May 2009 DUI Report | Napa Valley Register

Home » News » Local

May 2009 DUI Report

Monday, June 01, 2009

Comment

By Register Online Staff

DUI coverage

November 26th, 2009

DUI arrest in North Napa

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

NEWThe Napa Valley Register and NapaValleyRegister.com publishes monthly statistics on arrests and convictions for driving under the influence — and so-called “wet reckless” convictions — in Napa County.

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).

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 included below is for convictions only.

Arrests: 105

Convictions/pleas: 99

Reported blood-alcohol below .10 or unavailable: 24

Reported blood-alcohol between .10 and .19: 57

Reported blood-alcohol between .20 and .29: 17

Reported blood-alcohol between .30 and .39: 1

Click here to load this Caspio Bridge DataPage.

50 comment(s)

krashdiggity wrote on Jun 1, 2009 1:14 PM:

" Uh... is this the same Marsha Dorgan of the NV Register? Oh my... "

walktothepark wrote on Jun 1, 2009 6:03 PM:

" Is that THE Marsha Dorgan?! "

Dirty Napkin wrote on Jun 1, 2009 7:00 PM:

" Marsha Dorgan??? "

common sense wrote on Jun 1, 2009 7:23 PM:

" Is that the Napa Register's Marsha Dorgan? "

reason-ator wrote on Jun 1, 2009 8:40 PM:

" Took you guys long enough.

The suspense was killing me....... "

jmo wrote on Jun 1, 2009 9:51 PM:

" LOL! reason-ator!
I turned blue...it is my favorite color... "

mofosheee wrote on Jun 1, 2009 10:05 PM:

" This will help is keeping the county from becoming bankrupt!

It will also keep various ambulance chaser attornies ( you know who you are ) from becoming bankrupt!

Good luck boys! "

walktothepark wrote on Jun 1, 2009 11:31 PM:

" Hmm... I see a familiar name. "

Mr. Feasor wrote on Jun 2, 2009 12:51 AM:

" I'll give the NVR credit for publishing all names. That explains the absence, at least... "

Dirty Napkin wrote on Jun 2, 2009 6:36 AM:

" Dorgan, Marsha Corine

Hummmm "

Paddy wrote on Jun 2, 2009 9:18 AM:

" Marsha Dorgan? Oh my! Assuming this is NVR-employed Marsha Dorgan I congratulate the paper for being fair and honest in it's reporting all the facts. No matter how much it might hurt. "

deb sly wrote on Jun 2, 2009 10:26 AM:

" "Marsha, Marsha, Marsha" "

reason-ator wrote on Jun 2, 2009 11:29 AM:

" Nice try, guys. I'm still not gonna read it. "

alucawanza wrote on Jun 2, 2009 2:01 PM:

" Oh dear..One of my former students is on the list. I hate it when that happens. "

OSCARNAVARRO88 wrote on Jun 3, 2009 2:36 PM:

" THIS IS NOT THE OSCAR NAVARRO THAT WENT TO VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL AND GRADUATED IN '06...... I HATE IT WHEN I GET CONFUSED WITH THE OTHER OSCAR NAVARRO I WISH THEY WOULD PUT THE AGE AND MOTHERS MAIDEN NAME ALSO............. "

tomhansen wrote on Jun 7, 2009 10:56 AM:

" It may not be a bad idea to post the age or birth date of the offender.
I do feel sorry for someone with a not too uncommon name to be mistaken for another. "

reason-ator wrote on Jun 7, 2009 11:28 AM:

" You know, if the NVR starts printing more info that they already have, they are going to contribute to identity theft.

Innocent people getting hurt is what's going to happen, since the NVR continues to post this useless list.

DUIs are NOT going down. This list is NOT preventing people from driving impaired. And yet, the NVR coninues to do this.

If the list is NOT working, why is the NVR continuing to do this ?

Sooner or later, this list is going to cost the NVR. I know it already has, because I won't renew my subscription because of it. The same lawyers who have told the NVR it is safe to do this are probably the same lawyers who are going to profit when someone sues the NVR.

I wonder if that will get reported in the paper. "

asahigo wrote on Jun 7, 2009 7:33 PM:

" Just what would someone be able to sue the Register for? They aren't violating anyone's privacy, they aren't defaming anyone, they aren't spreading libel.

So what would the grounds of a lawsuit be? "

reason-ator wrote on Jun 8, 2009 1:17 AM:

" asahigo, I didn't say the NVR would lose a lawsuit. But in California, you can sue somebody for anything.

What I was referring to is the request for more published info on the DUI convictees. Printing someone's mother's maiden name, their birthdate, etc. just to clarify which John Doe it was that got convicted ( versus the John Doe it wasn't ) is just giving people who look for identities to hack more info. Might as well give them the SSN#.

I am firmly convinced that I lost out on a local job opportunity because someone with the same name as mine showed up on this list while I was in the job selection process. Yes the employers should have checked. Yes, they should have asked me. No, they didn't. And they didn't want to give me ANY reason why they suddenly lost interest because that would just be asking for trouble.

Not to mention the family that apparently lost their husband and father ( according to someone who posted the story here ) about a guy who actually DID get his name published on this list and killed himself because it added to the problems he was already burdened with.

This list harms innocent people and doesn't curtail drunk drivers.

If someone is too drunk to drive and too drunk to think about the thousands of dollars it would cost them, while also ignoring the fact that they could injure or kill themselves or others, they SURE aren't going to think about getting their name published in a small town newspaper where a few hundred people might see it.

Sorry. This feature is laughable. Except to the innocent people who are harmed by it. It's like a high school newspaper. "

funnyme wrote on Jun 8, 2009 9:16 AM:

" Give it up reason-ator...The NVR monthly DUI is the least of the punishments for the drunks and drug addicts driving our neighborhoods' streets...whether you like it or not!
Additional info to be more specific as to the criminal's TRUE identity is no more than the info you have printed in your business cards or personal checks. "

reason-ator wrote on Jun 8, 2009 12:15 PM:

" funnyme, I have my address and phone number and e-mail address on my business cards, and my bank account number on my personal checks.

I imagine you do, also.

Since you seem to have no problem with the NVR publishing personal info like that, why don't you show your support by posting all of your personal info ?

C'mon, give it up, funnyme ?

I'm going to go over to the Washington Post and the New York Times and see if real newspapers have a list like this. When I come back, will I see your name, address, phone number, full name, and bank account numbers here ? Or should that info remain private. ?

And if you want to keep our streets safer, where's the list of people who have been ticketed for cell-phone violations ? Or is that different ?

This list is kinda funny in a way. It's not just the people ON the list that should be embarrassed. In fact, the NVR won't post most of my posts on this subject, and that speaks volumes to me. "

eyeamme wrote on Jun 8, 2009 12:18 PM:

" Wait, so why does it say, "The list of names included below is for convictions only.

Convictions/pleas: 99"

and yet there are 98 names on the list? Who was the 99th? I'd like to know!

I also think adding at least the person's age would be helpful. I think their mother's maiden name is a little much. but age is definitely a good idea. "

MarshaMarsha wrote on Jun 8, 2009 12:43 PM:

" If it IS the same Ms. Dorgan that writes for the Register it will be a great opportunity for her to go through all the same things that the people she reports about have to go through.

She can turn this into a positive experience, call it "work related research" and make the best of it.

You know, I wonder if she can write an in-depth human interest story about her experience and make all the fines and fees a tax write-off. "

wowquebonita wrote on Jun 8, 2009 3:01 PM:

" hmm.....why not just post the booking photo? "

Mr. Feasor wrote on Jun 9, 2009 6:58 PM:

" MarshaMarsha - I completely agree.

Ms. Dorgan's thoughts on the shoe being on the other foot (i.e. media implication before legal judgment) is definitely a human interest story.

And it is very newsworthy for those who have read her articles year after year. "

yoyo wrote on Jun 10, 2009 10:27 AM:

" Reson-ator:
I think it is very interesting that you claim you don't support the NVR, yet it appears you spend a great amount of time commenting on many articles. Do you not understand that commenting encourages others to comment (like i am now) and encourgages others to stay on the NVR website longer, therefore giving "support". Your non-supportive role, seems....well, quite supportive to me. "

reason-ator wrote on Jun 10, 2009 2:19 PM:

" yeah, yoyo, I get it.

I actually kinda feel sorry for the NVR, because it's apparant that they are woefully understaffed. I really would like them to do a better job. And I would prefer that they lose some of the features that make them seem like a small-town journal, unless they could do it with a different style.

As far as supporting them, I cancelled my subscription, and I tend to stay away from the things they try to sell, such as downtown, The Wineries, etc. And I tend to avoid the ads, so I may support some of their sponsors without knowing it. But I definitely won't contribute to the NVR until they become more professional. And, of course, this wonderful small-town-gossip hypocritical feature known as the DUI Report. Unless they were to augment it with a listing of other dangerous driving conviction such as cell-phone violators ( such as the kid in the pretty little Lexus who drifted out of his lane dangerously close to me in my lane while he was yacking away on his precious cell-phone that kept him from being able to drive- and of course it is also AGAINST THE LAW ).

As far as Ms. Dorgan, I wish her nothing but the best. I haven't actually seen an article by her lately, and I would hope that the NVR didn't send her packing. Everybody makes mistakes, and there is no indicator that lets people know that they are suddenly over the legal limit. But there is no gray zone when it comes to cell phones. Anybody doing that is without a doubt intentionally breaking the law and endangering us, but it's not one of the NVR's personal vendettas. What's the difference ? "

reason-ator wrote on Jun 13, 2009 12:39 AM:

" NVR, does Ms. Dorgan still write for the NVR ? I would hope so.

I haven't seen any articles from her, and my curiousity is rising. "

Rocketman wrote on Jun 13, 2009 1:41 PM:

" reason-ator..................see Dorgan's letter to the editor in today's paper "

Mr. Feasor wrote on Jun 13, 2009 2:45 PM:

" reasonator - the timing is quite interesting, isn't it (hence my first comment about "the absence...") "

reason-ator wrote on Jun 14, 2009 12:49 AM:

" It IS interesting. And yet, I'm not surprised.

I suppose that the loss of a reporter's driver's license would make it possible that the employee would not be able to as effectively perform their job.

And yet, seeing how the NVR has taken the position that they have with this petty DUI list, it may mean that the NVR has decided to be principled, and as a matter of principle must terminate any employee who had made the mistake of getting a DUI.

So I thought about this. Now, I won't be buying an NVR publication any time soon, but if the NVR has principles, I doubt they will be promoting or enabling alcohol use and will refuse any ad revenue from stores or wineries that wish to advertise sales of alcohol products.

And then I started to wonder. More.

Driving while distracted is the Number One cause of accidents, and yet the NVR doesn't seem to be as concerned with cell-phone violations as they are with DUIs.

And then I started to wonder, don't they get a lot of ad revenue from cell-phone stores and companies ? Is it possible they don't want to risk that revenue by taking a stance against the Number One cause of traffic accidents ?

Am I thinking too much about this ? What kind of statement does the NVR want to make ?

I guess we'll see. Or then again, maybe not, since the NVR quite often won't print my comments when I question their motives ( and, to their credit, also print some that that surprize me ).

Will someone let me know if they still take advertising revenue from cell-phone merchandisers ?

Yes, I know I'm cynical...... "

napkan wrote on Jun 15, 2009 12:16 PM:

" Having been the victim of a drunk driver who ran a red light, I can say keep on publishing the names. And for the one who said they lost a job opporunity because they had the same name? If an employer offers you a job, they run your SSN or do a live scan which picks up all your convictions etc.

I highly doubt everyone goes to the Register to read the names before they cull through Resumes... "

reason-ator wrote on Jun 15, 2009 1:07 PM:

" napkan, I am the person you are talking about.

The employer in question has an employment process that involves several steps ( I can't tell you how I know this without giving away too much information I'm not sure I have clearance to divulge ). The background investigation you are talking about is costly, and is done as one of the last steps in the process.

The person with my name that got the DUI has given MY phone number to people he has rear-ended in a traffic collision. We get calls from his creditors all the time, and his mortgage company has given away some of his personal info when they called threatening us with foreclosure before I could convince them that he and I were two different people. So there's no way I'm going to be convinced you are right, and there's no way the employer has to admit that this is why my name was pulled out of the hat.

Look at how many names are on this list. This NVR feature is not cutting down on drunk drivers. It didn't stop you from getting hit. All you appear to want is some extra 'tar-and-feather' type of embarrassment humiliation because you feel victimized.

I'm sorry, but it makes me uncomfortable just thinking about the type of people who enjoy pointing their fingers and shaming people, as if they feel the need to be superior.

We shouyd have outgrown that type of behavior in our teen years. "

samaker wrote on Jun 15, 2009 2:13 PM:

" Hey "reason-ator,"

Sounds like you must have had your name on that list yourself, I don't why else someone would be so outspoken about listing the names of d.u.i offenders in the paper. I've been on that list myself. It can act as an effective deterent in the sense that it further punishes drunk drivers by embarassing them in the newspaper. Considering that you found the time to comment on this article several times, I would say that your daily read of the Register is pretty important to you. Did you really cancel your subscription to the paper because of your outrage over them printing the names of d.u.i. offenders? Or did you cancel it because you read it online? If you don't want your name printed in the d.u.i. section, then don't drive drunk. "

jmo wrote on Jun 15, 2009 2:39 PM:

" Read Marsha's letter. I'd say she was very contrite. If you haven't, it is worth a read. "

NVR-Dan Ross wrote on Jun 15, 2009 2:47 PM:

" Marsha's letter from Saturday can be found at this link

http://www.napavalleyregister.com/articles/2009/06/13/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/doc4a330ec74d9f9017797721.txt "

reason-ator wrote on Jun 16, 2009 12:48 AM:

" samaker, I have had my name on that list. But it wasn't me.

The reason I cancelled my subscription wasn't JUST because of the DUI list. But I would still be a subscriber if it wasn't for the DUI list. And I would have re-subscribed when the telemarketer called if it wasn't for the DUI list. ( and aren't telemarketers illegal now ? )

There are several things about this list that bug me.

1.) People think that a drunk will ignore the fact that they could kill or maim themselves or others, will ignore the fact that a DUI could cost tens of thousands of dollars, and yet, in the middle of a drunken stupor will stop and think about the DUI list and THEN not drive.

2.) The DUI list does NOT curtail DUIs.

3.) People find enjoyment in reading about other people getting on this list, and yet don't have the guts to ask people if it was them.

4.) Innocent people have been hurt by this list, and it does NO good.

5.) If the NVR was actually interested in making the roads safer, they would ALSO print a list of cell-phone violators ( cops have said distracted driving is the Number One cause of traffic accidents ) , but they don't. That shows me that this list isn't about making roads safer at all, but is about something else instead. And yet people defend this feature, which causes me to think about snoopy gossipers.

And yet, the NVR chooses to print a monthly summary EVERY day for a whole month. The more I watch this, the more ridiculous it and its fans seem to me.

I could go an-and-on-and-on. Can you tell ? "

reason-ator wrote on Jun 16, 2009 1:10 AM:

" Mr. Ross, thanks for printing the link. I would be more and more difficult to find as time passes.

It IS a very good read. I know that the NVR can't go into detail about personnel issues, but it's a shame the NVR chose to terminate her employment. I was very impressed by her letter to the editor.

It's actually very ironic that the NVR can't talk about why Ms. Dorgan was let go because of privacy issues, but doesn't seem to have any problem with trying to ruin other people's lives ( innocent or not ) with this tabloid-ish "feature".

And yet, DUIs are NOT decreasing because of this list, and I'm apparently the only person who as an issue with the absurdity of it all.

I sure wish I knew what REALLY motivates the NVR to do this. It obviously ISN'T about making the roads safer, or else they'd be printing the names of everybody who got a cell-phone ticket while endangering others while driving their car. It HAS to be about something else.

If more people spoke out about how ridiculous this is, I wouldn't have to do it. "

sprklsunshine wrote on Jun 16, 2009 10:04 AM:

" reasonator: what is your cell phone issue? You seem to mention it quite frequently, in many different articles. Just wondering. There are LOTS of reasons people drive distracted and have accidents/get in wrecks, not just cellphones. And no, I don’t talk on my cellphone while driving. And I don’t own a blue tooth device (just as distracting, in my opinion). "

jmo wrote on Jun 16, 2009 11:13 AM:

" I am with reasonator on the cell phone issue. It is still a major problem here in Napa. "

sprklsunshine wrote on Jun 16, 2009 11:38 AM:

" I’m certainly not FOR cellphone use while driving, just wondered what the specific gripe was about as its mentioned repeatedly and there are many other reasons for people to have collisions. "

Dark_Cloud wrote on Jun 18, 2009 3:06 PM:

" Poor reasonators getting bashed for valid comments. Stats show phones are more deadly then drink driving. I also agree that this list is shameful having never been on it myself. My poor friend fretted for months that he would lose his job because his employer NVC and almost lost his house when the landlord saw. "

Duracel87 wrote on Jun 19, 2009 1:15 AM:

" I absolutely love this feature! The DUI report and Napa's most wanted are the only two things the register prints that I have any interest in. I love seeing people I grew up with on either, it's hilarious. "

winewoman wrote on Jun 20, 2009 10:43 AM:

" I'm with Reason-ator on this. This feature serves only for the purposes of ridicule and public humiliation. (see Duracel87 for confirmation). Do you think it prevents DUIs? What do you think REALLY prevents DUIs? Ask someone. I did last night when I had dinner with friends at a local restaurant. The answer: I have too much to lose. I would lose my job. While I don't necessarily agree with firing someone as the result of a DUI, it was the most common reason why people I asked did not drink and drive. "

rudepeopleofnapa wrote on Jun 22, 2009 9:56 AM:

" This is an invasion of personal privacy. And its not stopping the drinking and driving. I'm under aged and got one. All my friends know, actually my entire class knows. And they all feel awful for me and make a big deal and gossip. But they have all been drinking and driving since sophmore year in high school. I was just the unlucky one. But posting your name in the paper is clearly not working and should be stopped because I've told my friends how awful it was and that they should never do it, but most reply with, "Oh yaa... well I guess we won't drink AS much any more and drive". And the hundreds of kids are still drinking and driving. And rumors in this town spread so fast that names need not be posted. This this is pointless. And for all of you ridiculing the people on it, you are all hypocrites because I'm sure you have ALL drank and drove at one point in your life even if it was .01, cause thats all it took me to get a DUI. "

old_napan52 wrote on Jun 23, 2009 9:41 AM:

" Dear rude - you say you were the unlucky one...however, your post would indicate you may have been one of the lucky ones. You seemed to have learned something from this experience that the others who continue down this path may learn the hard way...let's hope we are not reading their names in a different section of this paper one day. Continued luck to you in this life's endeavors. "

Sickothis wrote on Jun 25, 2009 10:51 AM:

" Something occurred to me the other day since this list is on the front page every day. Does anyone know how Napa stacks up against other similar demographics with regard to DUI's? "

oldtownnapa wrote on Jul 2, 2009 9:24 PM:

" Could it be true? Could it be that our local paper is listening to so many in it's readership and will no longer post this dreaded DUI list? What a triumph it would be over this Town's Holier Than Thous & Smart Alecks... No more teens cruelly taunted at school, no more people losing their jobs over your List... It's July 2nd and no new List... Oh, say it's so! "

reason-ator wrote on Jul 3, 2009 1:40 AM:

" Wait until next week. We have a standard to downhold. "

samaker wrote on Jul 3, 2009 4:49 AM:

" "unreason-ator,"

i don't think it would be a bad idea to print an age, or some other identifying fact, along with the name of d.u.i. offenders. it seems like every month, there is no less than one juan gonzalez, so it would be nice to be able to decpher between the 2,000 or so j.g.'s in this town. however, i think that publishing the names is a good idea. a lot of drunk drivers are repeat offenders. if the couple days in the iron-bar-inn can't stop people from driving drunk repeatedly, then maybe a public embarassment will. though, i do find it hard to believe that you canceled your subscription to NVR because a drunk had the same name as you. besides your dozen or so comments on this article, you seem to be a quite common opinion giver in these forums. the world wide web really is amazing. people can cancel a subscription to a periodical they obviously cannot live without, but somehow, they just can't seem to stop reading it. "

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: