February 2009 DUI report | Napa Valley Register

Home » News » Dui

February 2009 DUI report

Wednesday, March 04, 2009

Comment

DUI coverage

November 18th, 2009

Collision leads to DUI arrest

November 11th, 2009

DUI patrols out Saturday

November 6th, 2009

Accident spurs DUI arrest in American Canyon

November 3rd, 2009

October 2009 DUI Report

November 1st, 2009

Video: .08 what does it take?

NEWThe NapaValleyRegister.com publishes monthly statistics on arrests and convictions for driving under the influence in Napa County. Statistics are published the first Monday of each month.

Arrest information is from the Napa County Sheriff’s Department. Convictions, names and blood-alcohol levels are from Napa County Superior Court.

Convictions include cases in which the person pleaded guilty or no contest to one or more drunk driving charges, or where one or more such charges resulted in a guilty verdict at trial.

Vehicle code violations considered are: driving under the influence (Vehicle Code section 23152), reckless driving while under the influence (23103.5) and causing injury to another while driving while under the influence (23153). Convictions for causing injury to another while driving under the influence are noted in parentheses next to overall convictions and pleas. There were no such convictions in February.

The blood-alcohol levels provided by the court are based on a variety of tests — some taken at the scene of the arrest or county jail, others through a later blood test — and have not necessarily been proven or admitted in court. It is unlawful for any person to operate a vehicle if that person has a blood-alcohol level of .08 or more, according to the California Vehicle Code.

The list of names below is for January 2009 convictions/pleas.

Arrests: 73

Convictions/pleas: 69

Reported blood-alcohol below .10 or unavailable: 25

Reported blood-alcohol between .10 and .19: 35

Reported blood-alcohol between .20 and .29: 9

Click here to load this Caspio Bridge DataPage.

51 comment(s)

oldtownnapa wrote on Mar 4, 2009 5:47 AM:

" Are there any other California or national newspapers which publish a similar DUI conviction chart? I have never seen this anywhere else and could not find another on the web.

Interesting fact: every participant in the court mandated Napa County DUI program must sign a contractual agreement which includes a confidentiality clause to help protect the anonymity of the other participants. Violation results in dismissal. Shouldn't our local paper follow their lead?

All of these people will already have punishment and education as meted out by both the Court and the DMV. So, what is the newsworthy purpose of this list? "

yoyo wrote on Mar 4, 2009 8:44 AM:

" old townnapa,
this is public information. any reason for arrest is. "

reason-ator wrote on Mar 4, 2009 11:11 AM:

" The NVR needs to start contracting with paparazzi if they ever want to lower themselves to the level of the NapaVal Enquirer, but at least they keep trying.

I don't know what the NVR has against credibility, but they obviously continue to fight having any.

Shameful. Innocent people are suffering through mis-identity and involuntary association, and the NVR thinks the high road stays muddy the longest.

I apologize for yesterday implying that the NVR had finally shown some class by not not publishing the list this month. I should have known it was just late. What a surprize. "

tiredofcomplainingnapkins wrote on Mar 4, 2009 1:44 PM:

" To reason ator,
What do you mean by people are surffering through mis-identity? Do you know people personally who couldn't get a job or some other suffering hardship due to their name being on this list? Just because someone has the same name as someone else doesn't mean these people are suffering. Anyone that knows a name on here knows wether its their friend or family. I'm sure when someone goes to get a job the employer doesn't check the Napa DUI list first. Give me a break, Suffering, get real. I know a guy named Jesse Garcia and I've seen Jesse Garcias name on here multiple times doesn't mean that I think its my friend. "

oldtownnapa wrote on Mar 4, 2009 2:22 PM:

" Yoyo: Does that mean NVR should do lists on everyone who is delinquent on their property taxes or perhaps everyone in foreclosure? That's public information as well.

This list has no deterrence purpose and only serves to humiliate & worse- to threatens jobs & at a time when we are suffering the worst recession since WW2. In a cost/benefit analysis, how is it serving our community? These people will already be severely punished- it's just kicking someone when they are down. It's an online version of shackling people in the town square. "

reason-ator wrote on Mar 4, 2009 2:37 PM:

" tiredofcomplainingnapkins, I'm not allowed to tell you about how I think I lost out on a job because my name ( not me ) got on this list while I was in a job selection process. You see, a blogger told me not to keep bringing it up because I mentioned it in two different months.

Also, another blogger mentioned a family who lost a father and husband because someone who got their name mentioned every day on this list evidently could not take the shame and took his own life. I do not know who it was, and I do not know the circumstances. I just know that it's a possibility.

A child should not lose their father because of the NVR's petty vendetta.

I also do not think that anybody who is impaired enough to choose to drive drunk is smart enough to consider a newspaper feature more important than the possibility of killing themselves or others or merely getting arrested and paying thousands of dollars of fines.

Simply put, I think this list does no good. It also probably caused harm to innocent parties.

If something possibly causes more harm than good, why do it ?

Meanwhile, many other people are just as impaired while participating in an illegal but socially-acceptable activity. We do not see a daily mention of those people for a whole month, and yet their actions are much more deliberate and just as impairing. Why isn't there a list for them ? Is it because NVR employees have to do it as part of their job ? "

tiredofcomplainingnapkins wrote on Mar 4, 2009 4:16 PM:

" To reasonator
Your last paragraph, I don't understand it? What is the illegal activitiy and what list would you like to see of them? And for the person who lost there father or husband because of the shame of a DUI, I think there was a lot more problems in there life then just a DUI. And a DUI is something you should be ashamed about, its irresponsilbe, dangerous, and unacceptable. NVR puts out a list of DUIS, must people in Napa know it, if you get caught driving drunk you WILL be on that list, end of story. ANd as for the person who couldnt get a job because of this list, I have a feeling you are making this up. Its very easy to show a potential employer it wasn't you who recieved a DUI, and I highly doubt anybody would turn to this list for a background check, anyone can go to the courts and get a background check. And you say if "something causes more harm than good then why do it?" Drunk Driving does more harm than good, so why do people do that? Stop trying to defend these people and bad mouth the NVR "

reason-ator wrote on Mar 4, 2009 5:39 PM:

" tiredofcomplainingnapkins,

The activity I'm talking about is people talking on cell-phones. Studies have shown that they are AT LEAST as impaired as a legally drunk driver, and have reflexes up to three times longer than a drunk driver. It is illegal, and people know they are breaking the law, while a drunk driver may not be aware he/she is legally drunk. But cell-phone violaters get a free pass, and there are more of them. A CHP officer recently said distracted drivers are the #1 cause of accidents- not DUIs.

AS far as the story about the suicidalperson, yes, I admittted I did not know the person who obviously had to have other problems, but apparently he mentioned the shame list and not the others.

AS far as the job process, no employer in their right mind is going to get into details about why they didn't hire someone because of the possible legal repurcussions. They only admit that they found a better-qualified candidate. All I know is the employer was VERY interested in me and my almost 20 years of experience and my almost perfect performance evaluations, and then "my" name showed up on the list and they weren't interested anymore.

Not only am I making that up, just think about how you'd feel if I implied that you were making up something. Then consider how happy I am since someone actually accused me of that in a public forum. I'm being gentle to keep the robo-censor from getting activated. But if someone called you a liar, that person would drop a class layer or two in your perception- unless you had actually lied. I'm not. "

reason-ator wrote on Mar 4, 2009 6:04 PM:

" Does anybody know of an instance where I've defended drunk drivers ?

I didn't think so.

While I've often critized the NVR, I'll commend them for printing my critical posts.

Although a bunch of them seem to be disappearing lately. "

napasfinest wrote on Mar 4, 2009 8:01 PM:

" I'm gonna have to agree with reason-ator that this list does absolutely no good. It is POINTLESS. "

tiredofcomplainingnapkins wrote on Mar 4, 2009 8:14 PM:

" To Napafinest,
I disagree, I like looking in it each month and seeing the names of people I know who got a DUI, I always know at least one person. It deters me from ever wanting to drink and drive because I would not want the Shame of my name being there for everyone in Napa to see. And if the list deters at least one person from drinking and driving then its doing its job. "

reason-ator wrote on Mar 4, 2009 9:09 PM:

" It is amazing to me that someone could be more concerned about personal vanity than the possibility of killing or injuring innocent motorists. "

injoy wrote on Mar 4, 2009 10:39 PM:

" This list is one of the many reasons WHY I never drink and drive.

Keep it up NVR..I am proud of you. "

reason-ator wrote on Mar 5, 2009 10:26 AM:

" This list is also one of the many reasons that the NVR has lost subscriptions. "

bornin74 wrote on Mar 5, 2009 12:13 PM:

" The NVR lost my subscription, because I can read the paper online for free!. If I want a copy of an articel or pic. I just go to 7-11 and buy one, otherwise why do I need to pay for something when I can get it for free? Regarding the DUI list, another post above mentioned the NVR listing foreclosures and delinquent taxes.... If I remember right, they DO!. But I have only read tehm in the actual print addition, in the classifieds. "

gladtobgone wrote on Mar 5, 2009 3:49 PM:

" between this and the obit's I keep track of old friends. "

napa1968 wrote on Mar 6, 2009 7:35 AM:

" gladtobgone:

im with 'ya on that, "

grownhere wrote on Mar 6, 2009 9:32 AM:

" I agree with "tiredofcomplainingnapkins" completly on this one. Drinking and driving should not be covered up. Any way to stop this from happening, and destoying multiple lives, i am for it. It sounds like "reason-ator" may be bitter for being on this list at some time. Don't drink and drive, you won't be published for dui . It is simple. "

grownhere wrote on Mar 6, 2009 10:01 AM:

" How long does it take to post my previous comment? "

reason-ator wrote on Mar 6, 2009 12:05 PM:

" grownhere, I have never been on this list. Someone with my name has.

I have had friends killed by drunk drivers. I do not advocate it.

But having a personal vendetta that results in harming innocent people is almost criminal. And a lot of other things. Put in a different context, the people who did that would be prosecuted.

Meanwhile, people who break the law and impair themselves just as much by talking on a cell phone while driving don't have a list of their offense posted daily for a few hundred to see. It's hypocritical. Admit it.

Nah, that's not gonna happen. This s DUI we're talking about. It's not even the #1 cause of traffic accidents, but we still would never do that. Just as we wouldn't talk on a cell phone while driving a car, since distracted driving is the #1 cause of traffic accidents. Nope, we're above that. We're not hypocrits with personal vendettas. "

wipemedown wrote on Mar 6, 2009 2:46 PM:

" Well, Next time I’m at my therapy appointment with Dr. Bottle I can say “Pour me another for the road, err.. the ditch, or umm... OH the NVR Dui List” "

grownhere wrote on Mar 6, 2009 3:02 PM:

" As i agree ,some people are quite impared while on there cell phone. It seemed more ludacris that texting was their alternative. Do i think they should be exploited as well ? Probably not at this point.
You call it a personal vendetta.... I feel it is quite personal to you, and i am not sure why the protection of the amninity of drunk drivers is so importatnt to you ?
I am all for it if it even makes one person not go and kill another innocent person, due to them talking at a party, joking about making the dui list in the paper if they don't take a cab.
Do you feel like sex offenders and other serious offenders should be kept private as well ? "

jvctv wrote on Mar 6, 2009 9:58 PM:

" That's exactly the first thing everyone that drinks thinks about as the alcohol hits his/her lips....."Oh man I better not because of the Napa Valley Register DUI List"
Come on people....This is just something to give people a reason to become gossip lips... Bubba did you hear about DArlin? Ya better call Jack and Jackie to let them know!!!!
That's all this is. Don't get me wrong, I'm against drinking and driving, but I'm sure people all ready feel ashamed of them selfs. No reason to rub it in there face more. They will have this on there record for the next ten years along with paying for it for the next 10 years. This affects insurance for a while and costs a fortune when your all said and done. So lets beat them when there down. Hang them high!!!!! Throw stones at them!!!!Whip them good. Do you all feel better now. Good!!!! "

YOUNGNAP wrote on Mar 7, 2009 8:54 AM:

" The Vacaville newspaper publishes the names and PICTURES of people arrested for domestic violence. In napa we have a huge problem with DUI, there for publishing the list makes people more aware of the problem...... "

Dwayne wrote on Mar 7, 2009 9:39 AM:

" Personally, it's nice to know there are a lot of DUI's on the road, affecting the safety of me and my family...

We should all be more aware of our surroundings, and this list certainly helps... Same thing with the Crime Map the NVR publishes... "

grownhere wrote on Mar 7, 2009 10:42 PM:

" Jvctv, I never said EVERYONE that drinks thinks about the list. What i said was: I am all for it if it even makes one person not go and kill another innocent person due to the talk about it. Actually i am sure that not a good percentage do, but i have been in a social setting were it has been joked about and it is just a secondary defense in someones argument. Nice sarcasm i suppose though...

YOUNGNAP and Dwayne, I completely agree that it makes more people aware of the problem. On another note, it shows that police are in force catching these irresponsibles and you better be safe and not drive intoxicated. Not everyone may think to not drive after drinking due to being published, but knowing all the checkpoints and convictions that take place may help them make a better decision in the end. "

steph wrote on Mar 8, 2009 11:10 PM:

" The list serves as yet another reminder that society does not approve of DUI, and this is a deterrent.
Aside from not wanting to kill or seriously injure someone else as the result of driving while drunk, I do not want to face the shame of having a conviction made public.
Also, I could lose my job and the hope of being hired in another job like it if I were convicted of DUI.

Sometimes gossip has a purpose, and that is to define and reinforce what is socially unacceptable behavior. This list does the same thing. I'm all for it.

What a poor excuse, anyway, "Well, other people do bad things, so why should I face the consequences of MY bad choices?" Didn't your parents teach you early on that this argument doesn't fly? "

tsgets wrote on Mar 9, 2009 3:12 PM:

" Oldtown napa...why are you adamant about defending the privacy of the criminal offenders posted on this list. Are you one of them? They were caught for a DUI offense and the fact that they sustain a little public attention makes me smile! But I'm sure they are nice, sensitve, people and we should put their needs in front of the victims, if there is one, or otherwise it's the people of the state of California....which includes me! "

rickw wrote on Mar 9, 2009 5:16 PM:

" keep complaining! NVR can prove people are reading it and they can sell ad space....obviously people want to see this stuff. Next month's DUI list will be brought to you by Budwiser, "we know you have a choice when you drink and drive and we thank you for choosing ice cold Budwiser!!!! "

reason-ator wrote on Mar 10, 2009 12:18 AM:

" Selling ad space ? I've already begun boycotting their advertisers. "

rickw wrote on Mar 12, 2009 8:31 AM:

" yet you keep reading............ "

reason-ator wrote on Mar 13, 2009 12:51 AM:

" I haven't read the list for quite a few months, but it IS humorous to read the comments of people that believe that a drunk isn't worried about getting killed but IS worried about a list that gets read by a few dozen people.

Makes sense to me. Yep. And I continue to boycott the realty companies that advertise here, and I firmly believe that that's why the housing market is in the toilet. Just because of me. Uh-huh.

Yep. The DUI list is so powerful it's ruined the housing market. The data proves it. The housing market was red-hot before the DUI list got started, and then look what happened.......

Snicker-snicker...... "

oldtownnapa wrote on Mar 15, 2009 12:13 PM:

" steph- they are ALREADY facing the consquences of their actions & it is not necessarily drunk driving- it can also be impaired driving- less than "drunk." The limited used to be .015 once and there is talk it will be .06 (yes, 0.6) in the future! This isn't posted for deterrent purposes- its here to sell papers.

tsgets- not that is any of your business (which is my point) but yes, I am on this list. I did not get a DUI- I plead to a lesser charge- I am on here anyway- my life is already HELL because of it: I was less than .01 over.

Fact: most people don't subjectively even know when they are over the limit- can be inadvertent- not trying to be criminals. And it's not so black and white- the machine varied in readings- gave me SIX tests all total- the officer refused FOUR TIMES to give me a blood test (my RIGHT) w/o giving any reason (left out of Report) and ONLY stopped me because of my headlight after I ran smack into a saturation patrol with about SIX units. He didn't care about the light- he was looking to score a DUI and it went from there to here... he first followed me to a gas station then waited for me to leave again (also omitted from Report). 2-3 glasses of wine + bad timing and you could be here too. There but for the grace of god go thy, so don't be so high & mighty... "

reason-ator wrote on Mar 16, 2009 12:39 AM:

" oldtownnapa,

Thanks for speaking up. You made the same point I have tried to make, and some people just don't get it- or don't want to. A red-light doesn't flash or an alarm doesn't sound when someone reaches the magic number of 0.08%, yet people act as if it does. Also, some people are quite functional at 0,08%, and others can barely talk.

But MADD has been very good at their campaign. So much so that a friend jokingly suggested he was going to start a competing group called DDAMM ( Drunk Drivers Against Mad Mothers ) at a party where we were ridiculing the NVR's voyeuristic list.

And while there is no obvious notice given when someone reaches 0.08%, many of the people who criticize people who are on this list or even those who are critical of the list ( such as that reason-ator guy ), these SAME PEOPLE will knowingly grab a cell phone and knowingly impair themselves as if they are better.

It's hypocritical.

I admire you for speaking up. And yet, some people just won't get it. They've made up their minds. What's even more amazing to me is that people openly admit they read all the names digging for dirt. I would be ashamed to admit it, but I guess some people have less pride than I do.

Good Luck to you. You have earned my respect with your candor. Sadly, I think your wisdom will be lost on most people, but thanks for trying. "

oldtownnapa wrote on Mar 18, 2009 11:05 PM:

" YOUNGNAP:

Unlike a domestic battery case, a DUI conviction has no mens rea- it is a strict liability offense- where the court imputs intent- in a battery, theft, rape, assault-most crimes- one must prove intent as part of the case. There is no intent needed here for a DUI conviction. I think if you are going to do lists it shouldn't be based on a strict liability offense like this but on an intentional crime. The two are very dissimilar.

Dan Ross- Please tell me how many signatures I need to collect to stop this list? Do you need 500 or 800 or more? I will make a website and get everyone at DDP to sign it as well. Then I will walk the streets and get more- 1000? Give me a number. Also, I would like a reply to my first post please on any other papers on the nation that do this for DUI convictions OR charges? "

checkyourself wrote on Mar 21, 2009 8:14 AM:

" I was nearly hit on my bike on my way to DUI class this week by an employee of the program who was on their cell phone. I will share no further information as the program stresses the importance of confidentiality. I guess we can all make mistakes. "

SERIOUSLY wrote on Mar 22, 2009 2:43 PM:

" A DUI is a general intent crime in that intent is implied - it does not require mens rea or specific intent. A DUI is an actus reus (guity act). If you had a general intent to drink, then drive, then that is general intent.

Here are a few examples of the many other places that publish local DUI arrests and convictions:
The Washington Olympain publishes DUIs, as does the Redding paper, and the Fairbanks, Alaska newspaper. Connecticut publishes all convictions since 2000 on their state web site. Similarly Nassau County (Long Island), NY does the same thing - with your name and photograph. In Georgia for your second DUI you get your photograph in the local newspaper at your expense, and that's state law. A similar bill was introduced in AZ in 2003.

My point is, if you have been arrested for DUI/DWI, it's not fun but accept responsibility for your actions. It isn't the Register's fault that people get arrested and become a part of public record.

I think Steph said it best -"Sometimes gossip has a purpose, and that is to define and reinforce what is socially unacceptable behavior. This list does the same thing. I'm all for it."

Me too. "

opiniagirl wrote on Mar 29, 2009 10:14 AM:

" reason-ator

You Say "I've already begun boycotting their advertisers"

Since you clearly continue to read the paper online, you SUPPORT the paper. Also, how do you know who the advertisers are unless you READ THE PAPER...and why would you boycott them??? I don't understand your logic???

You also say "It's hypocritical" that people who speak on their cell phones while driving criticizing drunk drivers...

Well would only be hypocritical if a person were to say drunk driving is ok for me but not others. For example; If I were a burglar and I spoke badly of murderers, that would not make me a hypocrite..it would just make me a burglar who thinks badly of murderers.

This list is fine...common sense says..don't take the chance after even 1 glass of wine. Drink...DON’T DRIVE or suffer all of the consequences for your gamble.

If I WERE on this list due to a moment of sheer stupidity, I would be thanking my lucky stars I was in this section and not the obituaries; or the front page news being arrested after an accident!

Criminal activity is and should always be public information..if you don't like it, don't be a criminal. "

reason-ator wrote on Mar 30, 2009 2:57 AM:

" Yeah, yeah, you're right.

I'm supporting the paper by cancelling my subscription and reading it online for free.

I guess some people missed my humour when I said I was boycotting the advertisers, because I'm DEFINITELY not going to buy a million dollar house or a used car.
Just because of this tabloidish list. Otherwise, I'd buy a few houses and pre-wrecked cars.

When I see the list published every day of everyone who got popped for talking on a cell phone while drivng, then things won't be hypocritical. But that won't happen, will it ? Why ?

Remember, distracted driving is the NUMBER ONE reason for traffic accidents. Yet there are people who do that all the time, while gossiping about their neighbors dirty laundry.

How admireable is that? Is that hypocritical ?

Nah, it's not. Because everybody does it. What a bunch of "phonies".

Pun intended. "

seriously wrote on Mar 30, 2009 4:03 PM:

" just a thought...why does the highway patrol encourage us (with roadsigns and amber alerts and such) to report drunk drivers while we are driving? obviously we would have to call on our cell phones and those signs obviously are distracting us from driving too...now THAT'S hypocrytical. "

opiniagirl wrote on Mar 30, 2009 6:00 PM:

" The register uses the amount of people that read the paper online for "free" to attract online advertisers, so yes, by reading, you DO support the paper whether you want to admit it or not...more online readers = more online advertisers = more money! What's the difference?

People on cell phones are breaking the law and it would be just as interesting to see a list of these violators monthly in addition to the DUI list.

But then; under your deffinition; anyone reading would be a hypocrite unless they had a perfect spotless life! In order to argue the symantics of "hypocrite" we would have to agree that it means the same thing...which we clearly do not. Although webster and I do agree... "

reason-ator wrote on Mar 31, 2009 12:20 AM:

" Anyone ever see the commercial with the mermaid in the hot tub talking to the unicorn ?

I don't know why I brought that up. I think about that sometimes when I read the comments here. I don't know why.

Maybe we should print a list of all the occupants on Death Row, every day. I mean, those guys have actually killed people, and if they had thought about a few dozen people reading a list with their name on it beforehand, they WOULDN'T have killed anybody.

Really, I believe that.

Oh, wait. Tomorrow's April Fools Day, not today. "

opiniagirl wrote on Mar 31, 2009 9:41 AM:

" Reason-ator:

Thanks for your continued support of the Napa Register...

So this is what people do when they don't have more anything to say... "

reason-ator wrote on Mar 31, 2009 10:43 AM:

" Opiniagirl,

You are welcome. Add a web-hit for the Napa Register. Now they'll get even MORE advertisers. Especially from that store that sells Flying Pigs !

Now, get back to work and quit supporting the Napa Register when you should be working...... "

reason-ator wrote on Mar 31, 2009 11:53 AM:

" It's been a few seconds since my last post.......

I just wanted to remind those people that are cleverly trying to get me to quit voicing my opinian that it is really working. I guess I need to post more just so they know how successful they are......

I'm sure that the NVR appreciates my support also....... "

NVR-Dan Ross wrote on Mar 31, 2009 12:30 PM:

" reason-ator:
We appreciate those who read us because they love us and also those who read us because they hate us, just like those who watch Keith Olbermann or listen to Rush Limbaugh because they are loved/hated. "

opiniagirl wrote on Mar 31, 2009 12:49 PM:

" HAHA - I am a business owner I make my own hours thanks, but if you were to start cutting me a paycheck I might just start taking orders from you!

On a side note, I would NEVER want you to stop voicing your opinion, I' sure there are some things we will agree on at some point, lol!

The register is just a big fluffy ball of adoration when it comes all of its readers, right Dan? I support the paper, it's advertising, the businesses it advertises and the bloggers on this post! I love you man!!!! "

NVR-Dan Ross wrote on Mar 31, 2009 12:59 PM:

" opiniagirl:
If each of our print and online readers averaged spending just $3 a day in Napa County, our readers would generate more than $71 million yearly for the local economy.

Not a bad message to send to the community ... "

reason-ator wrote on Mar 31, 2009 4:58 PM:

" opiniagirl, the check is in the mail. So now I'm ordering you to express your opinions. You can do so before the check arrives, because it may be late. "

reason-ator wrote on Apr 1, 2009 5:38 PM:

" I believe that people who can't think about killing or maiming themselves or others and don't care about the thousands of dollars a DUI will cost them WILL think about getting their name in a little obscure newspaper feature that a few dozen will read.

Really, I do. "

reason-ator wrote on Apr 1, 2009 5:38 PM:

" Check the date of my last post. "

Join the conversation

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Create an account

Comment Guidelines

The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.

What gets your comment posted?

• Staying on topic

• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less

• Avoiding name-calling

• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger

What gets your comment deleted?

• Personal attacks

• Derogatory remarks

• Name-calling of any sort

• Going off-topic

• Hate speech

• Racially-insensitive comments

• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict

• Posting e-mail addresses

• Posting comments of a commercial nature

• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS

• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.

The fine print

- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.

- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.

- Comments may take several hours to be posted.

- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.

- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.

- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.

Search: