.

L.A. County DUI Checkpoint Campaign Launches Friday

County law enforcement will conduct sobriety checkpoints and DUI patrols during the two-week campaign.

Friday marks the beginning of a summer DUI crackdown as law enforcement agencies across the county host DUI checkpoints and patrols.

The Los Angeles County Avoid the 100 DUI Task Force joins law enforcement agencies throughout the state for the "Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over" campaign starting Aug. 17 and ending Labor Day on Sept. 3.

The annual summer campaign targets the spike in DUI's and alcohol-related car accidents during the summer months, according to an Avoid the 100 press release.

In 2010, 791 people died in California in alcohol-related accidents, when the driver had a blood alcohol level above the legal limit, according to California Office of Traffic Safety. The highest percentage of alcohol-related car accidents involved motorists 21 to 24 years of age, according to statistics.

Local law enforcement agencies, as well as the California Highway Patrol, will be "aggressively looking" for impaired drivers during the two-week period.

Those convicted of a DUI could face jail time, risk the loss of their drivers license, or be required to use ignition interlocks. DUI convictions also drive up insurance rates and incur legal fees.

"Obviously we want to remind everyone that it is illegal to drive impaired, and we hope the campaign will remind people that if they plan on drinking, to never get behind the wheel," said Avoid Representative and Glendora Lieutenant Rob Lamborghini in a press statement. "But if someone does choose to drive impaired, we will arrest them."

Summer DUI Checkpoint and Patrol Schedule

Friday, Aug. 17

DUI Checkpoint – Glendale, Gardena, Pasadena, CHP, South L.A., North Hollywood (2), Hollywood

DUI Patrol – Avoid the 100 (West) Multi-Agency (El Segundo, Gardena, Hawthorne, Hermosa Beach, Inglewood, Manhattan Beach, Palos Verdes Estates, Redondo and Torrance)

Saturday, Aug. 18

DUI Checkpoint – Burbank, Santa Monica, Avoid the 100 (West) Multi-Agency, CHP, Baldwin Park

DUI Patrol – Avoid the 100 (West) Multi-Agency (El Segundo, Gardena, Hawthorne, Hermosa Beach, Inglewood, Manhattan Beach, Palos Verdes Estates, Redondo and Torrance)

DUI Patrol – Devonshire area, Beverly Hills, San Gabriel, Lynwood

Thursday, Aug. 23

DUI Patrol – Hollenbeck Area

Friday, Aug. 24

DUI Checkpoint – Bell Gardens, South Pasadena, North Hollywood Southwest Area, Norwalk, CHP, West L.A

Avoid the 100 (East) Multi-Agency (Including the cities of Monterey Park, Alhambra, San Gabriel, Montebello, Downey, Whittier and Bell Gardens)

Avoid the 100 (West) – Hermosa Beach

DUI Patrol – Santa Monica

Saturday, Aug. 25

DUI Checkpoint – Beverly Hills, Long Beach, LAPD – Southeast Area, LAPD – Van Nuys Area

DUI Patrol - Avoid the 100 (West) Multi-Agency (El Segundo, Gardena, Hawthorne, Hermosa

Beach, Inglewood, Manhattan Beach, Palos Verdes Estates, Redondo and Torrance)

Sunday, Aug. 26

DUI Checkpoint – LAPD – Harbor Area

Thursday, Aug. 30

DUI Checkpoint – Pasadena, LAPD – Olympic Area

Friday, Aug. 31

DUI Checkpoint – Avoid the 100 (East) Multi-Agency (Glendale, South Pasadena, Pasadena, Burbank, San Marino, and San Fernando), West Covina

Friday, Aug. 31

DUI Checkpoint Avoid the 100 (West) Multi-Agency in El Segundo (El Segundo, Gardena, Hawthorne, Hermosa Beach, Inglewood, Manhattan Beach, Palos Verdes Estates, Redondo and Torrance), Glendale, LASD Bellflower, South L.A., CHP, East L.A., Altadena, Santa Fe Springs, Antelope Valley

DUI Patrol – Gardena

Saturday, Sept. 1

DUI Checkpoint –Avoid the 100 (East) Multi-Agency – (Including officers from Baldwin Park, West Covina, Baldwin Park School Police, El Monte, Monrovia, Arcadia and Sierra Madre), CHP West Valley, LAPD – Central Area

DUI Patrol – Avoid the 100 (East) Multi-Agency (Conducted in the cities of Glendale, South

Pasadena, Pasadena, Burbank, San Marino, and San Fernando), Avoid the 100 (East) Multi-Agency (Monterey Park, Alhambra, San Gabriel,

Montebello, Downey, Whittier and Bell Gardens), Avoid the 100 (West) Multi-Agency in El Segundo (El Segundo, Gardena, Hawthorne, Hermosa Beach, Inglewood, Manhattan Beach, Palos Verdes Estates,

Redondo and Torrance), Gardena, Glendale, Long Beach, LASD location TBD

Sunday, Sept. 2

DUI Patrol - Avoid the 100 (East) Multi-Agency – (Including officers from Baldwin Park, West Covina, Baldwin Park School Police, El Monte, Monrovia, Arcadia and Sierra Madre), Avoid the 100 (West) Multi-Agency in El Segundo (El Segundo, Gardena, Hawthorne, Hermosa Beach, Inglewood, Manhattan Beach, Palos Verdes Estates, Redondo and Torrance), Gardena, LAPD – Hollenbeck Area

Monday, Sept. 3

MEP (Maximum Enforcement Period) – CHP Southern Division, LASD location TBD

John B. Greet August 19, 2012 at 07:17 PM
Thanks, Tim, but you appear to have missed my meaning. When I state that driving on public roadways is a privilege, at no time did I state or imply that government grants that (or any) privilege. The people grant themselves privileges, and government is but one method through which we choose to do so. In our self-governed society, as you allude, we elect folks to represent us in government and to enact those laws that it seems fitting to us to establish. Once those laws are enacted, it is our duty as citizens to abide by them and to not abject to their proper enforcement. Traffic safety checkpoints have been challenged many time in our duly-constituted courts of law and they have been upheld as entirely lawful so long as they are operated according to specific guidelines the courts have established. Do you disagree with any of these facts as I have presented them?
Lightnapper August 19, 2012 at 09:15 PM
10 states say "traffic safety checkpoints" violate their State Constitution related to 4th Amendment unreasonable search & seizures. 2 states avoid constitutional issues by allowing but not using them. Traffic enforcement saturation patrols are used. 06-14-90, U.S. Supreme Court rules properly conducted sobriety checkpoints are constitutional (Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Stiz (1990)). The SC leaves it for individual states to determine safeguards. Nov.1990, National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. reviews checkpoint procedures, “The Use of Sobriety Checkpoints for Impaired Driving Enforcement,” DOT HS-807-656. A prior decision by the CA.SC rules on the necessary standards for planning & administering a DUI checkpoint. (Ingersoll v. Palmer (43 Cal.3rd 1321 (1987)) They establish 8 specific standards. The People v. Banks (1993) 6 Cal. 4th 926 follows up Ingersoll. They rule the operation of a DUI checkpoint without advance publicity, but conforming to the other 7 guidelines established in Ingersoll v. Palmer, supra, 43 Cal. 3d 1321, is not an unreasonable seizure within the context of the 4th Amendment. They contend the SC's analysis of the constitutionality of sobriety checkpoints in Michigan State Police Dept. v. Sitz (1990) 496 U.S. 444 ... “establishes that advance publicity is not a constitutional prerequisite to the operation of such a checkpoint." (Maj. opn., ante, p. 931.) So it stands in CA. An easy legalese free solution-- “Don’t drink and drive.”
Local Native August 19, 2012 at 09:19 PM
I, for one, live near downtown MB and am VERY thankful to see these DUI checkpoints. If you saw the craziness drunk people are capable of every weekend and holiday, you'd be thankful for them, too. It isn't the drunks I worry about, it's my family and loved ones having to share the road with them. They have actually hit my house twice!!! Really funny, huh? Who paid for that? I did. Natasha, if you thinks cops are so useless I encourage you (and anyone else with that attitude) to go on a drive along with your local Police Department. They'd be happy to show you what it is REALLY like out there!
Tim Sole August 19, 2012 at 09:47 PM
"Sobriety Checkpoints" being the key word in the above cases. When they are used beyond just that, we have gotten into a gray area. The privilege we granted the government to have "Sobriety Checkpoints", did not at the same time grant them to check for other things. If the driver is not "Impaired", no need to check for anything else. If the driver is "Impaired", arrest that person and get them off the road. I'm all about helping with the problem, just do not use it for an excuse to check for anything else. I have been stopped at DUI checkpoints, 4 of them to be exact. Three times on my way to work and once on my way to the airport. Each time I was delayed, I'm OK with that, my boss wasn't and running late to pick up a customer at the airport is not really business friendly. So, if one has to work (which I do), that adds a social burden not even discussed here. Nor do I think the economic impact is ever discussed, outside of a number generated to show what drunk drivers cost, not what economic impact is created for those not drunk, who have to sit at a checkpoint. To the local native, I too live in the beach cities, I see it all summer long and during most holidays. Trying to sleep on the weekends is problematic, considering the non stop sirens coming from RB, HB and MB.
John B. Greet August 19, 2012 at 10:12 PM
""Sobriety Checkpoints" being the key word in the above cases. When they are used beyond just that, we have gotten into a gray area." Not correct. The courts draw no distinction between traffic safety checkpoints and sobriety checkpoints. Both are entirely lawful so long as they are operated according to court-specified guidelines. "...not what economic impact is created for those not drunk, who have to sit at a checkpoint." No one has to "sit at a checkpoint." The courts require that checkpoints be clearly marked well in advance of any traffic queue and that there be an option for drivers to turn aside, after the initial markings but before a point of no return, if they are not interested in risking an inspection. What it seems to come down to, Tim, is that you just don't like to be inconvenienced. Fortunately I do not believe your personal convenience is of greater concern to most in society than is the desire that our duly enacted laws are enforced so that everyone's safety might be enhanced. Once again, enforcing duly-enacted laws against impaired driving -and doing so in a manner prescribed by the courts- is *not* an abuse of authority. Your personal convenience is not of greater concern to me than law enforcement taking reasonable steps to get drunk drivers off the road and to otherwise enforce our traffic laws. If you don't like checkpoints, assume some personal responsibility and don't drive through them. No one requires you to do so.
John B. Greet August 19, 2012 at 10:25 PM
"...sobriety checkpoints consistently reduced alcohol–related crashes, typically by about 20%." http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/checkpoint.html To me, a 20% reduction in alcohol-related crashes seems well worth whatever small inconvenience a lawfully-operated checkpoint might represent. I suspect those whose lives may well have been saved might also agree.
Tim Sole August 19, 2012 at 10:50 PM
John, I had read an article a while back. It stated how many drivers going through the checkpoint was actually impaired in relation to how many drivers weren't. The number of drivers "Inconvenienced" at that check point astounded me. I had up until that point agreed with you, once I had read how many weren't "Impaired", I truly changed my mind on this subject. I even will suggest based on that data, drunk driving may not be as prevalent as some would think it is. this most troubling part of that article was the amount of drivers having their cars impounded for other issues. We currently live in a country that is no better than a "Banana Republic", we have outsourced everything from the engineer down to the janitor. Those people having their cars impounded, where just working folks trying to get by. Every time, we don't stop legislation and court rulings that allow the average citizens to be "Inconvenienced", more and more economic power is lost. Greed, maybe legal, it normally isn't right. DUI checkpoints maybe legal, that doesn't make them right either. Creating a economic sanction for an individual for a DUI, good with that, impounding a vehicle for something beyond that at a DUI checkpoint is beyond common sense. Yes I have been "Inconvenienced" by them in the past. I have never had a DUI, I like most working folks, take a taxi or get a designated driver. The point with that is, you can't fix stupid and those that drink and drive are just that.
John B. Greet August 19, 2012 at 11:08 PM
Again, Tim, no one need be inconvenienced by driving through a checkpoint who desires not to be. To be lawful, checkpoints have to publicized in advance and be well-marked to minimize intrusiveness. Drivers can turn off and take another route if they don't want to risk inspection. The laws that authorize vehicle impounds are no less duly-enacted than those which prohibit drunk driving. It is very simple; if a person desires to enjoy the privilege of driving on public roadways, he or she must become licensed, insured, and otherwise obey the rules and laws that the greater society has deemed should regulate that privilege. If one doesn't want to follow those rules, one is entirely free to not drive and, instead, seek other forms of transportation to get to and from work or wherever else it is they desire to go. The steep fines related to violating these rules are intended to be prohibitive, meaning they are intended to deter people from violating them. Studies demonstrate that people who drive without valid licenses, or who continue to drive on suspended and revoked licenses are far more likely to cause collisions, of all types, than people who are driving lawfully. The degree that traffic safety checkpoints help prevent people who cannot legally drive from continuting to do so is the degree to which we should all welcome and encourage those entirely lawful enforcement operations.
Tim Sole August 19, 2012 at 11:23 PM
John, I now have to get ready for work. I enjoyed our discussion, although I do not agree with you or your premise, I do completely respect your opinion and enjoyed the debate. Enjoy the rest of your weekend.
John B. Greet August 19, 2012 at 11:35 PM
Thanks, Tim. You too.
S.A.P. August 20, 2012 at 01:56 AM
Natasha, how much is the life of one of your loved ones worth? If these checkpoints stop even ONE drunk driver taking our lives into his/her hands, it is worth it IMO. I am a drinker who has a plan for getting home 100% of the time, and it doesn't involve me (or anyone else who has been drinking) driving home. With all the taxi drivers having cell phones & services like Drunk Rescue out there, there is absolutely NO excuse to drink & drive. If you are stupid enough, or inconsiderate enough to drive drunk, you deserve jail time & a fine of AT LEAST $10,000.
Timber August 20, 2012 at 05:19 AM
It is a misperception to believe that DUI checkpoints primary purpose is the detection and apprehension of impaired drivers. The primary purpose permitted by the court was of "educating and deterring" impaired driving. So the green light was given based upon the premise that the theoretical administrative function of disseminating educational materials and staging an elaborate police presence in order to thwart drinking and driving would have the effect of deterrence. From Justice BROUSSARD, J. (Ingersoll v. Palmer) "The majority suggest that as long as the purpose of a drunk driving roadblock is to deter rather than detect crime, the roadblock is "regulatory." But we certainly did not hold in Hyde, supra, 12 Cal.3d 158, as the majority suggest, that if the purpose of a detention is to deter rather than detect crime, it may be justified as an administrative search. Criminal law enforcement encompasses both detection and deterrence. If we allowed detentions without individualized suspicion to deter crime, we would allow preventive detentions in high crime areas. But we do not allow such practices. (See People v. Loewen (1983) 35 Cal.3d 117, 124 [196 Cal.Rptr. 846, 672 P.2d 436].) What distinguishes the permissible administrative inspection from other searches is not that they are only intended to deter, but that they carry out an administrative scheme that is not part of the penal system. There is no such administrative scheme here."
Timber August 20, 2012 at 05:27 AM
"Your personal convenience is not of greater concern to me than law enforcement taking reasonable steps to get drunk drivers off the road and to otherwise enforce our traffic laws." I find this the most disturbing trivialization of fundamental Liberty creeping through our social consciousness. A word from Justice Brandeis, J (Olmstead v. United States 1928): ""The Fourth Amendment was designed not merely to protect against official intrusions whose social utility was less as measured by some 'balancing test' than its intrusion on individual privacy; it was designed in addition to grant the individual a zone of privacy whose protections could be breached only where the 'reasonable' requirements of the probable cause standard were met. Moved by whatever momentary evil has aroused their fears, officials -- perhaps even supported by a majority of citizens -- may be tempted to conduct searches that sacrifice the liberty of each citizen to assuage the perceived evil. But the Fourth Amendment rests on the principle that a true balance between the individual and society depends on the recognition of 'the right to be let alone -- the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men."
John B. Greet August 20, 2012 at 06:18 AM
Thanks, Timber. As I alluded, so long as these checkpoints are operated according to the guidelines the Courts have provided, there is no unconstitutional 4th Amendment intrusion. I am in no way and to no degree trivializing liberty and if I believed for one moment that these checkpoints were an unreasonable intrusion upon liberty I would oppose them. They are not, so I do not. What I seek to offer folks like Tim is just a little bit of perspective. Study's have repeatedly demonstrated that these checkpoints help prevent impaired driving. People who drive while impaired cause hundreds of traffic deaths, thousands of injuries, and millions of dollars in property damage each year. Checkpoints likewise help lessen these terrible numbers. I find that demonstrable benefit to all of society, particularly in light of the judicial notice that the 4th Amendment is not unreasonably offended, to carry a great deal more weight for me than the possibility that some folks might be temporarily inconvenienced because they weren't willing or able to figure out how to turn right or left and simply avoid the risk of being inspected.
Justice has been Served August 21, 2012 at 01:45 PM
Those of you who drink and drive better hae your bail bondsman on speed dial. That is going to be one expensive drink. This is about getting drunks off the road. What a great way to get money for the city. I hope they doubble the fines.
Bob Atkins August 22, 2012 at 04:53 PM
In the end - no matter what you all say - its all about power and $$$ Beyond that - there are plenty of people as well documented in the comments here that are more than willing to be made wards of the state in order to have their 'safety' protected. They live by the beach and then complain about the traffic, crowds and people who come to have a good time. These selfish folks then proceed to make it as miserable as possible for anyone outside the beach cities (and even those of us who live here) to come and enjoy the beaches - a public resource that should be readily accessible to all. Like it or not when there is a concentration of people in one place you are going to see a rise in bad behavior. However, since it isn't cost effective for the police to patrol on foot or bicycle, they resort to roadblocks and check points - the same techniques employed by the repressive Soviet Union for decades to control their population that we now expect and ask for to 'control' us. It is truly sad to see how easily weak and ignorant people are so easily manipulated into asking the government to restrict everyone's freedoms and liberties under the Orwellian watchword 'safety'.
John B. Greet August 22, 2012 at 07:18 PM
In the end, no matter what facts are offered that demonstrate that properly-operated traffic safety checkpoints are not only constitutional, but can be highly beneficial to society at large, some will continue to insist that it is all about power and money. If a majority of voters in California truly wanted to do so, they could ban checkpoints in this State, just as the voters in some other States have done. This has not happened and until it does, perhaps detractors should whine less and, instead, seek to hold individuals a bit more accountable for their own criminal acts.
Donna Flade August 22, 2012 at 07:34 PM
dolphin...have you ar anyone you love ever been injured or killed by a drunk driver? Probably not cuz you would not have written your comments.
Donna Flade August 22, 2012 at 07:37 PM
They post all of the DUI checkpoints online and in the newspapers! All one has to do is stay away from them...better still...don't drink and drive!
Donna Flade August 22, 2012 at 07:42 PM
Two close friends and relatives were badly hurt in drunk driving incidents...and another friend lost his 17 year old...I personally commend law enforcement for doing their job professionally and diligently....especially my local PD!
Lightnapper August 22, 2012 at 08:25 PM
@ John...exactly. I have no problem passing through a checkpoint because I do not drink & drive. I'm not under the influence of drugs, except perhaps caffeine. I have a valid DL, current vehicle registration, and I carry proper vehicle insurance. I transport no illegal items, weapons, or other dangerous devices in my vehicle. I have no outstanding warrants. For those who choose to embrace behaviors otherwise, for me to advise them to be more intelligent and responsible would be wasting my breath. This is exactly why we need LE to babysit negligent, selfish, irresponsible drivers who don't understand, agree with, or abide by the “majority” mandated standards instituted to protect the general public. @Bob Atkins... what worries me more than DUI checkpoints are military surveillance drones adopted for LE use. It's happening. See The New Yorker, 05-16-12, "The World Of Surveillance: Here's Looking At You." This "intrusion" trend is a lot more worrisome than a DUI checkpoint-- a checkpoint announced in advance, with well-displayed signs, flashing lights, traffic cones, an observable LE presence, and a turn-out to allow for non-participation of non-consenting drivers. On the other hand, a drone is quiet, virtually undetectable from the ground, and it has the ability to see a milk cartoon while hovering 60,000 feet above. Now that's 4th Amendment scary. I prefer my now "in plain sight" backyard private.
Tim Sole August 22, 2012 at 08:38 PM
Those who give up liberty for security, will have neither. True then, true now. Be careful of the liberty you want to give away. Your safety is not of concern, my liberty is!
John B. Greet August 22, 2012 at 09:42 PM
Tim, to live in a civil society we must always seek to strike a balance between tyranny and anarchy. Just as personal freedom and individual liberty are critical to the pursuit of happiness so, too, are reasonable laws that help to create that environment for the most people and to the greatest degree possible. If your personal liberty comes at the expense of my personal safety, then, in truth, both are ultimatelty sacrificed. Because those public acts that compromise my safety, also compromise yours. I think the Courts have done a fine job of balancing peoples' rights of freedom of movement and against unreasonable searches and seizures in the case of these checkpoints. They are operated in such a manner that no one is unduly inconvenienced who truly chooses to not be. I think the benefits of properly-operated traffic safety checkpoints far outweigh the detriments.
Lightnapper August 23, 2012 at 01:46 AM
@John. You are certainly one polite and rational gentleman. The valid argument is certainly the safety of the "Majority Millions" versus the "Wants" of a few thousand irresponsible individuals committing crimes in a purely self-centered act during a state of altered consciousness. That attempt at providing a measure of traffic safety, with minimal intrusiveness and elaborate safeguards established, versus the liberty of a single individual who feels personally persecuted, is in fact the foundation of freedom and liberty for all.
John B. Greet August 23, 2012 at 02:32 AM
Thanks, Light, but I am not nearly so polite as I sometimes should be and I sincerely regret each time that I allow myself to descend into the impolite and uncivil approaches that some on these sites routinely employ. As to trading liberty for security -which is Tim's valid concern- we all do that to one degree or another every single day. We stop at stop signs and lights, ceding personal control over our freedom of movement so that we all might proceed along the public roadways a bit more safely than we surely would otherwise. We allow law enforcement to set up perimeters and exclusion zones as needed within our own neighborhoods during active law enforcement incidents, again ceding to them personal control over our freedom of movement so that we might not blunder into the middle of a crime scene and either risk our personal safety or inadvertently destroy vital evidence needed in a criminal prosecutions. We allow ourselves to be wanded, patted-down, and even x-rayed at airports, ceding a considerable amount of our right to resist personal intrusions, in the hopes that no one else will be able to board our plane while wearing or carrying some sort of weapon. We cede some of our liberty every single day, so that the greatest number in our society might be protected to the greatest degree that may be reasonable while still remaining about the freest nation on earth. Pretty awesome, all things considered.
Tim Sole August 23, 2012 at 03:34 AM
John, I spend a lot of time in airports. Nature of the job. I have seen the best and worst of law enforcement in the line going through security. In Boston, I watched a man berate a homeland security officer over wanting to have his daughters and wife go through a scanning process in their Burqas. Being a Marine, not so lean or mean anymore, I was really burnt that he got away that. To me that law enforcement officer needs fired for not doing his job and what exactly was that guy hiding. I have also watched an elderly lady in her 90's at Dallas/ Fort Worth airport get shaken down, when she could barely get out of her wheel chair. Again, that homeland security officer should be fired, common sense, must come into play. I did get shaken down that day, because I spoke up about the elderly lady. Good with that. So you know what this has to do with our conversation, the perception on the street right now against law enforcement, is that they are a revenue generating organization. Being able to hold a legal checkpoint, and having to take responsibility for the public's reaction goes hand in hand. The bad news is, it's not the criminal type that now believe the police are corrupt, it's the folks that use to see them as heroes. So, security, safety and liberty go hand in hand. When you lose the respect of the general public, the government (police) loses the ability to respond to a issue without being seen as trying to create revenue.
John B. Greet August 23, 2012 at 04:08 AM
Thanks, Tim, and all of your points are well-taken from airport security inconsistency and ineptitude to the perception of some about law enforcement. Inconsistency and ineptitude in security measures simply argues for less of both of those, not a suspension or cessation of the measures themselves. We did not always need these levels of screening, but the world has changed, and not entirely for the better as we all, no doubt, would hope. Grandma should not get shaken down, but as soon as TSA is believed to never, ever check a grandma, guess what the next sucessful airline/airport terrorist attack is most likey to involve? Thank you for your service, by the way. I suspect you may understand more than just a little about asymmetric warfare. That, as you know, is what we're fighting now, on many fronts and in many arenas (civilian and military.) So how best to meet our current enemy in *those* arenas and still enjoy as free and open a society as possible? What is the proper balance between freedom and security? I don't know the answer. I wish I did...or that SOMEone did. Sadly, there are no guarantees of success whatever measures we employ. Should we then stop even trying? Perhaps Sun Tzu understood this best of all: "You can be sure of succeeding in your attacks if you only attack places which are undefended. You can ensure the safety of your defense if you only hold positions that cannot be attacked." Art of War: VI / 7
chuk bekr December 19, 2012 at 03:19 AM
Basically unconstitutional. Unreasonable search, no probable cause .
Wolfman March 08, 2013 at 05:22 PM
DUI checkpoints are not only for DUIs anymore they are for anything of record
Sarah Mtspaceevolvd August 01, 2013 at 10:38 AM
What L.A elected representatives should to do is STOP HANDING OUT LIQUOR LICENSES based on "community's need and convienenct access to" alcohol. EVERY OUTLET that sells alcohol = 3-5 MORE ASSAULTS & 3-4 MORE ALCOHOL RELATED ACCIDENTS in LA a year. each accidents can kill/injure unknown numbers. There are some areas where 5 outlets (albertson's to ABC liquor) are within 2miles of each other!!! so those of you saying that saving 1 life makes checkpoints worth it, look into how many liquor licenses your city council has handed out and equate 4 acts of violence & 4 accidents to EACH ONE. They Do Have KIND CONSIDERATE HUMANE way to SAVE YOU FROM any Lions, Tigers or Bears, paper cuts and PEOPLE WHO JUST DON'T THINK BEFORE THEY ACT. No way to stop shizz from happening. WE ALL LOSE PEOPLE. We all DIE, But not all of us will be caged, have our property and prosperity put in the hands of a person with a badge. In the here and now, IF you think you can make it cross the street JAYWALK. IF you don't think people can make that kind of judgement call, YOU ARE WEAK, SCARED and thing throwing people in cages will save you from sad painful stuff... you DON'T embrace that You Get to BE what You Do. MAKE DECISIONS EXPLORED YOUR OWN LOGIC. Religious people HOLLA for FREE WILL being LOVE and the faith that EVERY MOMENT WE LIVE IS WORTH IT, and in the enc we will laugh bout the other stuff. Accept that acting ludicrous and insisting aggresively that you're fine is a side effect of alcohol. That's what the drug does. Minors can get alcohol from outlets like target I know all my friends and me did. Minors can't drink and drive if they can't get alcohol. Not saying less liquor outlets means no minors can get it, but I WOULD BET ALL IN that IF liquor was only sold behind counters that accidents would drop MORE THAN 20% year round. SAFETY LAWS are insulting and deny people the privelege of DOING WHAT THEY THINK THEY SHOULD and yeah everyone will get somethings wrong some of the time. It's called trial and error. it's called life experience. it's called coming to a set of personal standards BECAUSE YOU PROUDLY OWN YOUR ACTIONS.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »