bothered me, because it gives the impression that you have had in the past to "surrender your right" to have your vehicle searched for some reason, perhaps probable cause... Not a jugdement, just an observation.

Anyway, three drunk drivers off our streets is great, potentially and primarily saving lives and secondarily some of napalocal's tax money... "

marine1/1 wrote on Sep 8, 2008 12:07 PM:

" Good job to all involved in the checkpoint. I hope we have at least one of these a month. I'm glad to see more and more unlicensed drivers cited and their vehicles towed. More unlicensed and uninsured idiots off the streets of Napa. Great job!!!! "

nweaver wrote on Sep 8, 2008 12:18 PM:

" Actually, there are plenty of court cases that say checking liscence/registration is legal. In fact, state law says that when operating a vehicle, you MUST give it upon request to a law enforcement officer. Its not a search, but just part of the responsibilities of driving.

Additionally, the funding for checkpoints requires that not only is DUI looked for, but also unliscenced/suspended liscenced drivers. "

NapaCA wrote on Sep 8, 2008 12:49 PM:

" In support of the NPD's selection of the checkpoint location...I saw it and thought it was in an excellent spot. As drivers traveled north on Randolph (btw, a street rampant with speeders) and turned onto Third, there it was, with no way for them to avoid/circumvent it.

To those bloggers who idly sit back and criticize, I suggest that you do your research first. "

selim wrote on Sep 8, 2008 1:48 PM:

" Uhhhh...napalocal, you don't have a "right" to drive, so these checkpoints are completely legal. And if you're ignorant and willfully relinquish your fourth amendment rights, then you get what you deserve. Of course, if you are driving without a license, there's probable cause right there for search & seizure, so all your Perry Mason posturing will go right out the window.

So what's the moral of the story kids? Get a license. Buy insurance. Don't drink & drive. Drive carefully. If you do those four simple things you will never have to worry about the police making you "walk the line" or searching your car. "

Native74 wrote on Sep 8, 2008 1:56 PM:

" Imola and 29 would be a great spot too, but maybe they already have one there peridically. Yay to NPD!

Heading home from work Friday night they were just setting up a DUI point on Frates Road/116. I find it amazing that they set up at one of the the main entrance/exit's to Petaluma whereas in Napa it's "downtown". What gives?!?!? "

jmo wrote on Sep 8, 2008 2:06 PM:

" 4gnapan: Right on!
Napalocal: Would it be too much trouble to ask you to read the law and then get back to us.
Seems like an odd place for a check point---guess it puts all Napans on notice that a check point could be coming to your neighborhood. Be smart don’t drink and drive; don’t drive without a license and insurance. "

DL wrote on Sep 8, 2008 2:59 PM:

" to napalocal: You say that these people are being requested to show their license & registration without having broken any law. So apparently you know of a new law that states it is perfectly legal to drive without a license? I DON'T THINK SO. When these people get into a car & drive without a valid license, they are at that point "BREAKING THE LAW!" get over it. "

leavintown wrote on Sep 8, 2008 5:36 PM:

" I applaud the NPD. GREAT JOB!!!!! Let's have a DUI / license / insurance / registration checkpoint every week. I don't care what you call it. I like it. It gets all the illegal drivers off the road.

Another thing, for any one that complains about the police doing there job, obviously has something they're worried about. That's why they are complaining. I myself have a valid license, proof of insurance, registration, and I don't drink and drive. They can search my vehicle, they can have the dog sniff my truck, whatever. I know I am legal, so I am not worried. It is the people that are doing something illegal that complain. "

Baraki wrote on Sep 8, 2008 5:44 PM:

" Local, come on -- "illegal search and seizure" ?? Really? It's absolutely legal to require someone to present a valid drivers license if they're on the road. It's also legal to tow a car for someone driving unlicensed / suspended. Show me where in the Constitution it says people are guaranteed the right to free usage of federal/state/county maintained highways/roads.

Also, although it's illegal to stop someone without probable cause (for intoxication in this case), case law exists to support DUI checkpoints. There's all kinds of rules they have to follow to make it legal.

I love these checkpoint discussion ;) "

123456789 wrote on Sep 8, 2008 7:55 PM:

" I THINK THAT THE DUI CHECK POINTS ARE GREAT THEY HELP KEEP ALL THOSE CRAZY DRUNK DRIVERS OFF THE ROAD ESPECIALLY CAUCASIAN PEOPLE AND THE TOURISTS I KNOW ITS NAPA THE WINE COUNTRY BUT KEEP IT UNDER CONTROL. I SAY WE DO A CHECK POINT AT DOWNTOWN NAPA "

123456789 wrote on Sep 8, 2008 8:00 PM:

" do the check stops in other neighborhoods like browns valley or something like that i bet you would catch alot of drunkies "

Maya wrote on Sep 8, 2008 8:22 PM:

" Let's see: follow the rules=no problems. I've been through several DUI checkpoints and not had to worry one bit because I'm following the rules. People who have to worry about these things are worried for a reason.

And I reiterate: driving is a PRIVILEGE, not a right. That was one of the main points I remember from driver's training. We all have to follow the rules and earn the privilege to drive. People who don't understand this don't deserve to drive on our streets. "

Napa_Native wrote on Sep 8, 2008 8:38 PM:

" I am all for getting the impaired drivers off the road. They pose a danger to themselves and everyone around them. I am also not opposed to getting the unlicensed out from behind the wheel. As a matter of fact I went through the checkpoint and all I was asked for was my driver's license. Not a big deal. If others were asked to provide different documentation they have a right to protest.

My problem with these checkpoints is that I find them discriminatory. Why are these checkpoints only occurring during evening hours? I contend some of the most impaired drivers are on the road during daylight hours. When I go to lunch at local restaurants I see many businessmen/women having three or more cocktails with lunch. But I don't see a checkpoint downtown from 1:00pm to 6:00pm.

I contend that the police will remove more unlicensed, unregistered, and uninsured vehicles during daylight hours. If that is truly the goal of the checkpoints then the police would be set up on Trancas St., at the Post Office, or Bel Air shopping Center, from 10:00am to 5:00pm.

Until we see a commensurate number of checkpoints at key locations, during daylight hours, we have every right to protest because it is clearly a fourteenth amendment issue. "

reason-ator wrote on Sep 8, 2008 10:26 PM:

" Sorry, Napa_Native, but a DUI checkpoint on Trancas is a bad idea. It's going to cause more accidents than it'll prevent.

I think traffic is why the checkpoints are at night when traffic is light, not the number of intoxicated drivers.

Would all the people who are in favor of DUI checkpoints be in favor of video surveillance to nab the drivers who are driving while chatting on their cell phones, since they are equally as dangerous ? Or is that different ? "

me2you wrote on Sep 12, 2008 1:18 PM:

" HELLO....Has anyone looked at the August name list of WHO DUI's went to? Give me a break. It;s the same for every month....then they LITTERLY LEAVE like MOVE FAR AWAY!
Remember me? The lady who's lived here since 1951 and moving to Oregon because of what OUR GOVERNMENT has let happen to what use to me my favorite place in the world, NAPA which I have changed the name to M.....! "

Napa_Native wrote on Sep 12, 2008 8:19 PM:

" reason-ator - Thank you for proving my point. More accidents will get more of the impaired drivers off the road. Being impaired does not only mean under the influence of alcohol or drugs. It includes any condition that would limit your ability to safely operate a motor vehicle. For example poor vision, seizure disorders, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, deafness, poor reflexes, inattentativeness, paralysis, etc.

If the idea behind checkpoints was to do them when traffic is light, then they would be set up on Old Henry Road or Sproul Ave from 1:00am until 6:00am. I don't think that's the idea at all. But nice try. "

John Richards wrote on Sep 12, 2008 8:30 PM:

" reason-ator, you will never get a response from the self-righteous chest beaters here regarding illegal cell phone usage. Perhaps the cops need to start confiscating their vehicles also. "

John Richards wrote on Sep 12, 2008 8:37 PM:

" Baraki, according to our Constitution, the cops can not stop and detain someone for no reason. They must have a probable cause to believe that a violation of law has occurred. Our founding fathers were very adamant that they did not want a police state like the European countries they came from. "

reason-ator wrote on Sep 13, 2008 12:26 AM:

" Napa_native,

I don't understand which of your points I "proved". What I meant was that Trancas is a crazy enough place as it is without adding an unnecessary and unfamiliar stop. The people who are going to get in accidents because of a new stop to search for drunk drivers are most likely sober. And even if sober people DID get hit by an allegedly impaired driver, a sober driver who got hit by a drunk driver because of a city action could cause a liability for the city.

How would YOU feel if you were involved in an accident that you otherwise would not have been involved in because law enforcement decided to have a traffic roadblock to check " Ze Papers " ?. "

reason-ator wrote on Sep 13, 2008 12:34 AM:

" John Richards,

The silence is from the "self-righteous chest-beaters" is indeed deafening.

What's more telling is that many drivers who drive impaired may not really know for sure if they are 0.7, 0.8, or 0.9. Whether they are legally drunk according to the arbitrarily set legal standard or not is not a certain thing.

But the person who endangers us when they pick up a phone knows FOR SURE that they are breaking the law, and choose to do it anyway. "

mamabear wrote on Sep 14, 2008 4:28 PM:

" TO EVERYONE....

napalocal is correct. It's not that we are worried about the check points because we break the law (I for one, follow the law.. I have a valid license, registration and insurance), it is 100% about our rights. I am constantly getting pulled over and harrassed for no valid reason. I can prove that... I do not have any tickets. For those who want check points all the time and the one who wants serviellance to catch those on their cell phone.... talk about "Big Brother". When they invent "Smell-o-vision" (A TV that you can smell... like the food network) im fleeing to Amsterdam.

PS... dont give up your rights so easily. "

Napan since 1965 wrote on Sep 15, 2008 8:46 AM:

" BRAVO TO NAPA PD (and/or other participating law enforcement agencies)!!!

The more drunks and unlicensed drivers they can take off the road, the safer it becomes for everyone else. Keep up the good work--and the more frequently they are held, the better!!! "

skeptic wrote on Sep 16, 2008 8:20 PM:

" this is a big improvement. a recent dragnet yielded a dui efficiency of .003%. .006% is double that efficiency. never mind that 99%+ of the time is spent dealing with overwhealmingly innocent people, this is apparently a success by government standards.
to any who support the half billion dollar checkpoints, just for napa , i would like to make a suggestion. open a restarant and i will work as a cook. i will start the day by spending over 5 minutes making one heckuva chicken taco for a single customer. the rest of the day i will spend checking the other employees, the manegement and customers for any irregularities. that's over 1% efficiency. you'll be even happier with my work and productivity level than you already are with the checkpoints.
even tough a collosal waste of time, if it saves just one life, it's worth it all, right ?
has any economist noted that the 15 billion the state is short now is roughly equivalent to about 30 checkpoints like napas for a year ? only , in l.a , they stop the whole freeway and pull over 5000 at a time. "

barefoot wrote on Sep 16, 2008 8:43 PM:

" Can anybody see the big picture yet? I've been trying to tell you. Let's not just set up one DUI checkpoint. Let's set up several. Every artery to and from. Break the law, suffer the consequence. BTW, the county needs to invest in tow trucks. Huge profit. "

davidnotgoliath wrote on Sep 20, 2008 5:13 PM:

" Wow...fight some real crime NPD so sad that this is news. "

Join the conversation

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Create an account

Comment Guidelines

The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.

What gets your comment posted?

• Staying on topic

• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less

• Avoiding name-calling

• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger

What gets your comment deleted?

• Personal attacks

• Derogatory remarks

• Name-calling of any sort

• Going off-topic

• Hate speech

• Racially-insensitive comments

• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict

• Posting e-mail addresses

• Posting comments of a commercial nature

• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS

• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.

The fine print

- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.

- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.

- Comments may take several hours to be posted.

- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.

- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.

- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.

Search: