News Alert
Police, School Officials Investigate False Threat …

6 Arrested At Murrieta DUI Checkpoint

Five people were arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence and one person was taken into custody on a felony warrant.

Patch file photo.
Patch file photo.

A DUI/driver's license checkpoint on Clinton Keith Road at Murrieta Oaks East resulted in six arrests, the Murrieta Police Department is reporting.

The operation began at 8:23 p.m. Saturday and concluded at 2 a.m. Sunday.   

A total of 1,106 vehicles drove through the checkpoint. In addition to five people being arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence, one person was arrested on a felony warrant for weapons charges, according to a news release from the Murrieta Police Department. 

During the operation, there were also six citations issued for driving on a suspended license and five citations for driving without a driver’s license, the news release continued.

The checkpoint was funded by a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety, through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.  

Souflikar December 21, 2013 at 01:39 AM
- Timber - the Declaration of Independence guarantees "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'. Drunk drivers jeopardize all of those rights and the government is obligated to take action against them, dumbass.
Timber December 21, 2013 at 04:23 AM
@ Souflikar - If such a guarantee were true then the people harmed by drunk drivers would be able to sue law enforcement for breach of such an imaginary contractual obligation. (see Riss v. New York) The drunk driver themselves would be able to sue law enforcement for failure to protect him from himself as well. It is true, and I've NEVER claimed otherwise, that drunk drivers do have the potential to increase the likelihood of harm to themselves and other people. But subjugating the Rights of the people without cause by means of government coercion in order to lure the intended target through the dubious method of an inherently suspicionless roadblock STOP undermines the foundational principle of the nature of Liberty itself. There are 24 or so drunk driver visual cues that represent the most systematically developed method available to identify a drunk driver, yet checkpoints abandon this reasonable and rational practice. Through such an inherently flawed design officers cannot utilize this method because the vehicles are STOPPED. Filtering you through a system of self incrimination another foundational principle so called proud Americans righteously claim with meaningless words while their actions are quite un-American. It would be quite easy to rid the community of all crime if everyone was stopped, searched and questioned relentlessly because if it would save one life it would be worth it. -From one moron to another. I hope that's not all you got for your position.-
Souflikar December 21, 2013 at 05:38 AM
seems like if all the idiots would just stop driving drunk thru these checkpoints then the purpose would be defeated and all CPs would shut down. Do you have a suggestion how to accomplish that? or are you going to continue to agonize that they are illegal and pointless, even when they continue to catch dui's in them.
ChrisG December 21, 2013 at 09:51 AM
The checkpoints are a waste of resources. Watch the video. Did you see all the manpower there? All those cops could have been on patrol pulling people over for all sorts of traffic violations. People will be less likely to drink and drive in an environment where traffic violations are strictly enforced. Nobody that is arguing against the constitutionality of checkpoints is pro DUI. Think about it. Checkpoints is all your eggs in one basket. It is a money maker. That is why they fund it. Roving patrols with traffic stops creates more awareness of police. DUI, running lights, speeding, etc. this town has a limitless pool of drivers with bad habits. Pull them over. Arrest drunks. Way better than checkpoints. Merry Christmas!
Just my opinion December 21, 2013 at 01:10 PM
Timber and ChisG - you two are both wrong. They are not a waste of resources since they use grants to be set up and cost their individual departments - nothing out of their budgets. Second, yes they are manpower intensive, because its necessary for safety of the officers and expediency for the drivers. People will continue to drink excessively and to enhance the public roads, law enforcement has to use many tools to catch them. Checkpoints is just one and it's used the least of any because it is so manpower intensive, but they do work. Each agency by law has to announce in the local newspaper that they will be engaging in a checkpoint before they do it. They have to list the day and time but not the specific area. This notice alone works to encourage drinkers to get cabs, use designated drivers, or stay out of the area. That's a base hit buddy. Second, for those who just wander into one or fail to avoid it after consuming alcohol, have a chance of being observed, contacted, and screened. If they demonstrate symptoms of DUI, they are tested and if they fail - arrested. Yes, that's called a home run. This isn't about putting all the eggs in one basket. There are regular officers still out there on patrol duties too. This county also has holiday specific roaming task forces (avoid the 30) that are DUI specific targets, and there are always 911 calls from the public to alert law enforcement of obvious DUIs - so all those eggs are still working too. You both have no idea of what you're talking about. Remember, the State of California Office of Traffic Safety through our legislature created these checkpoints - not the locals. It seems that these checkpoints simply annoy you. Too bad! Getting 6 more DUIs off the road (as well as the unlicensed drivers found) is well worth it. Any one of those 6 could have run into you, a family member, or a friend in their path. I'm sure if one of them maimed or killed one of your friends or family you would feel differently. I've lost both to DUIs. I have no mercy for drunks who get behind the wheel.
Aaron Powers December 21, 2013 at 01:20 PM
Just my opinion. Where do you think grants come from? The grant fairy? Do you think these officers work for free? I am pretty sure Timber and ChrisG do not support drunk drivers, they just see checkpoints differently from you. The government has limited resources, and even if it didn't, you cannot eliminate people from making stupid decisions (i.e. like drunk driving).
Just my opinion December 21, 2013 at 02:08 PM
Aaron Powers, you must be related to Auston Powers or Mini Me. You espouse similar genius. No, they don't work for free. I said it does not cost local budgets money because all their expenses are picked up by the state. In any case, the Grant Fairy as you call it, is the State of California Legislature. The grants exist whether or not communities use them. Get it? It seems to me, since we all pay state taxes (income, sales, excise, etc.), it is worthwhile to see some of those state collected dollars come back into our community through these grants - so yes, the Grant Fairy should come here too so we get our share of tinker belle's fairy dust. I don't care if Timber, ChrisG, or John Smith agree with the PD using check points. They already exist whether you like them or not. They do benefit our community whether you like them or not. They are already paid for by the state whether you use them or not. To pass on this resource would be as asinine as their simpleton opinions against their use. Of course you can't eliminate people from making stupid decisions. No argument there, but you can attempt to catch the ones that do so, in the name of keeping everyone else safer from their potential catastrophic danger because they choose to drive DUI.
Aaron Powers December 21, 2013 at 02:20 PM
@Just my opinion. Actually, you are correct on one thing, I am related to Mini Me (good comeback BTW, I feel burned big time, big time)! You're for big government, I am for small government. As such, we won't agree on many fiscally related political matters. No need for more debate.
Just my opinion December 21, 2013 at 02:27 PM
Mini me - with all due respect, actually I am not for big government, but I am for using resources that we already paid for! This is already democrat ruled and controlled state that is obviously for big government and the progressive ideology. I can't change that. Just wanna see us get our share of the pie they are handing out.
Aaron Powers December 21, 2013 at 02:34 PM
My mistake, JMO. Sincerely, Mini Me
ChrisG December 22, 2013 at 07:02 AM
@just, we agree on the importance of getting DUIs off the street. We disagree on appropriate methods. The grant money to fund the checkpoints may come from state or federal budgets but the resources to man them are local. Do you really believe there are the same number on patrol during checkpoints?
Just my opinion December 22, 2013 at 12:21 PM
Yes ChrisG, there are, because as I stated before, shifts for areas are covered by mandated minimum staffing by district, so they are covered regardless of whether the DUI checkpoint happens or not. The checkpoints are overtime based and use otherwise off-duty officers, civilians, and volunteers to man them. However, there is always the possibility that traffic officers could get directed to work them, but they normally do not work those hours anyway. Whether you disagree on methods is irrelevant. You are not in any position to make the decision. Your opinion is about as valid as disagreeing with some NFL coach's play calling for a particular play on any Sunday game. It doesn't impact anything!
ChrisG December 22, 2013 at 03:56 PM
@just, where are you getting your information from regarding the staffing of these checkpoints and how they affect regular patrols? You claim they are staffed by, "otherwise off-duty officers, civilians, and volunteers". Is there official documentation on this or just your opinion? My opinion is just as valid as yours and everyone else's.
Just my opinion December 22, 2013 at 05:41 PM
This info is not my opinion. I got it from an official source. Regular patrols are always staffed at minimums regardless (whether they need to use overtime if short or just as regular minimum standard staffing). Civilians are those CSOs or police trained volunteers under specific direction and not performing any law enforcement duty requiring sworn status.
ChrisG December 22, 2013 at 06:49 PM
@just. What is the source please? Check out http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/pdf/808677.pdf for some interesting stats. There is a 3% chance of catching a DUI from random traffic stops at night. These are stops unrelated to vehicles suspected of DUI. 3% is considerably higher than the rate of DUI arrests at your checkpoints and therefore a much better use of resources which is my point. More police all around town is much better than all at the checkpoint. Look it up please. Getting more DUI arrests is the goal. Or is it?
Timber December 22, 2013 at 07:02 PM
"With help from Menifee Crime Watch volunteers and the Menifee Police Explorers, deputies stopped drivers in both the eastbound and westbound lanes of Scott Road."---------------------------------------------------------------- From: http://lakeelsinore-wildomar.patch.com/groups/police-and-fire/p/menifee-dui-checkpoint-nets-4-arrests ---------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks Officer Alcala and Sargeant Strang.
Just my opinion December 25, 2013 at 12:55 PM
ChrisG, the checkpoints are only one of many dimensional tools to catch DUIs. No one suggests that it is the only or most productive one, but since it does catch them, it is worth keeping, and yes, the state provides the funds to supplement all other forms of DUI intervention - so it is an extra tool to supplement all other efforts.You have no expertise to determine whether these checkpoints should be used or not. Apparently, the law enforcement agencies making the decision to use them do and they all disagree with you! Perhaps you could also chime in on whether PSA tests or breast exams are worth it, since their detection rates are low as well....they are even more invasive! What a knuckle head.
ChrisG December 27, 2013 at 07:59 AM
@jmo. Name calling? You've lost the argument. The stats speak for themselves. Regardless of what you think, resources are limited. Law enforcement does what the legislature tells them to do. There are way more effective means to get drunks off the road and that was my point. Murrieta and Temecula have a lot of traffic related problems. All could be solved with stricter enforcement patrols.
Timber December 27, 2013 at 12:41 PM
@just..."PSA tests or breast exams" don't contemplate government interference with Liberty especially without cause, AKA the right to be left alone. Most like yourself completely ignore this fact. Your attempt at dissembling the issue is noted.
Anthony Craft January 03, 2014 at 08:16 AM
Driving is a privilege not a right, driving on a city or state road is a choice, glad the have DUI checkpoints since my wife and kids are on the roads...
ChrisG January 03, 2014 at 09:32 AM
@anthony. Everyone agrees the police should do whatever is best to get and keep drunks off the road. The statistics prove regular traffic stops and DUI patrols are way more effective than DUI checkpoints in getting drunks off our streets. If you take the emotion out of it and simply look at the facts you will see the checkpoints are not effective compared to strict traffic patrolling. That is the argument. My family drives these streets too. I want the most effective methods used. Checkpoints just do not net the number of arrests the same resources would get if they were out patrolling.
Just my opinion January 04, 2014 at 12:30 PM
ChrisG, you are barking up the wrong tree. Five arrests and five drunk drivers off the road are certainly a success and quite an effective use of our police officers that night. This tool is only one of many used to snare drunk driver., To ignore it's use (when the state funds it - use it or not) would be foolhardy. Officers out patrolling are getting other calls and concerned with all sorts of crime - not just DUI's. Many people will drive DUI w/o obvious swerving or other symptoms, so they are hard to catch unless snared in this type of trap. Therefore, I disagree with your opinion. Facts clearly dispute it. Your assumptions do not pan out when compared with facts.
Just my opinion January 04, 2014 at 02:58 PM
John Smith. I get it. You don't like checkpoints and feel they trample your rights. So what. They are legal. They are successful and they will continue. On another point, driving is not a right. It is a government granted privilege. Cars didn't even exist when the constitution was written. You are free to have any opinion you want - right or wrong, so the fact that your opinion is counter to the facts does not matter. Like Neal Young said: "It doesn't mean that much to me to mean that much to you". We are all free to think stupid. That's what's great about america. Let' see, it's not that cost effective or the best use of two helicopters and dozens of navy seals to cathc one guy - especially when a helicopter is destroyed in the process. Oh, maybe it is when that guy is Osama Bin Laden. Then the use of a missile to kill one guy is pretty expensive too. I guess resources are better used by those who know how to get things done and not those who espouse "rights" and blah blah blah.....obviously you were never in any position of authority in the military or law enforcement. That's for sure. You're grinding an axe because you were stopped in a DUI checkpoint. It can remain speculation as to what happened.
ChrisG January 04, 2014 at 03:34 PM
Just my opinion, you don't seem to understand the facts do speak for themselves. 6 DUI drivers off the road that is true. If the same resources were spent patrolling traffic the statistics prove there would be more DUI arrests.
Just my opinion January 04, 2014 at 03:44 PM
That is not true. It is pure speculation. Since the checkpoint is out of the control of the locals (as far as using these same resources elsewhere) they are left with the choice of simply participating or not. Using resources elsewhere cost them personally out of their own budget - which also limits their other choices for deployment in competition. The state pays for the entire cost of DUI checkpoint through a grant - so you are making a false assumption. The facts certainly speak for themselves - you simply choose to ignore that ...you are already set in your mentality. We shall agree to disagree.
John Smith January 04, 2014 at 03:49 PM
Just Your Opinion. Here is the point. If the goal is truly to remove drunks off the road the same resources used in a roving manner in bar stings would result in way more DUI arrests. How many people walk out of bars and restaurants with over .08 and get in their cars? I bet its more than 6 per bar. I went through a checkpoint once in Tennessee. I did not comply with their questions using the fifth. I did not comply with their order to secondary using the fourth . The result was five minutes of waiting and then I was waived through. I know police officers that think DUI checkpoints are a waste of time. I also do not see your point about military service. Well maybe I do. Are you are alluding to the fact that military service starts with the signing away of some rights to be a member? So does this mean civilians should also give up their rights using what the military does as an example? Although checkpoints have been found to be Constitutional in no part of the court decision did anyone get stripped of fourth and fifth amendment rights. If a civilian invokes them the police MUST comply with their oath to the Constitution. If the officer has no probable cause then he must waive you through. Also no one has to answer any questions. You have a right to remain silent. However many people behave as lemmings. They either knowingly or unknowingly waive their rights which allows the police to proceed with tactics that they couldn't otherwise employ. It is better to not waive your rights. There is nothing the police can do and always have your phone camera on to check police that behave illegally which they have done occasionally at checkpoint stops. Lastly go get an app like Mr Checkpoint or anything like it. Almost every checkpoint is listed as soon as they go up. This way you can enjoy your limited free time getting to events quickly instead of being tied up in long lines at checkpoints.
Just my opinion January 05, 2014 at 01:24 AM
John Smith - you are truly missing the whole point because of your blindness to any opinion or facts counter to your own beliefs. This situation (locals either joining or ignoring checkpoints) has nothing to do with your own ideas of the best way to remove drunks from the road. You are missing the point of the fact that these checkpoints are state funded and you can either use them in addition to other methods or not - so your opinion as to whether other methods are better or not is irrelevant. They exist and locals can be a part or not. Furthermore, since they are already paid for by state funds, they either bolster local efforts or don't if locals choose to ignore them. Furthermore, Mr. Constitution, I could care less if you are a mime or a mute when you drive through, officers will observe you and all your actions and make their own determination whether you warrant further investigation. You keep videoing and citing the constitution and our checkpoints can keep finding DUIs to remove from the road. Yes, every checkpoint is publicized. The PD themselves put them in the paper. So what! DUIs are morons and they will drive right into them. Others who choose to avoid them certainly can take an alternative route. You have no frame of reference to determine whetehr these checkpoints should be utilized or not - only your own ignorant opinion, so I am happy they exist and could care less what you think. You are a brick head!
Jeff Kleiner January 05, 2014 at 08:05 AM
Agree totally with your opinion JMO. You hit the nail on the head.
Steve Newman January 06, 2014 at 03:16 PM
DUI checkpoints have their use-they are limited in scope to the area they cover, so saturation patrols would get more DUI. However, if a unit on patrol pulls over a possible DUI and that DUI rabbits, a chase is on and the potential of innocent people getting hurt is much larger than by using checkpoints. After all public safety is the goal. Bar stops aren't used or decoys because a business could suffer loss of customers if they knew that there were undercover officers inside. You should see the people cringe when ICE comes in to just get dinner.
Just my opinion January 07, 2014 at 12:35 AM
Saturation points and checkpoints are different methodologies- much like a football running game vs. a passing game - yet both provide dividends when done properly, so your kind of comparing apples and oranges. These are simply different methods so they're not really in direct competition, but more of complimentary to each other. In any case both can improve public safety, but checkpoints will always be more area specific and manpower intensive, so their use will always be much more limited. It's making a public statement to use them since most people get real nervous when they see them - even when they are completely sober!


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 »