" Since there are no comments here, I'm assuming the NV Register staff is stopping the inevitable flame-war before it starts. If so, NVR staff should put a "Comments are disabled on this article" note. "

" I don't think NVR disabled the comments, I just think most everyone has already expressed their opinions on this already. What more can be said? "

" Yeah, where are all the NVR bloggers? This has been out for two or three days and no comments? This is usually my favorite section, love the DUI wars. Cmon peeps, wake up!! Get to bloggin'! "

" Glad no one I know is on the list. Wonder if it will ever get down to three pages... "

" So glad I don't have to be bored with the same posters with the same argument month after month after month...yawn "

" You don't HAVE to be bored with the same posters with the same arguments if you don't read the posts.

The NVR deletes the un-boring posts anyway. "

" I see the same dame people on the list. Hmmmm very strange. I thought that after 3 it was a felony. ******* Thats probably why the bloggers are not blogging. Oh! wait... maybe because the economy. lol (sorry, corny I know, but I had to. So sick of everyone using the excuse for EVERYTHING). "

" True...I don't HAVE to; however I am always more interested in the comments than the articles themselves. With the monthly DUI list ( which they've been posting for well over a year) it the same people that post the same argument, maybe it's time to move on? "

" I, too, have been wondering when someone is going to fire the first volley. However, I have to agree with "My Point" that month after month it's the same old posters with the same old belabored argument.

Hopefully, we can learn to leave our emotions out of the comments and view the situation for what it is. DUI is breaking the law. Period! Some form of action must be taken.

I also don't believe that people wait around for the monthly list to be published just so they gloat over who they know on the list. That's just downright childish. And I don't think the police are targeting any specific groups, either by race, what type of car they drive, their age group, where they live etc. The police are doing their jobs the best that they can with the tools they are given. You should be thankful you have their protection! "

" Okay, I think I'm going to maintain my "old" message...satire intended.

Shouldn't they publish the maiden names of the women who have been convicted? It seems kind of sexist otherwise... "

" Mr. Feasor, I wish they'd publish hair colour, too. I've long suspected that the enforcement of DUI unfairly targets red-heads. I'd also question whether they were naturalized red-heads.

And, Mr. Feasor, if you are a red-head, I apologize. I didn't know..... "

" Nope, 4 for a felony!!! "

" reason-ator - I agree.

NVR should post all of the personal identifying information related to the DUI offenders. This would include, but not necessarily be limited to, height; weight; age; hair color; and eye color.

That way, no one would mix up the DUI offenders with an innocent who happens to have the same name.

I say we hold a demonstration in front of the NVR building to accomplish this goal. Whaddaya say, reason-ator? You in? "

" Yeah, Mr. Feasor. Sure. I might be a little late, though. Go ahead and start without me. "

" Yes, twocents a DUI is a victimless misdemeanor offense - a crime. So is spitting on the sidewalk. You fail to mention the purpose of public shaming and humiliation FOREVER via this incidious ridicule list. Whether you want to believe it or not, locals are targets. The fact that no DUI checkpoints are conducted during the peak tourist drinking hours demonstrates this. DUI's are high dollar money makers for the state and local government. I don't feel any safter knowing that my tax dollars are used to wash police / sheriff cars at the Soscol car wash, when the jail is full of offenders who can wash them. "

" I have heard that you can get a DUI even if you are under 0.08.

Is this correct?

If so, what is the value of a limit?

Isn't the point of a limit to set an objective standard?

And before anyone climbs on my back, I have never had a DUI, but I have lost a family member to a drunk driver.

So, I oppose drunk driving, I just do not support vague and capricious laws or demonizing ordinary people who believe they are obeying the law only to find out that they have not.

In general I believe that all offenders should be treated the same.

If DUI's are published then why not publish all convictions for the month?

Again fair and equitable treatment for all.

But in any case, please don't drink and drive!

You can kill someone! "

" Notanapanative: Well said. Pursuant to California Penal Code Sec. 23152 (b) you can be charged with a DUI if the officer believes your too "impaired" to safely operate a vehicle (including a bicycle or a horse, not just a automobile). Thus, there is the .08 standard DUI and the too impaired to drive DUI - which is a discretionary call by the arresting officer. Scientific studies clearly show that reaction time, vision and judgment are all "impaired" after the first drink. I personally don't agree with the "responsible drinking" campaign, it sends a mixed and dangerous message. Then again, the Napa Valley has to keep selling wine and filling our new hotels. "

" How about that NVR?

We can end this discussion just by publishing all convictions.

It appeals to me on the grounds of fairness (all convicted persons treated equally), and it informs the public.

We could have the same format except for a new column listing their crime and a second column showing their sentence.

I believe this is already a matter of public record, the Register would then just be facilitating the dissemination of said public record and treating all people convicted of a crime the same. "

" If anyone knows of anyone on this list, why don't you try to be a "GOOD FRIEND" to them and NOT LET THEM DRINK AND DRIVE!!
Better yet, if your friend has been on here numerous times, STOP being their friend. Why bother to associate with these law-breakers?
"Tell me who you associate with, and I'll tell you who you are". "

" I tune into these DUI listings just for the commentator profilings. Gotta love the infighting. "

" Realitybites...

You're wrong...I love it when people try to sound educated by listing numbers associated with their constitutional rights, case laws, penal codes and in this case vehicle codes. It just gives me the chance to flex my law school experience...

23152(a) is the driving under the influence law. That means under the influence of alcohol, drugs, prescription medication ect ect ect. Yes marijuana people...that's you too.

23152(b) is the violation when your BAC or "Blood Alcohol Content" is greater than .08. If you can't drive a car safely and your BAC is .06, it's still a DUI. Or if you're stoned...that'd be a DUI as well thank god. Or high on meth (to be fair to all those sick patients out there with cramps and headaches using MJ)

It truely amazes me how many bloggers are also back yard lawyers at the same time. It appears we all have law degrees based on the opinions frequently found on this website. "

" Good for you, tsgets! I wholeheartedly agree with your comments. There are a number of posts that appear to be based more on emotion and wishful thinking than actual knowledge of the law. It's nice to read a post from someone with some common sense. "

" tsgets - What's so amazing about the fact that I mistakenly said 23152 (a) rather than (b)? The point is that you can still get a DUI for operating a motor vehicle with less than .08. The fact that I listed the per se violation as an (a) rather than a (b) is trivial. Obviously, your law school experience taught you the difference between a sub (a) rather than focusing on the actual message - pretty obvious you failed the bar exam, if you even graduated and took the exam, if your merely relying on your law school experience. Nice try though. What I find amazing is that you and 2cents would rather attack the messanger - rather than the message. The answer is still the same - you can be convicted of DUI in California even if you blow less than .08 - whether it's 23152 (a) rather than (b) is simply trivial. "

" Okay...two cases in Orange county I personally witnessed in court.

1)Sir, you registered a .06, are you sure you would not like to plead "Not guilty" and consult with an attorney? We can appoint one if you cannot afford one on your own. No, your honor, I wish to plead guilty now.

2) A woman leaves her appointment at the local hospital after asking doctor if the medication she had just taken would keep her from driving. Doctor assures her the medication will not affect her ability to drive. She goes through a DUI checkpoint 2 blocks from the hospital where she is questioned and answers truthfully to CHP and is allowed to continue. Three blocks later she is stop by a local police officer and gives the same truthful account and is promptly arrested and charged with DUI. In court I pleaded with her to seek counsel, but she was so distraught that she just wanted to get it all behind her (53 years old and never even a ticket). The case was so weak, the DA offered her a wet reckless and she took it.

The point is that it is very easy to get a DUI in this state...it doesn't take much. People need know their rights under the law and should always seek an attorney's advice.

In Orange county they take up to ten individuals at a time and read them all their rights and take their pleas wholesale. It is like an assembly line. It does not appear to me that this list is going to shrink any time soon. "

" It's a cash cow! Move on! "

" If having been convicted for DUI and still on probation you get stopped with any alcohol in your systen you will be arrested for DUI. Otherwise a stop with a BAC less than .08 can result in whats known as a wet reckless. "