" I'd prefer patrols. "

" i'd prefer freedom... "

" If "freedom" is defined by the right to drive hammered drunk, I'd prefer the checkpoints. Keep up the good work CHP! Book em' Danno! "

" I'd prefer the cars that people drive while DUI be crushed. You do not have the "freedom" to harm others "

" Freedom to drink and drive thzn? "

" I'd prefer people not driving drunk! "

" I'd prefer laws that are sensible... "

" Hey, don't be too harsh on the idea of checkpoints, they had them in Nazi Germany and still have them in all Communist countries! Besides, it is fun especially if you are in a hurry to get somewhere and you don't have time to consent to a search. All you have to do is wait about another 1/2 hour for the dope sniffing dog to arrive from the closest municipal police department and while he's running all over the inside of your car knocks your cup of Starbucks coffee over on your newly installed Ricaro seats. All kidding aside, the efforts and resources of the CHP would be better suited if they patrolled the areas that they are already aware of as being high DUI risk areas; those 6-7 patrolmen would be dispersed over a wider area of the county. "

" This article is in direct conflict with another article I read in the Herald on 5/22:

"CHP, Napa County launch holiday patrols
Times-Herald staff report/
Posted: 05/22/2009 01:00:32 AM PDT


The California Highway Patrol is instituting a three-day Maximum Enforcement Period from 6 tonight to midnight Monday.

All available CHP officers will patrol the roadways.... Napa County law enforcement officials also will be on heightened alert Memorial Day weekend. A group of nine DUI task forces will wet up a sobriety checkpoint in the county and will deploy local DUI saturation patrols on overtime."


This announcement did not appear in the NVR (why not?) but it appears that the CHP JUST DID A DUI CHECKPOINT LESS THAN A WEEK AGO. Two checkpoints in seven days?!? Did the Memorial Day DUI checkpoint happen as planned or not? "

" Upvalleyguy: So drinking and driving laws aren't sensible? That's what you imply. I hope this doesn't mean you think it's okay to drink and drive. "

" People that drive under the influence aren't sensible. "

" According to Vallejo's paper on 5/22, a Maximum Enforcement Period took place over the Memorial Day Weekend 1 week ago. The article stated that
"...A group of nine DUI task forces will wet up a sobriety checkpoint in the county and will deploy local DUI saturation patrols on overtime."

So, it has been just one week since the last DUI checkpoint. This checkpoint was not mentioned by NVR. Why? Does anyone know if it was cancelled or was there a Memorial Weekend DUI checkpoint as scheduled? "

" NUHS67 wrote: " I'd prefer the cars that people drive while DUI be crushed."

That's all? Why not demolish their house also, then cut their head off Taliban style. Yeah, that'll teach 'em! "

" It's on Imola - just went through it. "

" having checkpoints doesn't deplete any officers from patrols, and actually checking people's eyes (which is what they do when they shine that flashlight in your eyes) and sometimes even being able to smell it on someone's breath is probably more effective than "patrolling" and hoping to find vehicles driving erratically... since there are officers already on patrol, what does it hurt to have a checkpoint... I personally don't think that they should be announced. Why give anybody a heads up? Same thing with all the articles about the new traffic cameras. "

" fmmt47 i agree with you. nobody here supports drunk driving. the argument is about how best to prevent it. hawkeye thinks a program that spends 99% of it's time harrassing innocent people and making them late is a good idea and we think patrols are better. why not consult the police themselves ? don't they feel misused in such a program of forced overtime ? after all, when working overtime hours in a driving job, the judgement gets as bad, say, after 16 hours, as a drunk driver.
2 policemen in the last year or so in the bay area went to sleep at the wheel and killed people.we taxpayers have to pay those lawsuits and i recently heard we are out of money. let's pretend for a moment that it's just about the money. let's avoid the personal loss of those affected and avoid the fact that their loss is just as great as those affected by drunk drivers.
if we need to cut the budget this gets my vote as the most wasteful. or am i wrong ? are all government programs 99% innefficient ?
vandals know that when police are tied up at checkpoints they are less likely to get caught. this is an era of decreasing money for state programs. lets use our few remaining dollars to fight crime wisely. "

" One Saturday afternoon, why don't they have two DUI checkpoints. One on southbound hwy 29 and Salvador, and one on southbound Silverado Trail, and Trancas. "

" Actually Skeptic, what you say I think is a good idea is not necessarily true. Checkpoints I believe and agree with you, may very well be much less efficient than DUI patrols. They both have their pluses and minuses. Checkpoints may uncover intoxicated motorists that a patrol would not. However, they must harass innocent motorists as you say to find them. And, they put a sign up that gives you the option to turn around before you get to it. The problem with that is then you really do waste time checking innocent people and all the drunks turn around and avoid the checkpoint. On the other hand, checkpoints seem to uncover more unlicensed drivers than anything. So perhaps it should be called a "driving without a license checkpoint". Checkpoints are indeed very flawed in many ways. Patrols as another commenter pointed out, allow for a wider canvasing area and can be much stealthier. There are many tip-offs for the officer to nail a drunk driver. SO there you have it. I don't necessarily prefer checkpoints over patrols. If it's a DUI mission, let's let the statistics tell us which one is more effective. My hunch is that the DUI patrol will yield a bigger crop. "

" ctworker wrote: "I personally don't think that they should be announced. Why give anybody a heads up."

I believe it's a court requirement, a compromise that permits cops to detain people without probable cause. You do believe in the Constitution? "