.

19 Motorists Nabbed at Murrieta DUI Checkpoint, 2 Others by Patrol

Two motorists were arrested for suspected DUI at the checkpoint, another on suspicion of drug possession; two other suspected drug users were nabbed by patrol officers elsewhere in the city.

Officers staffing a checkpoint in Murrieta over the weekend nabbed 19 people, most of them for license violations, a sergeant said.

Patrol officers swarming the city also arrested one motorist suspected of driving while impaired on drugs and one passenger suspected of being under the influence of drugs.

The checkpoint was staffed between 8:15 p.m. Friday and 2:30 a.m. Saturday on Clinton Keith Road, west of Interstate 215. according to Murrieta police Sgt. Jay Froboese.

Officers pulled 33 vehicles -- out of 701 screened -- into a secondary location for closer inspection; of those 33 drivers, 12 were ticketd for allegedly driving on suspended licenses.

Another four were cited for allegedly driving without valid licenses; two were arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence, and one passenger was arrested for alleged possession of methamphetamine.

Funds for both operations were generated through the state Office of Traffic Safety, with a grant from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Major September 03, 2012 at 03:34 PM
You can read the rest of this article here: http://newyorkcriminaldefenseblawg.com/2009/12/constitutionality-of-drunk-driving-checkpoint-upheld-in-people-v-castimer/ However, I have decided to weigh in on this subject and forgo my typical contemptuous tirades and address what I believe are the core goals of these "DUI Check Points", i.e. that they are preparing the community for what are simply "TSA Style Check Points". Even now, equipment is being used that are scanning and gathering data on the vehicles and if you have some form of Government issued identification, the RFID Chip in those Passports for example is also gathering its data on you. This will be further inched up to include equipment that will not only gather data on your vehicles and you but will also scan for firearms. These points and examples having been made, you should all at least be aware that these "DUI Check Points" are not really about getting Drunk or Drugged Drivers off our roads, they are preparing for "Civil Unrest" due to the inevitable "Collapse" of our economy that is already well underway. However, I am not going to address the collapse of our dollar or other aspects that I and others are well aware of; I am simply tending to address what these DUI Checkpoints are a precursor too. You who say "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about" are correct but this is not Northern Ireland or Iraq and you should be prepared for it becoming the like.
Timber September 03, 2012 at 04:29 PM
Referencing the SCOTUS ruling which permitted roadblocks known as Michigan v. Sitz little follow up is given to the same case that was remanded back to the Michigan Supreme Court. That court, for a second time sided with the citizens of the state in SITZ v. DEPT. STATE POLICE 193 Mich. App. 690 (1992), they stated: "Although we fully recognize the enormity of the problem caused by drunk driving, we do not believe the proposed elimination of the rights of [ 193 Mich. App. 699 ] Michigan citizens to be free from suspicionless seizure a proper response to the problem. As succinctly stated by Justice Brandeis in his dissent in Olmstead v United States,277 U.S. 438, 479; 48 S.Ct. 564; 72 L Ed 944 (1928): Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. We find the indiscriminate suspicionless stopping of motor vehicles violative of art 1, § 11 of the Michigan Constitution." They called this exception to the 4th an "elimination of the rights". They gave the Supreme's the bird. Michigan ruled on this TWICE in favor of the citizens.
LBV Collins September 03, 2012 at 04:45 PM
Thanks for the info, Timber. And I think it’s important to note that even SCOTUS had its dissenters: “The Michigan Supreme Court had found sobriety roadblocks to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, by a 6-3 decision in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990), the United States Supreme Court found properly conducted sobriety checkpoints to be constitutional. While acknowledging that such checkpoints infringed on a constitutional right, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued the state interest in reducing drunk driving outweighed this minor infringement. “Dissenting justices argued that the Constitution doesn’t provide exceptions. ‘That stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving...is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion’, dissenting Justice Brennan insisted. “Chief Justice Rehnquist argued that an exception was justified because sobriety roadblocks were effective and necessary. On the other hand, dissenting Justice Stevens countered that ‘the findings of the trial court, based on an extensive record and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals, indicate that the net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative.’” [1] 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_checkpoint#Legality_in_the_United_States
Duty Bound September 04, 2012 at 09:19 AM
List one court case, in any circuit, where checkpoints have been deemed "unreasonable". You can't. Why do you keep quoting the fourth amendment when clearly, not even the courts view the issue in any way similar to your view? The checkpoints are here to stay and I for one couldn't be more supportive. If you're not breaking the law, it's a non-issue.
Duty Bound September 04, 2012 at 09:24 AM
Timber, the crowd that blathers on about the fourth amendment can't be calmed down, no matter how many facts you provide. All we can hope is that they have to "suffer" through a checkpoint and that they at least act like mature, respectable adults. Check out these clowns as they pull the whole "I'm going to be an asshole tonight" scene and oops...they get dragged from the car: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTG5rWF_Uis The punchline: they've both got rap sheets with convictions on them now....lol.
LBV Collins September 04, 2012 at 03:51 PM
Name one court case, Duty Bound? Okay. How about starting with the dissenting opinions of the Supreme Court Justices? In the Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz ruling, three of the Justices disagreed with the majority ruling in favor of checkpoints: Dissenting Justice Brennan said ‘That stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving...is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion.’ Dissenting Justice Stevens said that ‘the findings of the trial court, based on an extensive record and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals, indicate that the net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative.’ [1] This case wasn’t a slam dunk for our Supreme Court. And I agree with the dissenting Justices that DUI checkpoints violate our Fourth Amendment rights. Also, although the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court has found sobriety checkpoints to be constitutionally permissible, ten states (Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming) have found that sobriety roadblocks violate their own state constitutions or have outlawed them. [1] 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_checkpoint#Legality_in_the_United_States
LBV Collins September 04, 2012 at 03:51 PM
It’s shocking to me that so many people are willing to just shrug their shoulders at what many, including the three dissenting Supreme Court justices and 10 states’ courts, believe to be a clear violation and disregard for our Fourth Amendment rights. Duty Bound, I get your point: That checkpoints are a minor inconvenience that make our roads safer. But why stop with DUI checkpoints? Do you have any idea what dangerous activities your neighbors may be involved with? Take one example: Improperly stored guns. Every year, children are killed or injured by guns. (You can search CDC stats here: http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/index.html.) By properly storing guns (trigger locks, gun safes), those accidental deaths/injuries can be avoided. Using your argument, you would consider it a “minor inconvenience” to allow law enforcement to forcibly enter into gun owners’ homes to check for properly secured weapons. True? After all, if it saves just one child’s life, isn’t it worth it?
The Republican September 04, 2012 at 04:23 PM
The checkpoints are already obsolete. Google checkpoints twitter email and you can get Twitter updates with up to the minute updates on checkpoint locations. All you have to do is use an alternative route to avoid the line. Technology is the way to freedom my friends. There is no reason to sit in line and be checked.
The Republican September 04, 2012 at 04:24 PM
The checkpoints are already obsolete. Google checkpoints twitter email and you can get Twitter updates with up to the minute updates on checkpoint locations. All you have to do is use an alternative route to avoid the line. Technology is the way to freedom my friends. There is no reason to sit in line and be checked.
Sam Bradstreet September 04, 2012 at 05:59 PM
The Bill of Rights applies to everyone, even illegal immigrants. So an immigrant, legal or illegal, prosecuted under the criminal code has the right to due process, a speedy and public trial, and other rights protected by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. This fact sheet from the National Lawyers Guild outlines a host of rights afforded to immigrants and citizens alike. (There are a few rights reserved for citizens. Among them are the right to vote, the right to hold most federal jobs, and the right to run for political office.) But immigration proceedings are matters of administrative law, not criminal law. (As a result, the consequence of violating your immigration status is not jail but deportation.) And Congress has nearly full authority to regulate immigration without interference from the courts. Because immigration is considered a matter of national security and foreign policy, the Supreme Court has long held that immigration law is largely immune from judicial review. Congress can make rules for immigrants that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens.
Duty Bound September 04, 2012 at 09:13 PM
If you are detained and not free to go, being uncooperative won't earn you anything but what the video shows. Period, end of story. The jury in that case not only found the officer's use of force reasonable, but that the two morons in the vehicle were indeed worthy of a few convictions. As for the other question, the Supreme Court and the Congress of the U.S. made my decision several years ago: the Bill of Rights apply to all and to prove it, the 14th Amendment was added for good measure. If you believe your rights are being violated, then do what everyone else does in America: sue. But fight with the cops at your own peril because only the lawyers benefit from large settlements anyway. Just look at Rodney King to learn that hard lesson. He died broke and had been broke since just a year or two after the City of Los Angeles paid him out.
Duty Bound September 04, 2012 at 09:22 PM
That's one man's opinion to be sure, because 'obsolete' isn't exactly a word I'd apply to a law enforcement operation, occurring in most states in the union, that net thousands of arrests and billions of dollars worth of seized narcotics every single year. And despite LBV's bogus assertion that a 'dissenting' opinion somehow holds value, again, the courts have consistently upheld checkpoint legality. Hell, even in Oregon, they have checkpoints to check for 'zebra mussels' and many times, arrests for other crimes result. Tell me again how some states don't use checkpoints and I'll call 'bullshit'. Do these states have airports? Well, that shoots your argument down right there because all airports have multiple checkpoints for not only departing passengers, but arriving as well. Flame on bastions of the 4th Amendment!
Timber September 05, 2012 at 06:32 AM
"List one court case, in any circuit, where checkpoints have been deemed "unreasonable". ****************************Here you go sweetheart************************************* http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2012/ky-sticker.pdf
Sam Bradstreet September 06, 2012 at 03:02 AM
Major, your oath does NOT allow you to interrupt the US Constitution. We have a government that has been set up to establish, protect and interrupt it for us......Conservative ideology does NOT take precedent, EVER. God doesn't guide your oath, because you would have to have a direct connection to him OR interrupt the Bible. If allowed to interrupt either the US Constitution or the Bible by your individual mindset, we might have our military running in all different directions. Thus- you have an order of succession, of commands. You obey your commends....thats you oath.....not CONSERVATISM.
Sam Bradstreet September 06, 2012 at 03:17 AM
Bill Clinton blows up Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan and conservatism all in one friggin night!!!
Sam Bradstreet September 06, 2012 at 03:30 AM
Bill Clinton's speech tonight, exposed the lies, the misleading statements and the failure of Republicans, the Tea Party and conservatism. I am so proud of what he said and did. Hillary in 2016-2024!!
Sam Bradstreet September 06, 2012 at 03:51 AM
Major, if you read your oath of enlistment in any way other then obeying every order commanded you from the President of the US, who has been designated by the people of America and the US MILITARY, then you would be as big a disgrace as Gary Stein.....because you are aligned with his EXTREME RIGHT thinking. Thank you for your service, but I don't trust you to serve America anymore. I am sure you are a Far Right extremist member of the oath keepers, who have decided that they only can interrupt the US Constitution. Its so good they farmed you out to pasture.
Vic September 06, 2012 at 04:00 AM
Sorry, Jeff, but Bill Clinton lost the ability to inspire pride in ANYONE of reasonable mentality when he "said and did" what he did in office. Oh, but there, I said it...anyone of reasonable mentality.
Sam Bradstreet September 06, 2012 at 04:02 AM
I'm so embarrassed for you Major, that I forgot to ask. Since you so amazing that you by yourself can interrupt the US Constitution different then the President, please explain how any of my comments are-- LOL...Corporatist-Globalist-Collectivist-Marxist ??
Sam Bradstreet September 06, 2012 at 04:10 AM
Sandra Fluke gave the most impassioned speech defending the civil rights of all women and made a weak sniveling fool of Flip Flop, "I'll tell you after the election about specifics", Mitt Romney. Your new president could be a man who stands by when a public figure tries to silence a private citizen with hateful slurs. Who won’t stand up to the slurs, or to any of the extreme, bigoted voices in his own party. It would be an America in which you have a new vice president who co-sponsored a bill that would allow pregnant women to die preventable deaths in our emergency rooms. An America in which states humiliate women by forcing us to endure invasive ultrasounds that we don’t want and our doctors say we don’t need. An America in which access to birth control is controlled by people who will never use it; an America in which politicians redefine rape so survivors are victimized all over again; in which someone decides which domestic violence victims deserve access to services, and which don’t.
Murrieta Dee September 07, 2012 at 07:30 PM
How did Sandra Fluke get into this??? I thought this was about the DUI checkpoints! Oh well, as long as you brought it up, Sandra Fluke does not speak for me and I do not wish to pay for her contraceptives. She can just keep her legs together. As for the checkpoints. The more the better.
Sam Bradstreet September 07, 2012 at 08:18 PM
Murrieta Dee, of course you don't care about healthcare services being provided for you......People your age haven't used contraception for decades. She doesn't stand for people who stand by Rush Limbaugh like you. She stands for women and preventative healthcare. But, it seems she has kept her legs closed......not like conservative sluts like Bristol Palin.
Chelsea Beet September 07, 2012 at 10:54 PM
I'll try to keep my legs together next time I get raped, thanks.
LBV Collins September 07, 2012 at 11:33 PM
No need to worry about getting pregnant if you're raped, Chelsea... at least not if it's a "legitimate rape." http://buswk.co/Q2XEKg
Timber September 21, 2012 at 02:43 AM
Duty Bound- thought you might like to revise your absolutist view concerning “reasonableness”. The Idaho Supreme Court took arguably the most pejorative view of roadblocks declaring them violative of the Idaho roadblock statute as well as the state constitution, not to mention ineffective based on the record before the court. In State of Idaho v. Henderson (1988), a case decided two years before the Supreme Court’s decision in Sitz, the court observed that “[p]erhaps the most important attribute of our way of life in Idaho is individual liberty. ..police treat you as a criminal only if your actions correspond. Such is not the case with roadblocks.” Consequently the Idaho Supreme Court determined that sobriety checkpoints violated Art. 1, § 17 of the Idaho Constitution which is not dissimilar to the 4th Amendment. The court held “where police lack express legislative authority, particularized suspicion of criminal wrongdoing and prior judicial approval, roadblocks established to apprehend drunk drivers cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny.” SEE more at http://swacj.org/swjcj/archives/7.3/Twelve%20Proof.pdf
Timber September 21, 2012 at 02:44 AM
I guess I can ... what say you Duty Bound?
Cuz I Care October 08, 2012 at 03:02 AM
I'm glad for the checkpoint stops. Even if it took only 1 drunk or under the influence or suspended license driver off the road that's just fine with me.
Timber October 09, 2012 at 05:01 AM
Cuz, then maybe you wouldn't mind if the police randomly stop by your home and/or work and have you submit to a dui/safety inspection before driving. How does society know if you're not drunk or unlicensed? It is voluntary after all.
Cuz I Care October 10, 2012 at 05:58 PM
Timber,,, stay on point. My home is not public property managed by tax dollars. Keep to the subject matter in the article. You are rambling. For your entertainment I'll answer your other curiosities. As for my work,,, always subject to random testing as previous disclosure to accepting the job, not a problem. And, I didn't read the police did that in the article, keep to the issue. So, If you drive on my tax-dollar, funded street then play by the rules agreed to when signed up for that license. Your Q: How does society know if you're not drunk or unlicensed? I don't speak for "society". I get out and vote. See you at the polls.
john ryerson November 26, 2012 at 01:28 AM
checkpoints aren't about getting drunk drivers off the road its about controlling the public and their activities.if drunk drivers are really a priority they would roving around the bars pulling over everybody that leaves. thats how you get drunk drivers off the road.

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 »