.

Two Arrests, Three Citations at Checkpoint

Murrieta Police take one driver for DUI during Margarita Road checkpoint.

One person was arrested for DUI, while four others received citations for other infractions during a near six-hour police checkpoint Friday night in Murrieta.

The checkpoint, on Margarita Road just north of Torrey Pines Road, began at 8:20 p.m. and lasted until 2 a.m.     

According to Murrieta police Sgt. Jim Gruwell, 972 vehicles passed through the checkpoint with 813 being screened. Of the 813 vehicles, 27 required additional screening.  

The additional screenings resulted in:

  • 2 citations for driving on a suspended license
  • 1 citation for driving without a valid license
  • 1 arrest for a misdemeanor DUI warrant
  • 1 arrest for DUI

More checkpoints are planned, but police are not announcing specific dates at this time.  This DUI checkpoint was funded by a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety, through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

carolyn August 25, 2012 at 04:52 PM
Thank you Murrieta PD. My husband was killed by an unlicensed driver, so thanks for getting some of them off the road.
LBV Collins August 25, 2012 at 06:56 PM
Peachy. One DUI suspect nabbed out of 800 vehicles stopped and checked. And just how much did this cost we taxpayers?
Timber August 25, 2012 at 10:33 PM
Only unlicensed drivers kill???
The Republican August 26, 2012 at 06:17 AM
American girl and everyone...Call the San Diego County Sheriffs department here (858) 565-5200 Ask Why Jeff Kleiner who lives at 28521 Gladstone Court, Escondido with this five year old felony warrant SWF022329 has not been arrested? Ask them to run the warrant and address and to please arrest him. It is on Riverside County Superior Courts records as activre right now
Eddie August 26, 2012 at 06:31 AM
There probably would have been more arrests if the idiots at MurrietaPatch didn't give the time and location of the check point! Lvb Collins, you would be the first person to scream about getting drunk drivers off the road, more check points and not about how much this costs tax payers when you have a loved one killed by one of these selfish morons.
LBV Collins August 26, 2012 at 02:56 PM
Hi Eddie. I appreciate your point. However, even if a loved one were killed by a drunk driver, it would not change my mind. While I am very much in favor of keeping drunks off the road, I do not believe giving up our Fourth Amendment constitutional protection from unreasonable searches and seizures is the appropriate cure. And what rubs salt in the wound for me is that we are paying our officers overtime to sit around for six hours stopping and questioning over 800 innocent citizens to nab the one citizen driving under the influence. I would MUCH rather pay those same officers overtime to cruise the streets at night near restaurants and bars and then stop and question those drivers they actually suspect of DUI. For me, the irony of DUI checkpoints is that we will NEVER know whether they prevented a single accident, let alone a single death. Yet, that’s the fantasy checkpoint supporters offer. If we really want to prevent people from driving while under the influence, then we need to let technology handle that for us. Here’s one promising solution: “Udall, Corker Introduce ROADS SAFE Act: Bill Would Promote New Technologies to Reduce Drunk Driving.” [1] According to the article, "More than 10,000 people are killed each year in drunk driving accidents." And, "An estimated 9,000 road traffic deaths could be prevented every year if alcohol detection technologies were more widely used to prevent drunk drivers from operating their vehicles. 1. http://1.usa.gov/hsp17h
Mark August 26, 2012 at 04:28 PM
Sorry to hear about your loss.
censored messenger August 26, 2012 at 05:03 PM
now we need to get these unregistered and often unplated vehicles out of our community. Many of these can't be registered since they are owned by criminals. An unregistered car may also be an illegal car. Out of state plates are often used by criminals, here, hard to trace. They can run over your child and drive away scot-free
ms400 August 26, 2012 at 05:21 PM
Nice, I bet Roadhouse really appreciated the free advertisement one of the employees gave them that night.
Timber August 29, 2012 at 02:36 AM
What about all those drunk drivers the police could not catch that were driving in other parts of the city? Oh well, guess they let those drunks kill elsewhere. Remember, law enforcement has been around for a looong time and to date they have not eradicated crime and never will. By the way, your state, exercising the police powers, has no duty to protect you or anyone out in public~EVER in the present, past or future. But you deserve the truth.
Duty Bound August 31, 2012 at 10:56 PM
"I do not believe giving up our Fourth Amendment constitutional protection from unreasonable searches and seizures is the appropriate cure." LBV, the SCOTUS disagrees with you and the overwhelming majority of checkpoint case law fully supports the presence and use of said checkpoints and further, they've found checkpoints to, in fact, be "reasonable". I can't remember the last time SCOTUS ruled against the presence of checkpoints anywhere in the U.S. Bottom line: your fourth amendment rights don't and by law, cannot, invalidate equal protection for every other citizen under the 14th Amendment. The laws surrounding DUI are in place to protect all citizens and checkpoints are a historically effective method, just one of many, by which to provide such protection. Using your logic then, how do we know how many deaths have been prevented by looking both ways before crossing the street? The lack of data, by itself, doesn't prove your point at all. How do you propose to measure the immeasurable?
Timber September 02, 2012 at 11:32 PM
Duty Bound The irony of the SCOTUS ruling in Michigan v.Sitz which carved out the 4th Amen. exception ruling in favor of the Michigan State Police is that the Michigan Supreme Court, after remand, rejected the SCOTUS Federal ruling in favor of the citizens. An except: "...the state of the law in Michigan still requires some facts constituting the basis for a particularized suspicion to justify a stop. Adoption of the recent federal standard permitting suspicionless stops by roving roadblocks results not only in a variance from prior federal law, but also in a substantial departure from the evolution of Michigan law regarding the warrantless stopping of motor vehicles...we believe compelling reason exists to interpret the Michigan Constitution as affording greater rights than those found in the federal constitution.
Timber September 02, 2012 at 11:34 PM
cont. 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.

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