September 2008 DUI Report | Napa Valley Register

Home » News » Dui

September 2008 DUI Report

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Comment

By Register Staff

DUI coverage

July 3rd, 2009

June 2009 DUI Report

July 2nd, 2009

MADD honors officers for their DUI arrests

Crackdown on drunken drivers planned for Fourth of July weekend

June 26th, 2009

DUI arrest after Highway 29 crash

June 24th, 2009

Crash results in DUI arrest

NapaValleyRegister.com publishes monthly statistics on arrests and convictions for driving under the influence — and so-called “wet reckless” convictions — in Napa County.

Arrest information is from the Napa County Sheriff’s Department. Convictions, names and blood-alcohol levels are from Napa County Superior Court.

Convictions include cases in which the person pleaded guilty or no contest to one or more drunk driving charges, or where one or more such charges resulted in a guilty verdict at trial.

Vehicle code violations considered are: driving under the influence (Vehicle Code section 23152), reckless driving while under the influence (23103.5) and causing injury to another while driving while under the influence (23153).

The blood-alcohol levels provided by the court are based on a variety of tests — some taken at the scene of the arrest or county jail, others through a later blood test — and have not necessarily been proven or admitted in court. It is unlawful for any person to operate a vehicle if that person has a blood-alcohol level of .08 or more, according to the California Vehicle Code.

Arrests: 87 (September)

Convictions/pleas: 115*

Reported blood-alcohol below .10 or unavailable: 29*

Reported blood-alcohol between .10 and .19: 62*

Reported blood-alcohol between .20 and .29: 23*

Reported blood-alcohol between .30 and .39: 1*

Due to a data collection error, the DUI list omitted the names of several people convicted of DUI in the last several months. The names of those individuals are included in this month’s list. The number of people convicted in the month of September is 92.

Names listed below are for convictions only.

Click here to load this Caspio Bridge DataPage.

57 comment(s)

nan03 wrote on Oct 4, 2008 8:54 AM:

" Job well done. Thank you. hope they all learn a lesson. "

mypoint wrote on Oct 4, 2008 11:08 AM:

" Geez, there were a lot of convictions in September...lots of people partying it up this summer I guess "

John Richards wrote on Oct 4, 2008 11:44 AM:

" Don't be naive. The list never gets shorter.
Do you tell all people with disabilities, "I hope you learned your lesson!" ? "

BFB wrote on Oct 4, 2008 11:55 AM:

" Man reading this is like flipping through the high school year book "

Dwayne wrote on Oct 4, 2008 3:24 PM:

" John Richards wrote on Oct 4, 2008 11:44 AM:
" Don't be naive. The list never gets shorter.
Do you tell all people with disabilities, "I hope you learned your lesson!" ? "

Driving drunk is a disability now...??? You just have to feel sorry for them...

Perhaps rape, incest, murder and bank robbery are disabilities too... OJ Simpson for sure has a disability, don't ya think...???

NOT...!!! "

Annabella wrote on Oct 4, 2008 6:34 PM:

" It's amazing that USA Today has not picked up the dpwmside fact that Napa holds the record for DUI's. "

reason-ator wrote on Oct 4, 2008 7:54 PM:

" There's an awful lot of people from Napa on this list.

We oughta ban people who live in Napa from coming to Napa. "

napanative53 wrote on Oct 5, 2008 6:25 AM:

" Yes reasonator, there are a lot of Napa residents included. This is because the people who live in Napa Valley have no activities to engage in besides what is here. Wine, wine and more wine.
One thing that makes me curious is how my drummer friend Phillip Palmquist ended up on this list when he has been is prison for nearly a year now????????????? Somebody got over. 'Get a little drunk and you'll land in jail' from the song 'Old Man River'. Just don't do it people. It totally is not worth it and the cabbies need the business. Not to mention that someone could be killed. Wise up people! "

cpslowine wrote on Oct 5, 2008 10:40 AM:

" These are for convictions, not arrests. One person I know on the list was arrested last November. It can take a long time to make the list if it goes to trial. "

B-Side wrote on Oct 5, 2008 8:57 PM:

" napanative53,

I knew your drummer friend Phillip Palmquist many years ago. Didn't know he was in prison though. Bummer for him to get a DUI while incarcerated. "

John Richards wrote on Oct 6, 2008 8:58 AM:

" DUI is not a disability, but alcoholism (the cause for DUI) certainly is. Just ask Dr. Phil or Dr. Drew. :-)
I'm not saying that violaters of the law shouldn't be punished. But the kind of hateful, vituperative attitude shown here is demeaning and uncalled for. The fact remains that most traffic accidents are not caused by DUI drivers. Why aren't you people just as negative toward the other traffic accident causes? "

Melimop wrote on Oct 6, 2008 10:08 AM:

" [An accident is a specific, identifiable, unexpected, unusual and unintended external event which occurs in a particular time and place, without apparent or deliberate cause but with marked effects.]

With that definition in place, someone getting behind a wheel intoxicated is NOT an accident - it's a choice - a horrible choice that needs to be punished. Don't defend drunk drivers, it only makes you look like you yourself are one. Sure it's something that eventually can be forgiven, but any pity or excuse given to a drunk drivers' actions is only giving another ignorant person the impression that it's really "not that bad" and IT IS! "

FreyaMind wrote on Oct 6, 2008 11:58 PM:

" do you realize that 1/4 of these DUI's were .10 or below the legal limit is .08 im not defending them but damn people only in napa would that 1/4 of people be on this list "

funnyme wrote on Oct 7, 2008 4:31 AM:

" Don't forget it's not only drunks the ones who get DUI's, it's drug addicts as well... "

bigbadmatt wrote on Oct 7, 2008 12:51 PM:

" John Richards- I got a dwai a handful of years ago. But, I am not nor ever been an alcoholic. So then, other than making a terrible choice, how did I get that? Considering your logic of alcoholism being the cause of DUI's. "

reason-ator wrote on Oct 7, 2008 7:41 PM:

" I just saw on the news today that figures show that the leading cause of accident for '05 to '07 was cell-phone usage.

Where's the self-righteous outrage ? Where's the running list of cell-phone violators everyday who KNOWINGLY made the choice to use a cell-phone while driving ?

Or is that different ? Nobody here would use a cell-phone while driving, would they ? That causes more accidents that drunk driving. And many drunk drivers may have thought that they were not over the legal limit of 0.08%, because they couldn't test themselves. But everyone who used a cell-phone DEFINITELY knows they were using a cell-phone. "

tiredofcomplainingnapkins wrote on Oct 7, 2008 8:01 PM:

" To John Richards,
I don't know how you can say alcoholism is a disabliity, being born unable to hear or see or walk is a disablity. Having a brain problem is a disablity, being an alcoholic is not a disablity. Being an alchoholic is just a lack of discipline. Choosing to drink or not to drink, or choosing how much to drink and how much not to is a choice, a choice that requires discipline. You don't choose to be born with no arms or sight but you do choose on wether you are going to drink or not. Its all a matter of discipline. Just like your disciplined enought not to get in your car and drive after having to much to drink "

John Richards wrote on Oct 8, 2008 10:28 AM:

" "Don't defend drunk drivers, it only makes you look like you yourself are one." What an illogical statement! So, any lawyer or public defender who defends a criminal is himself suspected of favoring that crime?

I've repeatedly said that DUI offenders should receive appropriate punishment. Having them wear a scarlet letter around their neck or otherwise exposing them to public ridicule is not part of appropriate punishment. "

John Richards wrote on Oct 8, 2008 10:41 AM:

" Not all disabilities are highly visible, like missing an arm or a leg. For example, schizophrenia or bipolar disorder may not be readily apparent. Yet we allow people with certain mental disabilities to be "not guilty by reason of insanity."
We are all born with different chemical receptors in our brains. Many alcoholics are just as powerless to straighten themselves out as a person with anorexia or bulimia. Do we tell those unfortunate people to snap out of it and to straighten themselves out? No, we have compassion and seek to enroll them in appropriate treatment. "

John Richards wrote on Oct 8, 2008 10:46 AM:

" Thank you, reason-ator, for mentioning a point I have made here before. It is a documented fact that cell phone users have impaired driving ability to the same extent as a DUI driver with a .08 blood alcohol level. Yet where is the moral outrage against those who use cell phones while driving???
You are all a bunch of self-righteous hypocrits! "

tiredofcomplainingnapkins wrote on Oct 8, 2008 9:07 PM:

" To John Richards,
True, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are both disabilites, they are both disabilities that can't be avoided, Bullima, anorexia, and alchoholism are all issues that just require a decision. The decision is wether to throw up after eating, not to eat at all, and wether to drink alcohol or not to. These aren't disabilities. If people were born on an island with shizophrenia or bipolar then thats something they couldn't help. Now if they are born on an island where alcohol doesn't exsist then how could there be a disablity to want to drink? They wouldn't know anything about it so there wouldn't be the choice wether to drink or not. Or a disability to not eat or to throw up after eating, they would be on island where eating is survival, a natural human tendency. Those are all choices, not a disablity. "

where_is_the_checkpoint wrote on Oct 8, 2008 10:39 PM:

" Come on, guys. It's 2008. Let's grow up. Is there *still* such a stigma against alcoholism? It's not OK to make fun of people in wheelchairs anymore. It's not OK to make fun of Down syndrome people anymore. Why do you think it's OK to make fun of alcoholics? The disease of alcoholism is not about the drinking; it's about the vulnerability to the addictive effects of alcohol. There are drunks and there are alcoholics. Drunks just like to drink. Alcoholics cannot help themselves. Alcoholics cannot help themselves anymore than people with other disabilities cannot help that, for example, their arms shake around or their tongue hangs out. Even though you can keep your tongue in your mouth and not drool and keep your arms from shaking around, it doesn't mean everyone can. What's voluntary for you might be involuntary for someone else. Go read about it and educate yourself instead of spreading ignorance. This is the same kind of ignorance that leads people to believe that CO2 from humans does not have a warming effect on the atmosphere, or that the biblical creation story is factually true. It's a very dangerous kind of ignorance because all of the information is at your fingertips when you're at a computer, yet you choose to ignore it. It might behoove you to do a little research about alcoholism on the web before you spout hate speech in the blogs. But then again, the people who would benefit from it probably did not even finish reading this post anyway. "

tiredofcomplainingnapkins wrote on Oct 8, 2008 11:03 PM:

" To Where is the checkpoint
You still don't understand how being an alcoholic is not a disablity. People who are alcoholics have been known to stop cold turkey and never drink again, thats there choice and the disciplie of those people. People with bi-polar, or the loss of hearing or sight just can't one day decide to not have bi-polar disorder anymore or decide they want to see or hear again. But people that are alcoholics can decide to not drink anymore and can choose to do it. This is the reason it is a choice and not a disability. Just like I said if these people where born into a society with no alcohol then they wouldn't be alcoholics, but if they were born with bi-polar then thats something they have and couldn't help. Alcoholics choose to take that first drink, and they choose to drink every drink after that. They Lack Discipline "

where_is_the_checkpoint wrote on Oct 8, 2008 11:36 PM:

" tiredofcomplainingnapkins: Using your logic, you can *cure* bi-polar disorder with medicine, just like you can *cure* alcoholism by not drinking. The problem is that a drink would have a totally different effect on a "cured" alcoholic than it would on you. The alcoholic would fall off the wagon. You wouldn't. You're lucky. Be grateful, not hateful. And stop complaining; we're getting tired of it. "

valleygirl wrote on Oct 9, 2008 9:38 AM:

" Don't pick up a drink. Definately don't pick up a drink and then drive. Absolutely don't do it if you are an acoholic. As humans we have free will. To pick up a drink or not to. Don't allow yourself to get the the point where you feel "you have no control". You ALWAYS have the choice to pick that drink or not. To take away your responsility for your actions should be insulting. To say you can't help it, is insane. To say you need help is admirable. "

tiredofcomplainingnapkins wrote on Oct 9, 2008 10:03 AM:

" To where is checkpoint
No, using my logic proves that you can't help having bi-polar disorder, true you can cure it with medicine, but you can't decide to have it or not. Alcoholics can decide wether to drink or not. They aren't born into this life as an alcoholic, and they don't just wake up one day and have Alcohol problem. There only problem is they Lack discipline. If an alcoholic decides to stop drinking but then has one drink 10 years later, then never drinks again, thats because they had discipline to not drink anymore. Not because they were CURED, there is no cure because its not a disease, its a choice. "

jmo wrote on Oct 9, 2008 2:16 PM:

" Gee and hear I thought alcoholism WAS a disease. Isn't that we have been told for YEARS and blindness was a disability? Oh it is all so confusing -:).

If alcoholism is a disability shouldn't alcoholics be protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act? Where is the ACLU when you need them? Where's the compassion????

PS: where is the commentator who usually provides us with the statistical breakdowns of each month DUI convictions? "

where_is_the_checkpoint wrote on Oct 9, 2008 11:30 PM:

" tiredofcomplainingnapkins: Thank you for repeating yourself. Somehow I missed your point the first, second, third, fourth and fifth time you said it. By the tenth time you wrote the same thing, I was convinced. Now go look up 'disease' in the dictonary. If you don't understand, read the definition again and again and again until you get it. Then have a drink and relax. :) "

reason-ator wrote on Oct 10, 2008 12:58 AM:

" It's great that the non-alcoholics pretend to understand what the alcoholics feel. But I don't think they do, especially judging from what they say.

Did I say "judging" ? "

tiredofcomplainingnapkins wrote on Oct 10, 2008 12:09 PM:

" To where is the checkpoint
Salvation Lies Within, Think About That "

frenchtoast wrote on Oct 10, 2008 2:25 PM:

" Some comments get so off point. If you are an alcoholic and need to get somewhere (i.e., booze run), call a cab. For those people who occasionally drink, have a designated driver or call a cab. Taxis are easy - put in your cell directory, chat on your cell. Think of it as a cheap limo! It's too dangerous, expensive, naive to do it any other way, ****or just don't indulge. "

shellman wrote on Oct 10, 2008 2:33 PM:

" Where are the Mothers against cell phone users? "

besmart wrote on Oct 10, 2008 10:26 PM:

" If your driving shows that you are drunk then so be it you are drunk driving. If your driving does not show it, then lets return this back to free country, and tell the napa cops to go do the many jobs they should be doing while making thier giant saleries and over payed benifits they reap from the tax payer. "

napadad wrote on Oct 11, 2008 12:21 PM:

" being able to cover or hide up criminal behavior doesnt make it less criminal "

notshocked wrote on Oct 11, 2008 3:03 PM:

" I think we can all subscribe to the fact that alcoholism is a disease/disability. But just like a blind person or a limbless individual (without a specially fitted car), they should stay out from behind the wheel -- maybe should not be licensed if they don't have self control. If, after that, they still drive, then they should pay the price and tolerate public scrutiny just like any able-bodied person with the poor judgment to drive drunk. This is not disputable -- and if you do (in my humble opinion, then you are an accessory to their crime. "

Two Cents wrote on Oct 11, 2008 3:42 PM:

" Im SO over people who defend alcoholics like its some disease they have no control over.
Call it a disease.. but alcoholics are purely selfish people if you ask me.
If they had an ounce of will power, they would choose NOT to pick up the drink. People with addiction issues, whether it be gambling, drinking or dugs, selfishly choose to tear their families/lives apart because of their inability to make the right choice.
Wouldnt we all love to go about life indulging ourselves in whatever, whenever??
Sorry, I have no sympathy for people who drink to the point of suffering consequences. No doubt, they are making their loved ones suffer unfairly right along with them. "

Masquashicut wrote on Oct 11, 2008 4:07 PM:

" I forgot what comedian said "Alcoholism is the only disease you get yelled at for having." "

Two Cents wrote on Oct 11, 2008 5:21 PM:

" I believe the reason people (like myself) get angry with the disease of acoholism because unlike, lets say cancer, there is some element of choice.
Maybe not choice in having the disease of addiction, but definitely some choice in how you deal with it. "

John Richards wrote on Oct 12, 2008 9:43 AM:

" What I don't understand is why the courts don't require that anyone convicted of DUI can only drive a car fitted with an ignition interlock device for the next 10 years. That makes a lot more sense than draconian fines and suspending the drivers license. "

wipemedown wrote on Oct 13, 2008 10:26 AM:

" Get a DUI in placer county and you get your wish John. Mandatory interlocks on all vehicles you own. 135$ per interlock and a 35$ per month usage fee per interlock. For 1 year along with 30 days mandatory jail time. Both the DA and the Judge have had family members killed by DUI. Roughest county in the state on DUI offenders. Althogh the Napa Register List of Shame scarlet letter is pretty bad. "

indian_pride wrote on Oct 14, 2008 2:50 PM:

" 1 person actually had a BAC between .3 and .39??? That's just a shade below what experts deem a lethal dose. "

sweetgrape14 wrote on Oct 18, 2008 8:41 PM:

" It is unlawful to release these people's names to the public without their consent!! HAVE SOME RESPECT FOR THEIR PRIVACY!! "

anticommie wrote on Oct 19, 2008 3:03 PM:

" Sweetgrape:

All arrests are public information. It is not unlawful. Have some respect for their privacy? What if this was a list of child molesters? Should we respect their privacy? "

pharper wrote on Oct 19, 2008 4:42 PM:

" "Giant salaries?"

That's a laugh. I'll have to tell my uncle, who's a cop, about that one--he must not know about his giant salary. The cops I know are incredibly hard workers. People who drive under the influence--whether it shows in their driving or not--ARE real criminals. "

jmo wrote on Oct 20, 2008 12:20 PM:

" So where's an article about last saturday's DUI check point? "

desertguy wrote on Oct 24, 2008 8:42 AM:

" it is really unfortunate alot of people misunderstand addiction.these people are out of control..thay have lost the ability to make rational decisions in that regard. The fact that a human will return again and again over and over to a environment that they understand (while sober) could very well injure or kill themselves or someone is nothing short of unbelievable. It is not a matter of discipline alone. Or even will power.Ask any alcoholic if he enjoyes that lifestyle.These people need help strict monitoring and someone they trust who they call or talk to who understands what thay are going through and is willing to help.Commonly called a sponsor.by no means should they be allowed to drive until they can prove to be responsible.but please dont be too quick to judge them as bad or inferior people. "

desertguy wrote on Oct 24, 2008 8:47 AM:

" it is really unfortunate alot of people misunderstand addiction.these people are out of control..thay have lost the ability to make rational decisions in that regard. The fact that a human will return again and again over and over to a environment that they understand (while sober) could very well injure or or someone is nothing short of unbelievable. It is not a matter of discipline alone. Or even will power.Ask any alcoholic if he enjoyes that lifestyle.These people need help strict monitoring and someone they trust who they call or talk to who understands what thay are going through and is willing to help.Commonly called a sponsor.by no means should they be allowed to drive until they can prove to be responsible.but please dont be too quick to judge them as bad or inferior people. "

desertguy wrote on Oct 24, 2008 9:08 AM:

" here in Phoenix cops start at $40-50,000 dollars per year....not bad huh? "

proudmommy wrote on Oct 29, 2008 5:37 PM:

" sweetgrape14 IM NOT GONNA RESPECT ANY IDIOT WHO DRIVES DRUNK. anyone who puts innocent lives in danger deserves the embarrassment of having their names put in the paper. im glad, hopefully they dont make the idiotic mistake again. and by all means it isnt unlawful at all to put their names in the paper.. "

reason-ator wrote on Oct 29, 2008 7:50 PM:

" Hey, proudmommy,

you gonna NOT RESPECT ANY IDIOT WHO DRIVES WITH A CELL PHONE STUCK TO THEIR BRAIN WHILE THEY'RE DRIVING also ?

Because lately, I seem to be noticing more and more that the people who do stupid and dangerous things around me in traffic have a cell phone stuck to their ear, but no bottle to their lips.

I'm actually starting to think drunks might be less of a threat to me than cell-phone users. But nobody really wants to talk about THAT, now do they ? "

jmo wrote on Oct 29, 2008 10:20 PM:

" Hey reason-ator I'm with you on the cell situation.
What has it been now three months and you still see all kinds of idiots with a phone to their ear and driving erratically. What gives.....must think they are above the law and don't care about the potential dangers.
Where are the roving/rolling cell phone police? "

John Richards wrote on Oct 31, 2008 1:09 PM:

" Proudmommy, what makes you think only drunk drivers put innocent lives in danger? And why should they be the only ones singled out for humiliating punishment? There are lots of other behaviors that put innocent lives in danger. "

napadad wrote on Nov 1, 2008 9:29 AM:

" They are not the only ones singled out for humiliating punishment! They publish names, pictures and other info of all sorts of crimes. All the time! They wait till htere is a conviction for DUI and dont even do that for many other crimes, they print at arrest for most other crime. So much defense of drunk drivers "rights" you must all be voting no on 8 "

jmo wrote on Nov 1, 2008 10:17 AM:

" Oh boy the October report will be out soon and we can start the ranting all over!!! "

napadad wrote on Nov 1, 2008 11:49 AM:

" yay "

John Richards wrote on Nov 1, 2008 8:53 PM:

" Napadad, I meant all those illegal cell phone users. Where is their humiliating punishment? Research has proven that a cell phone user's driving ability is impaired equivalent to a .08 DUI. But it's not politically correct to do much of anything about it. That's what makes hypocrites of all you folks who single out DUI for special condemnation.
Let him who is without guilt throw the first stone. "

mypoint wrote on Nov 2, 2008 7:17 PM:

" napadad - I'm curious as to what prop 8 has to do with drinking and driving? "

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: