|
DUI checkpoint catches three drunk drivers
Share
Email
Print
CommentRelated
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.
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.
Join the conversation
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.
|
|
funnyme wrote on Sep 8, 2008 5:34 AM:
skippert wrote on Sep 8, 2008 7:03 AM:
Sickothis wrote on Sep 8, 2008 9:37 AM:
4gnapan wrote on Sep 8, 2008 9:50 AM:
just Walk em on over to the jail afterwards, eh? "
napalocal wrote on Sep 8, 2008 10:59 AM:
chunk wrote on Sep 8, 2008 11:20 AM:
local81 wrote on Sep 8, 2008 11:30 AM:
Dwayne wrote on Sep 8, 2008 11:45 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:
napalynn wrote on Sep 8, 2008 11:51 AM:
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:
nweaver wrote on Sep 8, 2008 12:18 PM:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
leavintown wrote on Sep 8, 2008 5:36 PM:
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:
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:
123456789 wrote on Sep 8, 2008 8:00 PM:
Maya wrote on Sep 8, 2008 8:22 PM:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
John Richards wrote on Sep 12, 2008 8:37 PM:
reason-ator wrote on Sep 13, 2008 12:26 AM:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
davidnotgoliath wrote on Sep 20, 2008 5:13 PM: