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
We granted the government the privilege of creating certain laws to protect our public roadways. We gave the government permission to set basic standards to operate a motor vehicle. At no time did we give them the right to grant privileges to the common person. We the people are not granted privileges, the government and their duly elected or appointed officials are.
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?
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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."
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.
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'.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
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