NVR Logo
Home » News » Local
September 2009 DUI Report
Monday, October 05, 2009
Save and Share Share
Email
Print
Comment
By Register Staff and
Napa County Sheriff's Department
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?
more
NEWNapaValleyRegister.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.

Arrests: 91
Convictions/pleas: 100

Reported blood-alcohol below .10 or unavailable: 16

Reported blood-alcohol between .10 and .19: 69

Reported blood-alcohol between .20 and .29: 13

Reported blood-alcohol between .30 and .39: 2

The list below is for convictions only.





Click here to load this Caspio Bridge DataPage.
127 comment(s)

realitybites wrote on Oct 5, 2009 4:28 PM:

" 70% Napa County Residents - what a surprise. Selective enforcement strikes again. "

newintown wrote on Oct 5, 2009 4:55 PM:

" selective enforcement is right. I guarantee that 3/4 of these DUIs occur during the night, and early morning hours, when they should be occuring on Silverado Trail, or Hwy 29 between the hours of 12-6. Wine tasting rooms open at 10 am, and plenty of people hit em up. You would see the rate go up even more. I find it odd that the number remains in the 90s. this time 91, last month 97. The rate would go up dramatically if the "Fishing" hours were earlier in the day. Think about it NPD "

crooked6pence wrote on Oct 5, 2009 6:00 PM:

" Income generated per month, and that's what this is:

Court Fines: 100 x 1,800 = $180,000
1st DDP: 628.45 x 100 = $62,845
Lawyer Fees: $3,000 x 100 = $300,000

The red light camera system in Napa started on May 30th and as of mid June had issued 615 citations at $484 a ticket = $297,660.

Less the $6,000 a month fee Redflex charges to administrate the system, that works out to revenue of $12,678 per day of operation!!

Keep making that dollar, uh, I mean, enforcing the law... "

krusty wrote on Oct 5, 2009 7:04 PM:

" The Napa PD has nothing to do with Highway 29 and most of Silverado Trail. They enforce the city of Napa. "

Downtownsupporter wrote on Oct 5, 2009 7:08 PM:

" Barry Williams of Santa Monica!! Whoa that's Greg Brady. Awesome! Carol and Mike cannot be proud. He must have gotten ahold of Sam the Butchers' Hooch. "

Mr. Feasor wrote on Oct 5, 2009 11:18 PM:

" Could we get the maiden names of the women that are charged as well? It seems kind of sexist, otherwise... "

ysoserious wrote on Oct 6, 2009 1:56 AM:

" could we also get the original names of poeple that changed their names? otherwise its discrimination?

seriously? come on guy. how is that at all sexist? "

ambonizay wrote on Oct 6, 2009 4:06 AM:

" ...how dry I am, hicup "

winghunter wrote on Oct 6, 2009 6:29 AM:

" realitybites ... Maybe it is 70% Napa residents because a 100% of them live here? Unless there are out of State plates on the car how would you tell someone from out of town from a local?? "

browneyes wrote on Oct 6, 2009 7:11 AM:

" I am amazed at the comments here. The bottom line is if you drive after drinking and are legally drunk, you need to be off the streets and in jail. It doesn't matter what color you are, where you live, or where you are stopped-if you are driving drunk you need to be off the streets. I have children and grandchildren on the road daily and I do not want that call saying they have been hit by a drunk driver. I don't care how much it costs the drunk driver and I don't care how much the city makes, I don't want these people driving on our roads. Think about if any of this would matter if a family member or friend were killed by a drunk driver. "

Green Cookie Monster wrote on Oct 6, 2009 8:20 AM:

" DowntownSupporter, you are very wrong. Barry Williams from the Brady Bunch's real name is Barry William Blenkhorn. This just happens to be a coincidence... "

realitybites wrote on Oct 6, 2009 9:07 AM:

" You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that the Napa Valley THRIVES off drunk drivers. The issue isn't the license plate winghunter, it's when patrols are being made for drunk drivers. Ever see a DUI checkpoint on a Saturday or Sunday between 12-3 p.m. between Yountville and Calistoga? Why is it okay to target locals while the valley promotes drunk driving? Hey browneyes, your kids are just as likely to get injured or killed while you talk on your cell phone while driving, speed to get them to school, roll through that red light or forget to use your turn signal. These are victimless offenders on this list - punish someone who actually inflicts injury - DUI laws are about $$$$, but just don't take it away from the tourist industry. This list is like the Salom witch hunts or Nazi Germany - let's round em up and hold them up for public humiliation. I'm all for personal responsibility, but when there is no victim - why take away a persons job, reputation, etc? If someone actually gets hurt - throw the book at them - until then, get off the moral high ground and stop overreacting. "

YOUNGNAP wrote on Oct 6, 2009 9:07 AM:

" Ialso dont see what the problem is. Napa residents or non-residents will kill people just the same. For some reason you all bash Napa PD for enforcing the law. HOw quickly we forget the accident on Silverado Trail in which an unborn child lost its life. Apparently us doing our job is still overlooked by the fact that YOU people arent smart enough to get a ride or a cab.... "

realitybites wrote on Oct 6, 2009 9:14 AM:

" You don't have to be a rocket scientist to realize that the valley THRIVES off drunk drivers. Selective enforcement means that you don't see DUI checkpoints on Saturday or Sunday between 12-5 p.m. upvalley. The ridiculous public humiliation list proves this month after month.

As to the danger posed by drunk drivers, the same can be said for texting, cell phone use, speeding, running stop lights, failing to yield, failing to use your turn signal, etc. Punish those who actually take away the rights of others by inflicing injury.

I don't see a list of "speeders" in the NVR or "cell callers" - where is all the public outrage for red light runners and how they could kill someone.

Stop the public shaming and witch hunts. Stop the over reaction, follow along like sheep mentality - DUI laws are simply a means of revenue - the DUI list a Scarlet Letter - put away the pitchforks and evolve. "

funnyme wrote on Oct 6, 2009 10:02 AM:

" Groundhog Day! "

old_napan52 wrote on Oct 6, 2009 11:20 AM:

" Interesting article about where some of that big money goes...it's mine and I want it now! http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/10/1090.asp "

alucawanza wrote on Oct 6, 2009 11:28 AM:

" realitybites
Have you ever been put in danger because of a drunk driver? You'd feel differently. Scarlet letter? NO..It's justice. If anyone chooses to drink and drive they deserve to be on a public list. It's a wake up call.
I think texting, speeding, and all the other rule breakers, who break the law deliberately, should have their own list. Maybe more attention to this would make the highways and streets safer for us. On this list there are 100 potential fatal accident. This isn't a witch hunt. Witches don't exist. Drunk drivers do.

It's the drinkers that need to evolve.
I didn't approve of this list until I read your post. You changed my mind. "

reason-ator wrote on Oct 6, 2009 1:28 PM:

" realitybites, the people with the intelligence to think this feature is good for anything else except for childishly shaming those that get DUIs ( along with those who DIDN'T get a DUI, but have their name on the list anyway ) are NOT going to have the level of intelligence it takes to realize that it doesn't curtail driving while impaired.

The NVR has determined what level of "journalism" it has decided to lower itself to. I don't know what front-page headlines we should expect next-aliens abducting the President or whether Brad and Jennifer are getting bck together.

But it's tabloidish. For sure. Just look at the types of responses from people who are threatened by the thought that they may lose their gossip fodder. They LOVE to giggle at other people's imperfections. It makes them feel better about themselves.

It's hard to feel good about people when they love to talk about people behind their backs, isn't it ? It's not a very honorable trait, but gossips often lack the perception to realize how shameful that type of behaviour is. They probably think it's classy. "

BROKE NEW MOM wrote on Oct 6, 2009 2:14 PM:

" Well then, what do you all propose we do to get rid of these irresponsible drivers?

If fining them and jail time does nothing, and posting their names on the NVR isn't working.. then what is it going to take for them to realize that they need to be responsible adults and to know right from wrong.

Do not drink and drive. Period.

How is that so hard? The people that disagree are probably the ones that didn't do to well in school and think they don't have to be accountable for their actions.

This post is a waste of my time as there will probably be a barrage of insensitive and useless comments sure to follow mine.

Typical Napkin mentality. "Not Me Did it!" "

realitybites wrote on Oct 6, 2009 3:49 PM:

" I'm sorry if you think I would change my mind. The list contains only victimless misdemeanor offenders. This isn't about drunk driving - because the Napa Valley promotes drunk driving. It's as if the haters here want to avoid the actual argument - punishment, vengence, mid-evil justice, when all of you have sped, talked on a cell phone, forgot to signal, or ran a red light. You've all risked the lives of others while driving. Stop with the holy'er than now attitude and put your pitch forks where they belong. The list doesn't deter drunk driving - period. The list merely serves as a public shaming - like they did to witches in Salom - aluca. No one on the DUI list killed anyone - come off it already. "

IamBobby wrote on Oct 6, 2009 6:44 PM:

" realitybites is correct.... and what else could I say that hasn't been said all ready!

reality bites again... this town is not for us locals... but the droves of tourists that keep our hotels full and our restaurant prices high high high.... "

newintown wrote on Oct 6, 2009 7:09 PM:

" Fact of the matter is, there are drunk drivers, and posting their names, honestly does nothing. Fact of the matter is, is that Krusty, you must be mistaken because I have seen plenty of Napa PD pull people over on Hwy 29, and on Silverado trail. What are you even talking about. Are you suggesting that if I should ever get pulled over on HWY 29, I should say "Excuse me officer, what are you doing on HWY 29, you are supposed to be enforcing the law only in the city of Napa?!" that doesn't even make any sense!!
What needs to happen is the lurking hours of the NPD need to happen during the day as well as during the night. I would honsetly be interested in knowing what the rate of DUIs is at night, as opposed to during the day. "

ao1982 wrote on Oct 6, 2009 8:40 PM:

" Tourism keeps me employed and maybe someone that you know employed. So quit trying to take that away from us with your pointless comments. (even though I know that your comments wont make it past this website)

Do you really think that the County/City of Napa will put together an effort to bust the tourists, and potentially scare away their biggest source of tax dollars? Get Real! Move on with your lives because this is a winless "battle."

GO COWBOYS!!!! "

hawkeye wrote on Oct 6, 2009 9:05 PM:

" realitybites, are you actually saying DUI that does not result in an accident is permissible? That as long as you don't kill anybody that drinking and driving and being illegally intoxicated is just fine in your mind? Victimless, huh? So how do you have the foresight to know getting into your car to drive home drunk that you won't crash your car and kill somebody? How can you say it's okay and victimless? You don't know how victimless your DUI trip will be until you get home. And don't try to excuse DUI because there are other violations that put people in danger too. For the sake of the conversation, we're talking about DUI and DUI only.

Alright, somebody try to challenge me on this one! Try to tell me that DUI is just fine. "

ao1982 wrote on Oct 6, 2009 9:35 PM:

" Get em hawkeye! "

hawkeye wrote on Oct 6, 2009 9:46 PM:

" Here's a synopsis of what some of you are saying or implying. Yes, some of you are actually saying that drinking and driving drunk is okay to do because:

1) The tourists do it and get away with it, so it should be allowable for anyone else to.

2) Driving while distracted ie; texting, talking, putting on makeup, ect. is just as dangerous if not more (which it is dangerous and I'm not arguing that it's not) than drinking and driving, so therefore it should be allowable to drink and drive until those violations carry equal punishments to DUI.

3) Enforcing DUI is just a scheme to scam people out of money rather than promote safety, so drinking and driving should be okay to do.

4) Enforcing DUI is (somehow) entrapment.

These are just a few of the futile and ridiculous excuses I have seen in these blogs promoting drunk driving. I also have a feeling that the people that try to excuse drunk driving are habitual offenders themselves. "

hawkeye wrote on Oct 6, 2009 9:55 PM:

" ao1982, you have a very weak argument that our tourist industry DEPENDS on drunk driving. Here's why:

I have been out wine tasting many times with out-of-town family/friends. I was also the designated driver each time. Guess what ao1982, spitoons are provided at EVERY winery for.....guess what? Tasting and spitting. I could taste all the wine I wanted and spit it out and still enjoy the outing. Wow, what a concept!

And you know what? Tourists here can be designated driver one day and tasters the next, too. Or take a limo if they can afford one.

Point is, there are perfectly enjoyable ways to taste and not drive drunk. So it's a pretty lame excuse to say that our industry wouldn't exist without drunk driving! Being in this industry ao1982, you should know this!

So, I don't think us sensible ones are the ones that need to "get real". "

Mr. Feasor wrote on Oct 6, 2009 10:34 PM:

" ysoserious - I was being satirical.

There are a lot of people that wait for this monthly list. Then they make the same arguments over and over and over again.

But you have a point about publishing original names, they should definitely publish all AKAs (maiden names; original names; etc.) That way, the big red scarlet A can be properly affixed to the suspected violator.

I don't have a problem with posting the identity of CONVICTED DUI offenders. But publishing the name of someone who (for example) may have blown over the limit into an improperly-calibrated PAS device - and is later acquitted - should not have to carry the stigma of being a suspected DUI offender.

That's all... "

g3t4L1f3 wrote on Oct 7, 2009 7:48 AM:

" TO the Napa Register can we please get a complete list of all the sex offenders in Napa County? "

Old_napan52 wrote on Oct 7, 2009 8:21 AM:

" Okay hawkeye...I'll bite...DUI's are fine...fine for the court system, the multi-million dollar substance abuse programs, for law enforcement officers (who derive millions of dollars in overtime pay for court appearances) and fine for the all of the attorneys who collect thousands of dollars on each case and certainly fine for the county coffers. I guess the people not in the "fine" column would be the ones on the list?

On your other comment, there is still a trace of alcohol in your mouth (after tasting and spitting) that will produce a reading on a breathalyzer. Please be careful with that practice. "

realitybites wrote on Oct 7, 2009 9:18 AM:

" I agree with oldnapan52 - the spit method does not work. Alcohol is absorbed through your mouth even if you spit.

Hawkeye, your attempt to understand the argument by twisting and changing it does nothing to stimulate the debate.

Is it okay to drive 70 in a 60 mph zone? Does that not endanger the lives of other drivers? Clearly your "implication" is that violating traffic laws isn't the same as driving while intoxicated. The point is - both the speeder who makes it home safely and the intoxicated driver who makes it home safely have both commited VICTIMLESS CRIMES.

As to the claim that ALL tourists utilize designated drivers - that's just not reality. Apparently during the trips to the various wineries you failed to notice how many tourists DON'T have designated drivers. Furthermore, a designated driver does not "spit" to prevent impairment. So, I guess you've been driving drunk as well. Sounds a bit hypocritical to me.

Crocket6pence - the fines are actually more now from $2,100 for a first offense to around $3,100 for a second. I estimate the county is generating around 8-9 thousand a day just off DUI arrests. "

melimop wrote on Oct 7, 2009 9:23 AM:

" g3t4L1f3 ~ you can go here: http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/ "

oldtownnapa wrote on Oct 7, 2009 9:54 AM:

" re: 9/28 Pollock Letter:

“I ask that the policy of printing DUI names be stopped. If that is one reason to keep someone out there from
losing their job
being the subject of
mean teenagers
stones thrown by a malicious ex... unamusing work jokes... identity mixups,
looks from the neighbours, from your bank teller... even that grocery bagger?
casting
needless suffering
discrimination
humiliation
subtle loss of hard won reputation
in this (too oftentimes) SMALL town,
by those who were not their Judge
nor better (though certainly superior)
long after
far beyond
the sentence (insert period here.)
AFTER... in some cases (in others not so much...)
(im)probable cause,
of a shorted license light or nap in a parking lot
a horn imprudently honked or a hand on keys,
the sober friend who left,
that southern moment that screams DO OVER,
creatively form reported, inconstantly machined
unmet promises of the mill lawyer and Oz at the M.A.U.
the metal, the hard surface, that crazeeey singing Welcome to the Jungle,
the highly organic service,
the pain paid,
education,
AND sessions-
months of days of this lesson
survived...
without the most necessary “privileges”
lost opportunities....wages....lost LIFE
for this our salty mistake, this laughing gape of a wound
grown wider, crueller with this- this List.
it’s ENOUGH.”
(sic). "

sprklsunshine wrote on Oct 7, 2009 9:56 AM:

" The NVR does not need to publish a list of sex offenders - its already online at http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/ 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, updated regularly. "

Hawkeye wrote on Oct 7, 2009 10:19 AM:

" realitybites, no,no,no,no...do the math. If you are tasting and spitting, how much remains in your mouth to be absorbed in each swish? VERY LITTLE. You would have to swish 200-300 times to come even close to the equivalent of one glass. So no, I have not driven drunk, therefore I am not hypocritical here. So those arguments of yours are now void.

You also wrote, "Clearly your "implication" is that violating traffic laws isn't the same as driving while intoxicated."

What are you talking about?! Driving while intoxicated IS violating a traffic law! I never said it wasn't. My point is that you seem to be justifying DUI because the other traffic violations aren't treated as harshly as DUI, and that as long as you don't hurt or kill anybody in a crash you might cause while DUI, that driving drunk is okay. That's what you seem to be saying.

I'm sure some of the tourists don't follow the desig. driver rule. Some do. I worked as a concierge for years, and about 30% verbally expressed their concerns about tasting and driving. 25% signed up for inexpensive winery tour companies like Platypus, Napa Winery Tours and another I can't remember the name. $40/person for the whole day. They'd come back and say they had a great time. I would also recommend the desig. driver thing to them too and I'm sure other concierges do the same.

So I don't understand the harsh comments here promoting drunk driving. It's just beyond me how you could say they're victimless crimes. If somebody you know or love gets killed by a DUI driver, you wouldn't be calling it victimless. "

Hawkeye wrote on Oct 7, 2009 10:46 AM:

" I stand corrected on the "victimless". Many areas, if not all, regard DWI/DUI as victimless until damage or injury or death occurs. By shear definition it makes sense, but why use that as an argument unless you are promoting drunk driving? Just because it's a victimless crime doesn't make it right or okay to do.

Consider this too. The person who gets caught but didn't hurt anybody else, ends up hurting themselves financially and reputation-wise. In a sense, and I hate calling them victims because they put themselves in that situation and I don't feel sorry for them, are in a sense victims. But victims of themselves. "

old_napan52 wrote on Oct 7, 2009 11:01 AM:

" Hawkeye...are we reading the same posts? I don't see anyone here promoting driving drunk. I do see some who seemed to be concerned about the enjoyment of locking people in the public stockade for a solid month, as though the jail time, extreme fines, possible loss of employment, and family and friends humiliation were not already enough. "

realitybites wrote on Oct 7, 2009 11:01 AM:

" Hey Hawkeye - who is the victim? Your argument fails to address the clear message I continue to spread - there is no victim, just like in the case of the speeder, cell phone user, texter, illegal lane changer, red light runner - WHEN THERE IS NO ACCIDENT. Who is the victim hawkeye? Punshish those who actually inflict injury on others. If your impaired and you cause injury - throw the book at them, just like you would a speeder, red light runner, etc. No one on the scarlet letter list killed anyone, but the haters here would have them put in the stocks down by the courthouse so we can all walk bye and see them and humiliate them some more. How dare you commit such a victimless misdemeanor offense - shame, shame, shame. Well, seems to me we should string up all the speeders, texters, cell phone drivers, red light runners, etc., since they are endangering the lives of others too. Where is there list? Oh, and since someone passed gas, they contributed to global warming, so let's print their names too. "

Hawkeye wrote on Oct 7, 2009 12:21 PM:

" realitybites said, "Who is the victim hawkeye?" You got me on that one. By definition there is no victim until damage, injury or death. Okay, point proven. Next point.....you wrote, "Punshish those who actually inflict injury on others."

Clarify that. I'm assuming you mean the ones who DON'T inflict injury should not be in the DUI list but still held accountable by law with jail/fines, correct? And the ones who do cause injury should be both on the DUI list AND in jail, correct? I would have a hard time believing anybody would say let the DUI offender who got caught but didn't create any "victims", off the legal hook. That would be promoting drunk driving.

OldNapan, nobody here is directly promoting drunk driving, but some of the comments and excuses I've seen in these blogs, not just in this article, but over the months seem to imply it in an indirect way. "

alucawanza wrote on Oct 7, 2009 2:21 PM:

" Witches weren't shamed. They were drowned or burned at the stake.
Drive drunk. You deserve the shame. Too bad. They got caught before a victim could be hurt. They were lucky.
If you don't want all the consequences listed by oldtownnapa, don't drink and drive. How simple is that? "

realitybites wrote on Oct 7, 2009 3:42 PM:

" Alucawanza - witches were first put on display to be ridiculed and then put on trial - they certainly were "shamed". Where is your outrage in not being given the chance to ridicule and shame speeders, texters, cell phone drivers, red light runners, who equally put our safety at risk? Burn them all, those sinners - right? Sharpen up that pitchfork, there are unsafe drivers afoot - beware. Guess what, your one of them too.

Hawkeye - love the debate. I'm not here to promote drunk driving. I just find it all a bit overkill. Victimless offenses occur ever second of every day - life goes on, no list, no shame, pay the fine and move on. But drive even after one drink, which can subject you to DUI conviction, and not only do you get punished by the system (DMV / Courts) - you get put on a list for the rest of your life via the internet. My personal feeling is that DUI punishment doesn't fit with the actual offense committed. This is the case with a lot of victimless crimes, in my opinion. That's why are jails are full of non-violent offenders. I'm not saying their shouldn't be laws, but I would prefer to see the punishment mirror the offense. Thus, if you take away the rights of someone else by inflicting injury - you deserve a harsh punishment. But when there is no victim - I find public humiliation and ridicule to be unwarranted. "

hawkeye wrote on Oct 7, 2009 4:07 PM:

" Realitybites, well I'm not so sure that your position on drunk driving is all that rational after re-reading your comments. You say, "DUI laws are simply a means of revenue." What do you propose we do about those innocent drunk drivers? Just keep letting them drive amok until they kill somebody.....and oh, then we can punish them. Yeah, let's wait until they cause an accident, then we'll do something about them. So, based on your comments, and you clearly spell it out for us, it takes an injury or a death until the law should enforce drunk driving laws against that driver. Should we expect your name to be on this list soon? "

realitybites wrote on Oct 7, 2009 4:23 PM:

" Hawkeye - I certainly don't care if you find my opinion is "rational" - clearly, your not the authority of what constitutes "rational" thought. I don't believe you'll find the word "innocent" in any of my writings on this subject, yet you twist my words to support your "assumptions" about what I'm saying. When 911 happened, America passed the Patriot Act in the middle of the night. Now, what books you check out of the library are subject to unwarranted search and seizure. So are telephone calls. Read Benjamin Franklin - those who would sacrifice personal liberty for the sake of a little safety deserve neither. The punishment should fit the crime - I don't think it does. Public ridicule and humiliation forever over the internet doesn't square with a victimless misdemeanor offense in my opinion. "

Hawkeye wrote on Oct 7, 2009 6:12 PM:

" Okay, realitybites, we clearly agree on one thing so far and that is that punishments in this country often do not fit the crimes. That is true. Someone who shoplifted could very well get punished harsher than a murderer. Ridiculous judgments have been ruled before and will be ruled again in the future. We have a broken and inefficient system.

What I'm asking you is, what punishment if any, do you feel should be ruled against a drunk driver who has not caused any harm yet? Do we not punish them at all? If your answer is punish them minimally or not at all, consider this too:

Alcoholism as other drug addictions ruin lives. Not just on the road, but off the road too. Somebody who suffers from alcoholism may need the wake-up call, the intervention caused by getting hit with huge consequences, in order to realize they have a problem and they turn their lives around before they kill somebody out there on the road.

People who drive drunk regularly are likely alcoholics. It's only a matter of time before they hurt or kill somebody. I'm in no way minimizing the dangers of other bad driving habits. But DUI has gotten the most attention over the years and substance abuse is a HUGE problem in our society. I'd rather see something being done about it than nothing at all.

What is your proposed punishment (or lack of) for victimless DUI? Honestly. "

alucawanza wrote on Oct 7, 2009 11:24 PM:

" realitybites
I'm one of them? One of who? You don't know me. I know you are speaking rhetorically about my pitchfork. Sorry, I'm not an unsafe driver. I'm also a lawful driver. If you had read my previous posts you would know all about my outrage. I'll be seeing you on other posts. There are bigger fish to fry than this one.
Have a nice Thursday. "

realitybites wrote on Oct 8, 2009 9:12 AM:

" alucawanza - Wow, you've never driven above the speed limit - ever? You've never changed lanes without using a turn signal - ever? Hope you have a nice Thur. also.

hawkeye - surely addictions exist. Food, sugar, coffee - all addictive. The recovery rate is less than 1 in 11 from what I understand. I personally don't believe that criminalizing the use of alcohol or other addictive substances is the solution. To me, education seems like the only real solution. Bringing this back to the point I'm trying to get across, public humiliation and shame by means of a "list" which is available via the internet for eternity, even after the offender is dead and burried, seems a bit much for someone who commits a victimless misdemeanor offense. "

post-it wrote on Oct 8, 2009 11:12 AM:

" Hawkeye,
I don't think realitybites argument is so much that DUI is to be defended as much as that this offence, by having a list is being singled out as a more egregious crime than others.

I ask, where is the list in the paper of convictions for violent crimes? Robberies, forgeries, rape, assault - you get the picture. Where is the list for newly convicted sex offenders IN THE PAPER - yes there is a Megan's law web site, but it is not the NVR. The only crime with a list in the NVR is DUI. Other convicted criminals are not subject to the same ridicule as DUI offenders. What about those convicted for illegal drugs like Meth? First time drug offenders that get probation are not subject to the same public view and scorn as DUI offenders (unless their crime is "DUI" from drugs not alcohol).

That is my problem with the list. "

Hawkeye wrote on Oct 8, 2009 11:41 AM:

" realitybites: Addictions exist all across the board. The problem with alcohol and other drug addictions is the fact that while intoxicated, our decision making and choices are impaired. The more intoxicated the more impaired. I'm sure you agree with that. It can also cause us to become abusive toward other people, especially if our personalities are already aggressive or violent. So you can see that this differs from food addictions, sugar, coffee, etc.

It's clear that the DUI list should not exist for the victimless DUI's in your opinion. But you still haven't answered the million dollar question that I posed earlier: What is your proposed punishment (or lack of) for victimless DUI? Jail/fines, or no jail/fines? "

realitybites wrote on Oct 8, 2009 12:08 PM:

" No, I don't agree that a food, sugar, nicotene, caffine addition is any different. Some drunks are happy, some are abusive. Your definition of an "alcoholic" isn't mine. Your or my opinion of what a suitable punishment is for a victimless misdemeanor DUI is irrelevant. I haven't answered your question because it depends. Was the person convicted of 23152 (a) or (b), where there mitigating circumstances, have they confessed, have they claimed to have a problem and have sought assistance - and many more variables which are not even the issue. The issue is this ridiculous public ridicule list for hate mongers and gossips to gloat over another's mistake, which NEVER goes away. "

oldtownnapa wrote on Oct 8, 2009 12:34 PM:

" No one is saying that this offense shouldn't have legal consequence- just that publication of each individual's name on this list should not constitute part of that punishment. No one has issue with punishment- just the List.

Did you know that a 120 pound woman with two glasses of wine within two hours can be over the b.a.c. limit? Is that drunk to you? Did you know that the b.a.c. threshold was was .10 until 1990? Did you know that there is no significant crash statistic differential between a legal .08 and a .09? Did you know those numbers begin to go up at .10? Plenty of people don't intend to be over the limit - you don't have to be drunk or alcoholic to be here. Just legally over the limit. "

hawkeye wrote on Oct 8, 2009 1:47 PM:

" The exact lines are fuzzy, but a person who regularly drinks to numb their problems is clearly an alcoholic. A person who is addicted to alcohol and can't go without a drink is clearly an alcoholic. A person who keeps on drinking and doesn't know when to stop is clearly an alcoholic. How can that be objective to a definition? "

seriously wrote on Oct 8, 2009 1:51 PM:

" I think we all agree that drinking and driving is not only illegal, but is also socially unacceptable. Other illegal acts, such as putting on makeup while driving, speeding, etc. are socially acceptable even if they are dangerous.
The printing of a list of people who are arrested and/or convicted for driving under the influence reinforces that this is socially unacceptable behavior and something not tolerated by our community.
Honestly, there may be problems when a person on the list has the same name as a person who is innocent of any wrongdoing, but come on, how common could that be? If the people who have the same name continue to be convicted of DUI's your problem will go away anyway because the person will be (or should be) sent to prison. We live in a smallish town anyway, misunderstandings can happen and tarnish anyone's reputation in a number of ways about a number of things.
Regardless if you have been affected personally, it is still important to realize that the list is not about YOU; it is to let everyone in our sociecty know that drinking and driving is SHAMEFUL behaviour. Not printing the list because one person may have the same name as another is a ridiculous argument against something that is obviously about the greater good. Get over it people....I mean see you next month. :) "

realitybites wrote on Oct 8, 2009 2:05 PM:

" Napa Valley promotes drunk driving - the list is composed of local residents, not the tourists who drink and drive in this county REGULARLY. Socially unacceptable? I disagree. You can be arrested for DUI after one drink - look up California Vehicle Code Sec. 23152. Every single night, someone leaves a bar, resturaunt, home or winery in a car after having a drink. You are impaired after one drink! Drunk driving is tolerate by this and other communities. "

realitybites wrote on Oct 8, 2009 2:17 PM:

" So, because you were only puting on makeup when you ran over little Johnny on his way to school - it's all good because it's "socially acceptable" behavior.

Someone who drinks every day, as many cultures do, but never has any problems in there life as a result of their drinking is NOT an alcoholic in my opinion hawkeye. "

seriously wrote on Oct 8, 2009 3:01 PM:

" realitybites - I was referencing the argument about why this list is printed even though sometimes the names are similar to our own. So no, it's not all good if I run over 'Little Johnny' on his way to school, but I bet it's more socially acceptable to cause an accident by fiddling with your car stereo than it is for drinking and driving.
I actually did get pulled over and ticketed for texting while driving. I admitted to the officer that I was in the wrong and even I knew I was distracted. I would have no problem having my name printed. People should be accountable for their actions. If drunk driving were tolerated by this community than there wouldn't be a law against it. And, by the way, they DO hold DUI checkpoints on southbound 29...I know becuase I have been through 2 of them in the last year alone. And of course you can be arrested after one drink, if you are impaired. And yes, people can have wine when they go to dinner or whatnot, the point is DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE. People can behave however they like, but when they do something that is illegal and at least a little socially unacceptable, shouldn't they be ashamed of themselves??? "

seriously wrote on Oct 8, 2009 3:19 PM:

" oh, i forgot to say that the only person who should have their name omitted from ever being on the list is the person who has the same name as reason-ator. "

hawkeye wrote on Oct 8, 2009 3:46 PM:

" What is socially acceptable is how our society as a whole views something. Drunk driving has always been socially unacceptable. Since distracted driving is a relatively new concept, it has been socially acceptable. But that is changing. It is increasingly socially unacceptable to drive while distracted. Look at all the articles and comments printed lately in the editorials (not just in this newspaper) by folks angered by seeing distracted driving behaviours. I too am angered when I see it out there on the road. So, our society is beginning to shun that behaviour, except for the ones doing it that aren't hypocrites.

Realitybites: Drunk driving is NOT tolerated anywhere. If you polled people, the majority would tell you drunk driving is not tolerated by themselves. The minority who tolerate it don't count. If the majority of the community are against drunk driving then that would mean we don't tolerate it, right? If the tourists who taste wine are left out of the equation by law enforcement, then we're talking about a government conspiracy. I dunno, there are tourists on that list busted for DUI. Working in the hospitality industry, I've heard of tourists getting busted there too. I think more aren't getting busted because of the ridiculous entrapment laws that prevent law enforcement from targeting or spot-checking people leaving wineries. Right now, they must be doing something wrong or have probable cause. Just leaving a winery isn't enough. So, I'm not seeing a conspiracy. Just useless entrapment laws. "

oldtownnapa wrote on Oct 8, 2009 4:49 PM:

" As reasonator has noted, the line between b.a.c. points is invisible. If drinking and driving is not acceptable then just make it 0 tolerance already. Let the neo-Prohibitionists have their way. Because what I have learned is not to drink a sip before driving because I am not a machine and can't tell if I am slightly over .08- which is what happened to me- my first criminal conviction at mid-life and I seldom drink- like others it was not my intention of breaking the law and yet I did- I did not get a DUI conviction but I get to be listed beside others who did- and with 3.0 bac and above! That is what I take away from this- don't drink a drop. If we shouldn't drink and drive then why the mixed signals- why pour away by the highways? How about buses that run past 8 p.m.? How about a Downtown Shuttle like bars provide in other towns such as San Luis Obispo? Also, let's put the b.a.c. next to each name so it is clear who was flagrant and who was not.... And let's run the Red Light Evasion and Texting While Driving Reports right beside this one. And NO you won't be seeing me next month- fake smiley face back at you. I never needed this List to learn my "lesson" and it is a statistical fact that most of these people won't ever be back- because of what they learn from the experience thru Court/DMV - not from some medieval "shaming!" "

ysoserious wrote on Oct 9, 2009 1:26 AM:

" Mr. Feasor...you say you were being satirical and then immediately say the exact same thing you said before. do you even know what satire is? because that wasn't it.... "

napahawaiinapa wrote on Oct 9, 2009 2:43 AM:

" "Oldtownnapa"...finally, out of all of these comments, someone having gone through what must be the most horrifying experience as to be pulled over, "knowing", obviously, that you drank a beverage that contained alcohol, something you normally don't do, but you did, and Lord have mercy if you just learned at the same time that you are human..Why didn't someone tell you? As you and I know, alcohol in any amount, is alcohol and we just need to know this, that's it!! I'm happy to know that your not an alcoholic, that would be worse than all of this. Okay..let's finish u off..now let's make you really feel like hell and let your 'loving town' gasp when they read ur name out load, across their face a subtle smile (u heard right--the 'holier than thou' majority of our fellow citizens). For the record, 99% of my family would have the 'smile' if it were me with a DUI. It doesn't take a 'degree in psychology' to see why the 'DUI list' is an overwhelmingly unnecessary put-down that is in need of healing. Talk about cold-cocking someone when they are fearing court alone, for God's Sake. What the list does, in all actuality, is feed the evil excuse-for-human vultures that love to spread their vicious wings and move in for the kill..so if that's what 'caring' is all about it's time to see the light at the end of the tunnel cuz anything is better than what I've come to know as humans on this very earth. Be humble u people, and be a strength for someone, not a cave to drop into...what comes around, goes around..never forget that statement..No List!! I see someone I know on that list and I feel sad for them, not happy that they got a DUI.. "

blackpony wrote on Oct 10, 2009 12:55 AM:

" COWBOYS ALL THE WAY!!! "

Raven wrote on Oct 10, 2009 12:24 PM:

" okay so does anyone have any data showing DUIs in Napa have gone down since the list was published? "

Wine nurse wrote on Oct 11, 2009 1:40 PM:

" The continuous debate over the names made public doesn't surprise me.

What surprises me is attitude that some portray as if the person found guilt of driving while under the influence of alcohol should be protected.

I seem to think it has an easy solution would be if you were really worried about this then don't drink and drive.

We teach our kids to call a cab or call someone to pick them up, why cant adults practice what they preach or not indulge. "

napahawaiinapa wrote on Oct 12, 2009 12:44 AM:

" Why drink at all? Why teach your kids how to drink 'safely', if that's what you call it? No matter what you teach your kids, or your kangaroo, drinking puts your mind in another dimension and what was taught you is not in the conversation any more because after alcohol, your not in the conversation..alcohol is...does anyone really get it yet? Once alcohol is ingested, don't expect to be yourself and no one else should expect it, even the cops...it's obvious when someone is intoxicated even slightly and it looks really ugly and ridiculous, and embarrassing so why do this to ourselves anyway? That's why the word you used, 'protected', in your comment, is questioned by you. Someone under the influence needs to be protected from themselves, so they don't drive. Still, not drinking at all saves a lot of unnecessary negativity in quite a few people's lives, with just one drinker. No one is blatantly protecting anyone...the nature of the beast is going to get you in trouble no matter what so just don't drink!!!! "

random name here wrote on Oct 12, 2009 9:52 AM:

" List, no list, it's all public record.

Search for "Napa Court Calendar" and you can get every name appearing in Napa court for the next 14 days.

The NVR has a right to publish any names they want in the public record. Be happy they don't publish the court calendar. "

reason-ator wrote on Oct 12, 2009 11:43 AM:

" I'm beginning to realize, even though I thought I was a pretty cynical person, that I probably have a higher opinion of people than I should.

But I'm learning. To all the vindictive people who feel that all John Smith's should suffer for the actions of one John Smith, well, I guess you won't mind if someone slashes your tires to prevent ALL possibility that you'll drive after drinking. It's just a small price to pay, isn't it ? "

funnyme wrote on Oct 12, 2009 1:29 PM:

" Since "you're learning", you might want to add the concepts of legal vs illegal, and while you're at it, you could also search the Public Information database...and then get back to the rest of us. "

firststreetmayor wrote on Oct 13, 2009 7:15 AM:

" Talk about racial profiling, are the Napa
authorities waiting for these people to leave their homes before arresting them ? "

Grits wrote on Oct 13, 2009 1:16 PM:

" Like Raven, I would really like to know if this strategy has actually lowered the DUI rates in the county - I will try to find that, but I believe it's just a gossipy shame list, and quite frankly, there's no way around that, regardless of how repugnant and harmful driving under the influence is - and should be. "

Mr. Feasor wrote on Oct 15, 2009 12:07 AM:

" reasonator - well said. That John Smith is a real lush, isn't he? He deserves to have his tires slashed, especially since he hasn't been convicted yet.

ysoserious - huh? And it's so easy to look up definitions these days. You don't even need to pick up a dictionary or remember the alphabet:

Satire:

1 : a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn

2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly

www.merriam-webster.com (Oct. 15, 2009)

Both definitions work (except for the "literary work" bit).

And - for the record - I think that "the big red scarlet A" counts as wit/irony/sarcasm (considering that it can stand for suspected-but-not-convicted Alcoholic)... "

victoria911 wrote on Oct 16, 2009 8:52 AM:

" Print the list with no shame...I am that person who takes your 911 calls reporting possible DUI drivers. I can't tell you how many times I've listen to a shocked citizen gasp on the phone when they watch these offenders drift on to on coming traffic and nearly miss a innocent driver. Like I've posted before, the list is public record, I wish NVR would post how they were caught. Most of the DUI's aren't just a routine car stop or check point. Turn on you scanners Napa Valley and really listen to what your local officers and CHP's are running around doing. Listen to how many possible 23152 driver calls are put out over the air. Some of these offenders did wreck or damaged property but that isn't posted. They may not have injured anyone but themselves. For all of you that want to say it brings local shame, GREAT! The more we publicity we can get on driver safety the better. Let everyone know that the Napa Valley is serious about DUI offenders. Hats off to the citizens who call these offenders in and the officers who find them. "

realitybites wrote on Oct 16, 2009 9:07 AM:

" It's the Napa Valley - of course there are gonna be calls related to drunk driving because that's what happens every single day in the valley. The list doesn't prevent drunk driving. Public shaming is what gossips and hate mongers read this for, not to promote safety. I see nothing "GREAT" about posting a list of victimless misdemeanor offenders for eternity. A lot of things are public record, however, that doesn't mean it should be printed in the paper or posted on the internet. I constantly see the register posting the slightest vehicle incident involving alcohol - so we already know when someone actually inflicts damage or injury. Cops get paid to do a job. Public shaming isn't in your job description the last time I checked. "

victoria911 wrote on Oct 16, 2009 10:13 AM:

" Realitybites, Your right cops do get paid to do a job. My job IS to give the names of DUI offenders to the local paper as public records, as well as ALL arrest that are made in my city for what ever reason. The public has a right to know. There name will be online either way. Go to your local Court house web site and look it up and I bet the court room and time will be on there too. This list is of convicted offenders not those who are suspected of. So guilty as charged. I'm sorry that you see this list as shameful, for me its a constant reminder of how dangerous and reckless people can be, no matter what the offense. "

realitybites wrote on Oct 16, 2009 10:25 AM:

" Just like the govenator's wife right? reckless and dangerous, endangering all of our lives. I suppose your providing a list to the NVR of all the people convicted of speeding, cell phone and texting while driving, red light runners and illegal lane changers so we can all know who to publically ridicule and shame? Oh, but I don't see that list? Just like I don't see check points on Saturday afternoon between Yountville and St. Helena. I already know how to access court records and that the NVR Scarlet Letter list is of convictions - but thanks. Maybe we can paint a big red X on their front doors too so we all know who to shame and ridicule. I don't need a reminder of how reckless people are - all you have to do is open your eyes - it's everywhere. "

victoria911 wrote on Oct 16, 2009 2:49 PM:

" If the subject is arrested then, YES. All those who are arrested once again is public information. Just like all the other stories in the paper and the names of those offenders are printed, DUI drivers are no exception. Its just sad that its turned into a list and not a short story because there are so many convictions. We all know what a misdemeanor is and we know what consequences it could bring, including jail time for no more than a year. The public has the right to know of ALL arrest, embarrassing or not if you don't want your name printed for all to see what you have done, don't break the law. "

reason-ator wrote on Oct 16, 2009 5:33 PM:

" At least now we're getting the type of people who like The List of Shame to acknowledge that it's only about the shame and not about discouraging drunk driving. Obviously the list isn't getting any shorter, so it HAS to be about shame.

Isn't great to live in a world where people make an active effort to laugh at other people's misfortune ? Especially when there are SO MANY people like that.

And yes, I know it's a matter of public record. It is so nice of the NVR to go to the trouble to dig up the Shame info for us. It must be easy to get the Shame info, because the NVR can't seem to get all of the 'who, what, where, why, and how' in their own articles.

If the gossips need this info, why can't they go dig it up themselves ? Obviously, it's not very hard to do. "

Mr. Feasor wrote on Oct 16, 2009 8:56 PM:

" You know what? I stand corrected. The names are of those who only have been convicted. But the arrest totals are included (but not named). My bad.

It is a matter of public record, and a conviction is a conviction (even if it's a plea bargain). Sure the NVR makes it a little easier to obtain, but anyone can do a search of the court records. It takes a little effort, though. So I see both sides of the argument.

Now I'm curious, though. Does the NVR print the names of any minors that have been convicted of DUI?

It's an interesting point, because minors who blow .001 are in violation of the so-called "zero tolerance" law. That means a kid who had some cough syrup can be arrested for DUI if the device detects any alcohol (and it's happened). The same is true when the person is 18, 19, or 20.

Should their names be posted too? "

hawkeye wrote on Oct 17, 2009 1:39 AM:

" reasonator wrote: "Isn't great to live in a world where people make an active effort to laugh at other people's misfortune."

Misfortune?! What misfortune?! They PUT THEMSELVES in that situation by driving drunk! They probably feel misfortunate for getting caught and nothing else. They broke the law! The only misfortune is that they drove drunk and risked other people's safety. It's no misfortune that they got caught and ended up on the list and hopefully behind bars where they belong.

People, people, people! It's so simple! Don't do the crime if you can't handle the consequences, including public shame. Just don't drive drunk! How hard is that, REALLY?!

Jeez, no wonder so many people end up on that list with the attitudes we're seeing in these comments. They're more concerned about bashing the list than they are about the fact that drunk drivers are being pulled off the road. "

reason-ator wrote on Oct 17, 2009 10:31 AM:

" That's what I MEAN, hawkeye.

Probably went right over your head and got stuck in your nose. "

Mr. Feasor wrote on Oct 17, 2009 6:54 PM:

" I have to say, reason-ator definitely has a point there, hawkeye.

The NVR list has nothing to do with the "...fact that drunk drivers are being pulled off the road."

The only reason why drunk drivers are being pulled over is because the police signal them to do so.

Actually, hawkeye may have just validated reason-ator's position: regardless of the list, people are going to drive drunk.

I agree that they should be fully prosecuted, and that law enforcement takes all measures to prevent people from driving while intoxicated.

But - according to the monthly reports - the number of DUIs remains relatively consistent.

So, clearly, the list is not a deterrent.

Reason-ator then leaps to the next conclusion: that it's posted to shame the convicted, and give a moment of schadenfreud for the "gossips."

I'm not willing to leap to that conclusion, but I see his point (especially if reason-ator shares a name with someone else that has been on the list before). "

reason-ator wrote on Oct 19, 2009 2:24 AM:

" Does this make sense ?

A while ago, it was brought to my attention that someone who had been posting here ( declaring that she loved the DUI list ) had possibly gotten a DUI herself.

I tried to ask the person ( using her anonymous username ) if she was going to be on the DUI list soon. I was told that asking someone if she was on the DUI list was declared to be a Personal Attack and the post was deleted. I was ASKING by her anonymous username, while even giving her a chance to defend herself if it was not true.

So why was it an attack to ask someone anonymously if they were on the DUI list ?

Isn't it therefore an attack to print the real ( not anonymous ) name of everyone who gets a DUI, every day, for a whole month ?

I was judged to be attacking her by the same people who print the names of all the innocent John Smiths, Jose Garcias, and Jon Schmidts who DIDN'T get a DUI, along with the one who did. And the innocent ones aren't even given a chance to defend themselves. Yet I gave the poster a chance to defend herself when I asked her, and that was an attack.

Yeah, that makes sense. Think it'll get printed ? "

rickw wrote on Oct 19, 2009 9:54 AM:

" count the number of comments to the list EVERY month, do you really think that the NVR is going to quit posting this list? Agree with it or not, it generates interest and traffic to the web site. "

realitybites wrote on Oct 19, 2009 11:29 AM:

" victoria911 - it's so good to know that my tax dollars are funding your blogging and campaign to shame victimless misdemeanor offenders. What you failed to answer is the fact that you do not provide the names of red light runners, texters, illegal lane changers and why the NVR does not publish that list. Nor do you address the fact that selective enforcement means that COPS rarely bust tourists - who drink and drive in this county every single day.

Hawkeye - when are you gonna understand that driving after a single tasting is driving impaired. Driving under the influence of alcohol is promoted by this and other counties - PERIOD. Don't do the crime - is more like don't get caught and you won't make the ridiculous shame and ridicule section of the paper.

I got a question for all you haters and gossips - where is the breathalizer for driving on vicodine? Where is the breathalizer for driving on any prescription medication?

Selective enforcement of the laws and outrageous draconian punishment, including public humiliation and ridicule FOREVER just doesn't jive with the offense. "

bigNapakid wrote on Oct 19, 2009 11:40 AM:

" First of all, you cowboys fans, please move to texas and when you leave take someone with you.
I wonder how many of these criminals have drinking problems. It's pretty obvious that fines, minimal jail time, and being ordered to attend
Alcoholics Anonymous isn't working. I guess thats OK as long as the money keeps rolling in. "

realitybites wrote on Oct 19, 2009 11:55 AM:

" Oh, almost forgot - it's really nice to know that the NVR isn't soliciting the names on this ridicule and shame list, but that these names ARE VOLUNTARILARY BEING PROVIDED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT, using my tax dollar - thanks victoria911 - good to know BIG BROTHER is making sure you have a job publically humiliating SELECT victimless misdemeanor offenders, but not red light runners, cell phone drivers, illegal lane changers or speeders. "

wipemedown wrote on Oct 19, 2009 2:45 PM:

" Monday Night Football!!! Lets Go Denver! "

Duracel87 wrote on Oct 20, 2009 7:16 AM:

" Hey reason-ator, GIVE UP ALREADY! It's the same thing every single month. I suggest finding a hobby or possibly even getting a job! "

reason-ator wrote on Oct 20, 2009 5:28 PM:

" Thanks, Duracell. I hadn't noticed I was falling behind the others. I'll try to keep up with the others.

Thanks for the inspiration. Oddly, the NVR seems to be having problems printing my responses when others provoke me.

See, the NVR likes lots of comments. See, some people feel there's no such thing as bad publicity. It makes them feel good, kinda like Lindsay Lohan. Goofy, huh ? They do things that make them look bad, and when people notice, they get distracted and don't notice that people cancel their subscriptions. "

wipemedown wrote on Oct 21, 2009 9:33 AM:

" It's a party in the U. S. A. !! "

seriously wrote on Oct 22, 2009 10:16 AM:

" Realitybites - a few statistics from MADD towards your arguments:

You say DUI is a victimless crime. I think the statistics show that there ARE victims and society is a victim on a grand scale:
About three in every ten Americans will be involved in an alcohol-related crash in their lives. In 2001, more than half a million people were injured in crashes where police reported that alcohol was present — an average of one person injured every minute. Alcohol-related crashes in the United States cost the public an estimated $114.3 billion, including $51.1 billion in monetary costs and an estimated $63.2 billion in quality of life losses. People other than the drinking driver paid $71.6 billion of the alcohol-related crash bill, which is 63 percent of the total cost of these crashes. How's that for good use of your tax dollar?

You state people are convicted of DUI when they just made a mistake in judging their level of intoxication: A first time drunk driving offender on average has driven drunk 87 times prior to being arrested. I can see making a teeny mistake, but even on the conviction list above only 16% had a BAC of .10 and lower. The other 84% had a BAC of .10 to .39.

You say it is socially acceptable to drink and drive: A AAA poll measuring the traffic safety culture of Americans, found that 80% supported requiring drivers who have been convicted of DWI to use an ignition interlock device. 88% of the respondents in the poll felt that drunk driving is a serious traffic safety concern.

Why are people more concerned with protecting from shame those convicted of shameful behavior than the safety of our citizens? Drinking and driving is WRONG! Get over it! "

reason-ator wrote on Oct 22, 2009 11:17 AM:

" seriously, you are absolutely right. Drinking and Driving drunk is wrong.

But there is NO relation between this shame list and the safety of our citizens. None.

And people who have the same name as guilty DUI drivers do not deserve to be shamed. If that logic is valid, so is my idea of slashing tires of all cars downtown. If I slash your tires, it's OK-It's just a small inconvenience for some if it'll keep one driver from driving drunk, right ? That'll justify getting your tires slashed, won't it ? Will you feel content while your car is being towed to the Tire Shop ?

This list isn't stopping or curtailing drunk drivers.

This message was inspired by duracell87. "

realitybites wrote on Oct 22, 2009 4:14 PM:

" Seriously - plese don't misquote me.

I have always said you should punish those who actually inflict injury or cause damage. When no one is hurt as a result of you driving 65 in a 55 or talking or your cell phone while driving or running a red or failing to signal - or when you get pulled over in your driveway after drinking and driving home - THESE ARE ALL VICTIMLESS CRIMES.

A breathalizer measurement is completely inaccurate and unreliable. The .08 standard for a 95 lbs female and a 220 male are no where close to the same, but the breathalizer treats them the same. The amount of alcohol vapor in your lungs varies depending on a whole host of factors, which means you could blow a point .08 after 3 drinks today and tomorrow you might hit .08 after 1. What you or MADD consider to be a matter of such astronomical importance is about as important to me, as far as safety on the roadway, as the person driving with a cell phone to their ear (or the govenators wife for that matter) or the senior who can't see 10 feet in front of the hood and whose reaction time would be the same as mine if I blew a .50.

You can make statistics say whatever you or MADD want them to say - I live here - I see the cars in the parking lot of the wineries. I see the resturants pouring wine to patrons who get in their cars and drive away. It's one thing to answer a pole question, it's another to live in the real world, like Napa Valley, where drunk or "impaired" driving occurs daily and is promoted. "

hawkeye wrote on Oct 22, 2009 10:13 PM:

" Realitybites: Okay, they're all victimless crimes, you've convinced us of that, but the word "crime" is still included in your words. Doesn't "crime" imply the necessity for punishment of some sort? Even though you call it victimless, you are still calling it a crime. "Punish those who actually inflict injury or cause damage." We let those who don't, but still commit the crime, off the hook? What does that teach people? It teaches them it's okay to speed, run reds, fail to yield, DUI as long as no harm is inflicted. That's what you imply by saying, "Punish those who actually inflict injury or cause damage."

We already live in a society that has no accountability. Do we really want to perpetuate that with that attitude? "

realitybites wrote on Oct 23, 2009 9:01 AM:

" Point taken Hawkeye.

My point is that our over-reactionary society and legislature punishes DUI offenders more harshly than other unsafe driving activity. Including, apparently, paying Law Enforcement to prepare a list of convictions and run down to the NVR to make sure it's published in our community newspaper - even though it's already a matter of public record. DUI's are not punished based upon the individual incident - the punishment is mandatory and it doesn't matter what the individual circumstances were (in the vast majority of cases). It appears to me to be a cash cow for the state. Another example of selective enforcement of our laws. Just like our local DA deciding not to press charges against the Raider head coach - why? Because the Raiders bring revenue to this county, just like the wineries and hospitality industry. "

SERIOUSLY wrote on Oct 23, 2009 1:01 PM:

" realitybites -
i see your point about victimless offenses. to me, if someone is a first time offender and the bac is somewhere near .08 and they didn't injure anyone i waver on if they are totally appropriate this list.

my main reason for supporting the list is that as a former bartender and in my personal life i have seen A LOT of repeat offenders who are not held accountable to their actions by the judical system and so this list at least accomplishes some sort of rebuke. Sure they have to pay fines, go to classes, but rarely does anyone in Napa ever serve time for repeat offenses. I know more than two people who have had three or more DUIs who have never served time for their charges, and so they don't change their ways. In that way, DUIs ARE just a cash cow for the state (or county or whatever) and the judicial system is just slapping their hands. As for the shaming, I think if someone shows up on the list once, they shouldn't feel too bad, sometimes people make mistakes and almost everyone knows someone with one DUI so it's not totally out of the norm.
But the people who have already have a DUI should know better.

Sometimes just making things public works towards curtailing repeated negative behaviors that have not been shown to change. I think there should also be a list (somewhere) for people who repeatedly do not pay child support, and for companies who are found to work employees or illegal immigrants under the table. These offenses don't seem to be taken seriously by the judicial system and hurt our community so we as citizens should have some recourse. "

victoria911 wrote on Oct 24, 2009 10:36 AM:

" Your tax dollars have nothing to do with what I do on my time off my friend. You asked questions and state DUI offenders are victimless...very wrong. Your are telling me that my father being in a coma for 3 months and having reconstructive surgery on his face and will forever live with a metal plate in his head and the scars on his forehead is victimless! Maybe having dentures at the age of 35 is ok for some but for a father of 6 who worked his rear off for his family and for his medical bills because a someone decided that being buzzed and driving home was ok. A short drive home on Highway 29? Not so much when you cream a innocent dad driving home from work.
For your information Octobers list just got one more name from me...yes a TOURIST cited and ARRESTED for driving under the influence and he was the DD. Once again I thank the locals and good Samaritans that call to report drunk and reckless drivers.
I suppose some can not seem to understand that when you are arrested it becomes public record not for a citation for a moving violation like the ones you would receive for texting or talking on your cells. "

alucawanza wrote on Oct 24, 2009 11:31 AM:

" Victimless crimes because they were stopped by the cops before anyone could get hurt??
If you don't want your name on the list, don't drink and drive. You should be ashamed of this behavior. You should be held accountable.
As to other driving crimes that don't have a list....that's a good question for the NVR. But don't eliminate one list because there's not a list for everything else.
People who don't pay child support or employees who hire illegal immigrants don't endanger our lives. Drunk Drivers do. Some of you would feel differently if you were ever endangered by someone's driving drunk.
Do your children play on the sidewalk? "

realitybites wrote on Oct 26, 2009 10:14 AM:

" Apparently, some here can't seem to understand that when no one is injured or damaged - the crime commited is a VICTIMLESS OFFENSE. Punish those who actually inflict injury. Cell phone drivers commit victimless crimes every day and my point is THEY ARE JUST AS DANGEROUS TO OTHER DRIVERS.

Wow, one tourist was arrested - stop the presses . . . one out of the hundred or so listed in the ridicule and shame list. How about the THOUSAND or so tourists who drunk drive in this county monthly? Way to step it up law enforcement. "

realitybites wrote on Oct 26, 2009 10:40 AM:

" Hey victoria911 - now it's not your job to prepare the list and supply it to the NVR. But that's what you said your "job" was earlier on here . . . now your claiming you do in on your free time? No one said it wasn't public record. Just because it's public record doesn't mean I need my tax dollars going to pay for you to take the time to compile a list and get it to the register to shame victimless DUI offenders. Your personal vendetta doesn't change the fact that Napa Valley promotes impaired and / or drunk driving, law enforcement targets locals as oppossed to tourists and that this list is a public ridicule and shame list for gossips and hate mongers - IT DOESN'T DETER DRUNK DRIVING. "

victoria911 wrote on Oct 26, 2009 5:50 PM:

" For those inquiring, police agencies produce a log that is kept for briefing their officers and dispatchers. The log has everything the prior shift did throughout the day/night, this log includes the names of all those arrested no matter what the crime was. If they were detained by the agency this log discloses name, age, city of residence, offense and what was done with the prisoner, ie: transported to local agency or county jail or released on a promise to appear. All this information is public record and is published in your local paper as the police and fire log, all the names and addresses are removed to protect the privacy of those not involved in a criminal act or that might jeopardize a investigation. NVR then takes the names of all those arrested for DUI and prints out the names of the offenders after the offender has gone to court and found guilty of driving under the influence. (Explains why the list is always a month behind.) DUI check points are for the locals I agreed with a few of the comments, they are set up on major holidays or sporting events. They also set up rolling DUI check points where all agencies in the valley will patrol the whole valley together making random stops throughout the valley. These start late afternoon but never too sure what days. DUI check points go on stats we all know that we have more DUI incidents in the evening than day. I do feel we need more CHP officers and Sheriff Deputies in the valley to patrol the road that are their jurisdiction because many of the wineries are located in the county area rather than in a certain city limit. "

victoria911 wrote on Oct 26, 2009 5:55 PM:

" As for those who view this as a shame list, it is. The only shame is the list never gets shorter and those who live in this valley should know better. We all need to get out of the small town way of thinking and not assume we won't get caught on your local roads and highways. "

jmo wrote on Oct 26, 2009 9:50 PM:

" It used to be that lots people would comment on this...now it is down to what 5-8?... Now nobody cares what you have to say repeatedly month after month! "

alucawanza wrote on Oct 26, 2009 11:30 PM:

" realitybites says:
" Apparently, some here can't seem to understand that when no one is injured or damaged - the crime commited is a VICTIMLESS OFFENSE. Punish those who actually inflict injury.

So if I shoot at you and miss...I shouldn't be arrested...right? No one was injured or damaged. "

reason-ator wrote on Oct 27, 2009 2:48 AM:

" jmo, help me understand. You WERE being sarcastic, I hope. I don't know what 5-8 means, but there are at least 103. After I submit this, there may be more. The NVR deletes alot of my posts, or have a problem getting them....

There has been some civl discussion. But victoria911 admits it is a shame list that does no good.

People always pick out one of the many things that are wrong about this list. But the one thing that the zealots either ignore or dismiss is that there are innocent people who are harmed by this list ( not just the guilty ), at many different levels. The notion that they should suffer so that other people can gossip about someone else ( or worse, the innocent person himself, who can't defend themselves ) is just beyond me, and it saddens me that people are this mean-spirited.

All of this- for absolutely no legitimate benefit at all. It does not stop people from driving drunk, and innocent people suffer. And there are loving people who enjoy their suffering, for some sadistic pleasure that I prefer to not suffer from.

Wow. almost 200 words and I was just getting started. Maybe I should go see how the Napa Pipeteers are doing...... "

realitybites wrote on Oct 27, 2009 9:39 AM:

" Aluca - please try and keep up with the comments I've already posted if you want to direct questions at me . . . I've already addressed your specific question on more than one occassion from other bloggers. Where does the bullet go? Obviously somewhere, thus, there is a VICTIM, in that there is property damage or injury. So, it's not the same as a DUI where no one is injured.

I don't think it's a small town mentality. I think it's selective enforcement. I see the cars at the wineries EVERY DAY - CHP certainly has jurisdiction over 128 and 29.

Seems pretty clear to me that my tax dollars are going to pay someone to compile a list and cause it to be printed in the local newspaper, merely for the sake of shaming and public humiliation. Where in the California Code does it state that part of your victimless misdemeanor DUI punishment should be public humiliation and ridicule FOR EVER? "

napabicycler wrote on Oct 27, 2009 10:54 AM:

" I believe jmo is saying that only 5 to 8 (5-8) people are commenting, and jmo was implying that those same people (I would say only 2 actually) are flogging a dead horse month after month. I agree. "

realitybites wrote on Oct 27, 2009 11:18 AM:

" Not everyone decides to burry their head in the sand and pretend that the hypocracy of the ridicule and shame list, which certainly hasn't curbed drunk driving, is acceptable. Perhaps the napabicyler and jmo could follow the "Comment Guidelines" and "Stay on Topic" instead of criticizing those who voice their displeasure with the Scarlet Letter list. Next time you speed, talk on your cell phone while driving, roll through a stop sign or red light or forget to use your turn signal - why don't you march down to the register and get your name in the paper, so we can all shake our heads in dismay over your victimless mistake. "

napabicycler wrote on Oct 27, 2009 11:42 AM:

" Just to repeat what I've stated before: I do not speed, talk on my cell phone while driving, text, roll through a stop sign or red light or forget to use my turn signal. Not on a bike nor in a car. Yes, I am perfect. So go ahead, keep flogging that horse. "

realitybites wrote on Oct 27, 2009 12:46 PM:

" Your alleged perfection doesn't change the fact that this is a public forum and rather than address the facts presented in the discussion, you'd rather attack the messanger . . . makes a lot of sense when you consider why someone would find a public ridicule and shame list appealing. Sharpen up that pitchfork, but remember not to point it at the tourists. "

brownstain wrote on Oct 27, 2009 4:25 PM:

" The Register simply has no other news to report, as proven by the "Purse Stolen" article on 10/27 where $5 and a cellphone was taken. If that, along with every misdemeanor pot arrest is newsworthy, why not this list? "

alucawanza wrote on Oct 27, 2009 11:43 PM:

" Begging your pardon there, realitybites! I'll pay closer attention to your posts, follow your thoughts, and try to understand your superior reasoning better. Maybe a glass of wine would help me muddle through...

Yah think maybe the families of these drunk drivers are victims??? Get in the car now darling, Daddy will drive you to your friend's house...Does a near miss count? Does a blown tire on the curb count? a bump on the garage door? not being home on time? the aftermath of the arrest at home? Victimless...Hah! "

realitybites wrote on Oct 28, 2009 9:42 AM:

" Every action has a reaction - even when one decides not to act. Your question Aluca was whether it's a victimless crime if you shoot at me and miss - I explained that it wasn't because the bullet lands somewhere. Apparently, now you want to shift the discussion, yet again, to the family of a drunk driver. I'm certain that in some circumstances the families of those who choose to drink can be considered a "victim", whether or not that person chooses to drive or not. If someone gets a speeding ticket and the money is paid out of the community assets - there is just as much likelihood of there being some sort of discontent in the household. That doesn't mean that there is a "victim". Every time someone passes gas there is a "victim" - right? We are all "victims" then even when no crime is committed. My specific argument has always been that impaired driving as a result of the ingestion of alcohol occurs DAILY in Napa County, but if your busted, even when there is no direct or immediate "victim" who is injured or damaged - your unfairly held up to public scorn, ridicule and humilation FOREVER as a result of this insidious posting of names. People speed, roll through stop signs, talk on their cell phone while driving, forget to signal - constantly, which is just as dangerous. Excessive speed is a factor in the vast majority of auto accidents which result in injury. Where is there list of shame? Why are they immune from the Scarlet letter press? "

alucawanza wrote on Oct 28, 2009 12:25 PM:

" realitybites
Ask any adult who grew up with an alcoholic parent if they feel like a victim. Comparing that to passing gas is just silly.
What you call an insidious posting of names, I call a wake-up call. You can't change my mind...I don't care if your's changes.
BTW: Auto accidents with names are in the paper. Why are some immune? You're asking the wrong person. I'm not in charge. Your opinion has been given. Perhaps the Register will listen. "

realitybites wrote on Oct 28, 2009 1:23 PM:

" Now every person convicted of a DUI is an "alcoholic"? Just because someone drinks doesn't mean their "alcoholic". What's silly is to think that after someone has a drink their gonna think about this ridiculous public humiliation list before they get behind the wheel. That person is thinking about a lot of things, but I bet it's not the ridicule and shame list. It's neither a wake up call nor a deterant. I can read, I know that auto accidents are in the register, what I said is where is the list of speeders - they are more responsible for auto related injuries and deaths than DUI offenders. "

alucawanza wrote on Oct 28, 2009 11:34 PM:

" realitybites
I didn't say that every person convicted of a DUI is an alcoholic. I said the children of alcoholics are victims. Alcoholics are out there driving.

You said: What's silly is to think that after someone has a drink their gonna think about this ridiculous public humiliation list before they get behind the wheel. That person is thinking about a lot of things, but I bet it's not the ridicule and shame list.

Maybe that's why they should be on it. So they'll think about it next time. Why are you defending drunk drivers? Never mind, I'm done here. See you next month... "

Piquemyinterest wrote on Oct 29, 2009 5:10 AM:

" Close the liquor stores and don't sell wine or beer in the grocery stores. Problem solved. With over 350 wineries in Napa Valley alone..who is the blame for this? You do the math! Just another vehicle to make money for the city of Napa. If public flogging is to happen then maybe this City needs to be listed on the list. This town wants revenue and pulling every one over is one way to get it. Also the taxes they get from the winery operations and the tourist makes up the difference. Pretty sad. "

realitybites wrote on Oct 29, 2009 11:40 AM:

" Defending drunk drivers ? I'm merely pointing out the hypocracy of it all. The haters and gossips who can't wait to see the next list of victimless misdemeanor DUI offenders ALL have broken some law as some point. No one is perfect. But because this particular offense has drawn the attention of the American sheep, I mean populus, it seems no punishment is ever enough. It's not enough these people on the list pay hefty fines, loose their driving privilege and have to pay for and attend some government sponsored therapy sessions (they prefer to call it "education") which does nothing but continually reinforce the social stigma attached to their mistake, they also suffer the ire of the local press - FOREVER, via the internet. At least the mandated therapy classes, where they are reminded weakly of their mistake - actually end at some point. "

hawkeye wrote on Oct 29, 2009 12:41 PM:

" realitybites: So the only reason why shooting at somebody and missing would NOT be a victimless crime is because of property or other damage? What about attempted murder? Or, what if somebody shot at another person in the middle of the desert and missed and the bullet simply went into the sand? Victimless crime because no property or other people got hit? That's the question that was posed to you. In that scenario, the bullet misses property and people and animals, etc. "

realitybites wrote on Oct 29, 2009 1:06 PM:

" hawkeye - this is an easy one - I've already answered this question for you over two weeks ago - simply go back and read my previous posts. I'm not at all interested in your interpretations - they have never been accurate. You consistently twist words and infer to suit your own perspective. Is it attempted murder to speed while driving or talk on the cell phone while driving or running a red light? These examples are acts, sometimes intentional, that endanger the lives of other drivers. Not only are these examples not attempted murder, they aren't even misdemeanor offenses. Why don't we have first time speeders loose their license, have to attend therapy and pay the court thousands of dollars? The reason why these and other offenses are not attempted "murder" has to do with the legislature and the term "mens rea" - look it up. "

realitybites wrote on Oct 29, 2009 1:16 PM:

" Oh, and just to clarify - somebody owns the sand, which was bullet free prior to your missed shot - so there is a victim. Crimes of attempt require planning and a substantial step (action) towards the furtherance of the crime. "

hawkeye wrote on Oct 30, 2009 3:50 AM:

" The first sentence of your last post seems futile. The crime of littering by shooting the bullet does not compare anywhere near the crime of why the bullet was fired. I knew you were going to mention the victim of the sand owner. You failed to mention the significant other victim in this scenario. The intended target maybe? Okay, so we're comparing apples to oranges by comparing the shooting with the drunk driving, as far as the intent. But not in the cases where the DUI driver knowingly and purposefully drives off drunk. Then again, the other driving offenses are usually deliberate but not punished the same way as DUI, revealing a huge hypocracy as you have drilled into our brains. How do we level the playing field? Raise the penalties of the other offenses, or lower the penalties of drunk driving? Your last answer to that was very convoluted. Either way, our justice system is broken with crimes of equal caliber, not being treated the same way. As far as the DUI list in the NVR, it's impossible to ascertain if it prevents DUI, but there is no way to print a list for every type of offense, for those who are seeking fairness for law breakers. It's an all-or-nothing thinking. Critics want either no list shaming criminals, or lists for each and every type of possible crime imagineable. Otherwise, criminals and critics are going to cry discrimination. "

firststreetmayor wrote on Oct 30, 2009 9:18 AM:

" WOW 121 comments

Hope the DA can find another job, from the out pour of people troubled commenting and the amount of people being arrested who are no lovers of are DA there is no voters left for the DA to count on to vote him back in this next election, coming up soon in Napa, right or wrong ? "

realitybites wrote on Oct 30, 2009 1:37 PM:

" Littering? Try trespass, invasion of privacy and nuisance for starters, which are all real causes of action, certainly not "futile". Drunk driving is not attempted murder. Apparently, looking up the Latin term "mens rea" was asking a bit much. Purposeful? So, the drunk driver intends to crash when they get in the car. The playing fields get levelled when government responds to the will of the people - which doesn't happend unless there is a huge well finance lobby or civil unrest on a massive scale. We are talking about a huge cash cow for the state. Do you really think government will ever reduce the penalty for a DUI to comport with the victimless offense it is? Too much revenue - follow the money. I don't think it's impossible to ascertain if the list deters drunk driving. Do you see a decrease in the number of names on the list each month - NO. Do you see a decrease in the number of cars in the winery parking lots every single day - NO. "

hawkeye wrote on Oct 30, 2009 4:20 PM:

" Trespassing, etc. again small potatoes compared to the original intent. You are right, drunk driving is not attempted murder, so we can't compare the former scenario. If you want to level the playing field, organize a protest campaign.

But the DUI list is also not growing. The DUI list might not be growing or shrinking for many other reasons besides how well or not well the DUI list deters DUI drivers. There are many factors that determine how many end up on the list. More or less tourists coming to Napa in a given month. More or less people overall deciding to drink and drive in a given month (for reasons we won't ever know unless you ask each one). More or less people overall getting caught in a given month. More or less law enforcement patrol in a given month. More or less activity on our roadways in a given month. Also, you get a cycle of people who drink and drive regularly and others who learn their lesson the first time and never do it again. Perhaps the DUI list deters at least a few, but the next month you get a whole batch of new people who don't know or care about the list. In other words, perhaps those who are deterred and remain deterred are replaced every month by those who aren't and get caught for the first time. It's like saying there must not be any deaths in a given population just because the numbers are the same. One generation replaces the next. If you've ever taken a course in statistics, which I have, just the number of people on the DUI list alone is not enough to draw a conclusion about its efficacy. "

alucawanza wrote on Nov 1, 2009 10:20 AM:

" Twelve out of the list are from out of this area. Too much emphasis on the wineries.
There are two articles today about DUIs. Please read them. "

John Richards wrote on Nov 2, 2009 7:44 PM:

" " For the sake of the conversation, we're talking about DUI and DUI only."

You like to wear blinders, do you?
The conversation includes the aspect of why DUI drivers are being singled out unfairly as unsafe drivers. "

napabicycler wrote on Nov 3, 2009 9:35 AM:

" I support the list for awareness as well, as seriously states, but for yet another reason: I ride my bike down a particular street every single day. Someone who lives on this street has had three (yes, three) DUIs, two of them in the past six months (I know this from the list). I now know to get the heck out of the way if this person drives by (yes, they still drive) because chances are they’re probably drunk. "

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:
Web Search Powered
By Yahoo! Search
Napa Valley Register on Facebook
Back to top
Submit news, announcements: Virtual Newsroom
Contact: News | Advertising | Subscriber Services | Work for us | Buy photos
More local news: American Canyon Eagle | St. Helena Star | Weekly Calistogan
Local tourism: Inside Napa Valley || Parade Magazine
Copyright © 2009 Napa Valley Publishing, a member of Lee Enterprises, Inc.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy