DUI Checkpoint in Goleta on Friday

DUI Checkpoint in Goleta on Friday title=
DUI Checkpoint in Goleta on Friday
Reads 7326

Source: Goleta Police Department

The Goleta Police Department will hold a DUI checkpoint on Friday, May 20, 2022, from 6:00 p.m. to 3:00 a.m. at an undisclosed location within the City of Goleta. Checkpoint locations are chosen based on a history of DUI crashes and arrests. The primary purpose of checkpoints is not to make arrests, but to promote public safety by deterring drivers from driving impaired. During the checkpoint, officers will look for signs that drivers are under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs.

The Goleta Police Department is committed to keeping the traveling public safe. “The safety of our community is and always will be our mission,” Sergeant Noel Rivas said. “We are looking for impaired drivers because driving under the influence is dangerous and puts others on the road at risk.”

The Goleta Police Department reminds the public that impaired driving is not just from alcohol. Some prescription medications or over-the-counter drugs may interfere with driving. Always follow directions for use and read warning labels about driving or “operating heavy machinery,” which includes driving a car. While medicinal and recreational marijuana are legal, driving under the influence of marijuana is illegal. If you plan on drinking or taking medications that may impact your ability to drive safely, plan on staying at home.

Drivers charged with a first-time DUI face an average of $13,500 in fines and penalties, as well as a suspended license. Funding for this program was provided by a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety, through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

The City of Goleta contracts with the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Office for law enforcement services.

Login to add Comments


Show Comments
sacjon May 20, 2022 12:46 PM
DUI Checkpoint in Goleta on Friday

Be great if they actually published the results of these operations. Santa Maria PD is never too ashamed to post their 1 (on a good night) DUI per 8 hours, hundreds of stops, thousands of $$ in overtime for 20-30 cops to stand around waiting for a drunk driver to show up.....

Chip of SB May 20, 2022 02:05 PM
DUI Checkpoint in Goleta on Friday

I agree sac. And in addition to being ineffective, these checkpoints raise serious constitutional questions. Men with guns stopping people without any probable cause at checkpoints to make sure their papers are in order is not supposed to be a thing in America. Any law enforcement officer who takes his oath to uphold the constitution seriously is obligated to refuse to participate in these checkpoints, tempting as the cushy overtime pay may be.

pstarSR May 23, 2022 07:38 AM
DUI Checkpoint in Goleta on Friday

they used too, or was that SB. they would give tallies of the weekend DUI's and it wasnt 1 or 2

5-10 each weekend

sacjon May 23, 2022 08:43 AM
DUI Checkpoint in Goleta on Friday

PSTARSR - it was never that many in DUI checkpoints. Not as long as I can remember at least. I've NEVER seen 5-10 DUIs in any reports. Where did you get that data?

sacjon May 23, 2022 08:49 AM
DUI Checkpoint in Goleta on Friday

https://www.edhat.com/news/santa-maria-dui-checkpoint-nets-8-arrests --- 2 DUIs

https://www.edhat.com/news/eight-citations-in-santa-maria-dui-checkpoint --- 1 DUI

https://www.edhat.com/news/six-arrests-at-santa-maria-dui-checkpoint --- 0 DUI

https://www.edhat.com/news/13-arrested-at-santa-maria-dui-checkpoint ----4 DUIs

a-1653082062 May 20, 2022 02:27 PM
DUI Checkpoint in Goleta on Friday

Sobriety checkpoints do not infringe on anyone's rights, and are effective in reducing DUI incidence.
Data doesn't lie, unlike Chip's opinion posts:


Chip of SB May 20, 2022 02:40 PM
DUI Checkpoint in Goleta on Friday

I think one could raise many questions about that study, but it doesn’t really matter. Let’s say for the sake of argument that dui checkpoints are every bit as effective as the study claims. Does being effective make them legal? No! The constitution says “ The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” There is no exception for searches conducted under the pretense of attempting to reduce drunk driving. I just don’t see how one could torture that language to the point that it becomes legal to stop and search people without probable cause.

sacjon May 20, 2022 02:46 PM
DUI Checkpoint in Goleta on Friday

Know what's more effective? Actually getting in their cars and patrolling areas where drunk drivers are known to frequent - bars, parties, IV, liquor stores, etc. Setting up a net, waiting for some fish, after you've TOLD the fish you're setting up a net, is not going to catch a lot. Sure, pay some cops overtime to stand around for hours waiting, OR..... pay them to do their job during their shifts by ACTIVELY searching for and arresting drunks.

Why to do our local cops love just waiting around for crime or taking the easy way out? Close the beach if there might be a party, set up a checkpoint if there might be a drunk driver...... GO TO WORK and actually find the crime and deal with it.

a-1653083174 May 20, 2022 02:46 PM
DUI Checkpoint in Goleta on Friday

Reality once again deflates speculation:


"The Supreme Court has found that temporary DUI checkpoint stops (without reasonable suspicion) do not violate the Fourth Amendment rights of drivers at checkpoints. Basically, the Court said the importance of keeping impaired drivers off the road generally outweighs the inconvenience and intrusion to motorists. (Michigan Dep't of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990).)"

Chip of SB May 20, 2022 07:22 PM
DUI Checkpoint in Goleta on Friday

2:46, you bring up a very good point. The Supreme Court ruling is what it is. The fourth amendment protects you, unless the government can articulate an alleged public safety benefit outweighs it. Many are arguing for common sense restrictions to reign in abuses of first amendment “rights” and it will be interesting to see if the Supreme Court rules free speech is similarly void when the government determines that a public safety benefit outweighs it.

a-1653155803 May 21, 2022 10:56 AM
DUI Checkpoint in Goleta on Friday

7:22 - Again, you demonstrate your lack of knowledge when you pontificate on subjects. The first amendment is not absolute - I guess you're unaware of the classic examples of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater or advocating for violence. And the phrase is "rein in", not "reign in".

edney May 22, 2022 01:15 PM
DUI Checkpoint in Goleta on Friday

The classic example of yelling fire in a theater is inaccurate today. That Supreme Court ruling was overturned/revised 50 years ago in Brandenburg vs. Ohio
By the way, Justice Holmes' exact quote in 1919 was: "falsely shouting ‘fire’ in a theater and causing a panic". 1. False must be proved. Was fire assumed mistakenly? 2. Was there are panic? (Is simply causing a "panic" illegal?)
Brandenburg 1969 the Supreme Court established that speech advocating illegal conduct is protected under the First Amendment except “where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

If you are in an airplane and say: I have a bomb! The speech is protected but the threat is not because there are laws against making that specific imminent threat in that specific venue.
Or lets use a hostage situation. Man holds gun to head of another and says: I am going to shoot this MF'er. Man gets shot by police. 1. He had gun. 2. Gun was to head of hostage. 3. Threat to kill. 4. Death reasonably seems imminent. Its not a free speech case

Incitement to riot though can easily be turned on free speech. What qualifies as inciting violence?
Incitement to violence requires proof that the defendant intended to incite violence or riot (whether or not it actually occurs). Careless conduct or "emotionally charged rhetoric" does not meet this standard.
The bar is set high here. People can yell "we are going to burn this to the ground" the burning can happen yet the prosecution might plead down to disorderly conduct because it could be seen as just "emotionally charged rhetoric" and only the people who actually did the burning are responsible

a-1653279856 May 22, 2022 09:24 PM
DUI Checkpoint in Goleta on Friday

You cons can obfuscate and rationalize the most egregiously stupid and criminal behavior in your quest to discriminate.

edney May 23, 2022 08:19 AM
DUI Checkpoint in Goleta on Friday

That is a bigoted ignorant statement.
I gave you the link.
You quoted an outdated overturned, revised Supreme Court snippet from 1919. Its a common mistake but it has been 50 years since it was overturned.
I even gave you a couple relevant examples from this century where courts met the threshold you seemed to be reaching for. (Saying you have a bomb on an airplane). There are serious challenges even to the terroristic threat laws... from the ACLU, hardly a "con" operation.

SBStoner May 21, 2022 10:45 AM
DUI Checkpoint in Goleta on Friday

Cops around here love to block traffic, cruise Carrillo or have little meet and greets with each other on the taxpayer dime.

I saw a female officer who looked like she wasnt old enough to have graduated college standing outside of her car to talk to two women in a Lexus. Her car was in the middle of the lane on Haley, and she was talking to a car pulled up in the other lane, two older white women.

I’m not for defunding the police but I am for demanding effective policing if we are the ones funding them.

sbrobert May 21, 2022 11:21 AM
DUI Checkpoint in Goleta on Friday

I found the experience terrifying last night. They blocked the left turn into our neighborhood. I had no idea where to go or what to do. Traffic was backing up. I would not be surprised if their traffic stop and road closure causes accidents. How is this different from "stop and frisk" where 99% of the people stopped are innocent?

SCAJON and CHIP make important points.

MarcelK May 21, 2022 04:52 PM
DUI Checkpoint in Goleta on Friday

Stop and frisk is racial profiling that selects specific "suspicious looking" people. That is wildly different from this.

MarcelK May 21, 2022 04:56 PM
DUI Checkpoint in Goleta on Friday

Also, the claim that Chip makes important points is loony tunes, right up there with you touting fossil fuel shill Patrick Moore as an expert on climate change because he once was associated with Greenpeace.

edney May 22, 2022 02:52 PM
DUI Checkpoint in Goleta on Friday

In and of itself, this is not racial profiling.
Stop and Frisk is Constitutional

"Terry Stop, derived from the Supreme Court case Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). Terry held that a stop-and-frisk must comply with the Fourth Amendment, meaning that the stop-and-frisk cannot be unreasonable. According to the Terry court, a reasonable stop-and-frisk is one "in which a reasonably prudent officer is warranted in the circumstances of a given case in believing that his safety or that of others is endangered, he may make a reasonable search for weapons of the person believed by him to be armed and dangerous."

This has been discontinued by some police departments like Chicago and NYPD because due to the prevalance of gun crimes/shootings in Hispanic and Black neighborhoods, there was also a prevalence of Terry stops. If you apply a simplistic quota based metric like Black population is XX% of Chicago, so proportionally there should only be XX% of Terry stops conducted on Blacks. But if you apply another metric overlay... like crimes involving discharge of a firearm by Blacks is ZZ% of total, then some argue that would be the proper proportional metric to use. Of course, the problem is that law abiding people in those areas get caught up in the mess and their 4th Amendment rights don't go out the window just because there are aholes running about the place.

Here is a Washington Post article noting that in teir view of the data, the policy was ineffective:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/21/12-years-of-data-from-new-york-city-suggest-stop-and-frisk-wasnt-that-effective/

But focusing strictly on guns taken off of the streets, as stops went down 75%, guns taken off the streets went down 40%

The NYCLU notes:https://www.nyclu.org/sites/default/files/stopandfrisk-factsheet.pdf
Their numbers are compelling, but lets look at them critically, for the sake of putting data to a test.

A. 685,724 people stopped. 9 of 10 are not arrested or ticketed. That still leaves 68,572 which fits the "10% of the people do 90% of the crime" seat of the pants metric

B. The NYCLU notes that only 780 guns were confiscated from those 68,572 who taken out of the whole number of stops, 685,724

C. NYCLU notes that in a non stop and frisk year 604 guns were taken from 75% smaller group of 160,851 people stopped, but doesn't give the number arrested. Regardless 4X the stops yielded only 176 more guns. My question would be: Was it worth getting those extra 176 guns out of the hands of people most likely to use them.

D. Murder stats dropped after "stop and frisk" was stopped.
Interesting. I'd noted that gun crimes used to carry long sentences so if every illegal gun carrier is imprisoned, over the years 1000's of people most likely to use a gun were taken off the streets and at some point murders would go down. Also illegal gun carriers are more likely to be killed by another illegal gun carrier so if they are in prison, less likely to get shot and killed on the streets.

I think what this illustrates is the difficulty law enforcement has in "finding the needle in the haystack" ie: finding the illegal gun carrier in the huge haystack of law abiding citizens. I've always noted that the best way to find a needle in a haystack is with a very specific tool targeting a very specific element. A huge, powerful magnet. But even that probably involves some level of "targeting".

I give consent to be searched by TSA, and "Stop and Frisk" is much quicker and less intrusive. I don't carry a gun so its not that big a deal. But that is in a controlled, expected environment. I want to fly, I have to either consent or drive.
But I was once hit with a lane violation (tapped a white line) and the officer saw I'd just picked up a prescription. The prescription label said "May cause drowsiness" so he made me do the roadside tests at 9:30 AM and I was really really irritated... what if someone who knows me or a client sees me?
So I get the tension

dukemunson May 21, 2022 05:23 PM
DUI Checkpoint in Goleta on Friday

It doesn’t seem like the most effective way (or use of resources). But, the again, Like stop and frisk it probably has some value as a deterrent.

Please Login or Register to comment on this.