CityofGoleta
Source: Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office
The Goleta Police Department will hold a DUI Checkpoint April 23, 2021 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,” Senior Deputy Jeff Farmer 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.
Every once in a while, your feeble attempts at satire show flashes of sanity. Totally involuntarily, of course.
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.
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:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15276922/
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.
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.
Reality once again deflates speculation:
https://dui.drivinglaws.org/resources/are-sobriety-checkpoints-aimed-at-catching-dui-offenders-legal.html
“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).)”
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.
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…..
Stop and frisk is racial profiling that selects specific “suspicious looking” people. That is wildly different from this.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
You cons can obfuscate and rationalize the most egregiously stupid and criminal behavior in your quest to discriminate.
Edit: I meant to say they love to cruise Cabrillo. Beach drives & pensions, gotta love it
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
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.
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?
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
When did they stop publishing check point locations? People depended on that information so they could drive drunk via another route.
FERNALD – Did they used to? For years, I’ve seen just the general announcements, but not specific locations. For Goleta though, it’s pretty easy to determine as they only do it at like 2 or 3 places, all near UCSB. I’d think posting the locations would make these even more of a waste of resources.
The Supreme Court really needs to revisit this DUI checkpoint issue. They ruled that checkpoints to find illegal drugs are illegal, but in a different case they ruled to allow DUI checkpoints. Ironically, DUI checkpoints seem to catch more people with drugs and other offenses than drunk drivers. These checkpoints are a blatant 4th amendment violation. It reads:
“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.”
Sac, I totally agree with your approach of searching for drivers showing signs of impairment. That approach respects the constitutionally recognized rights of motorists, and I think you are also correct that it is more effective.
CHIP – I agree on this. These checkpoints rarely catch more than a couple drunk drivers. Without using a breathalyzer on each driver (which WOULD be illegal), it is very easy for a drunk to slip though undetected. Not everyone shows the same outward signs of intoxication, especially those who are used to being drunk and are not actively driving (ie, siting in a stopped car). Get out on the road and near bars, liquor stores, party areas, etc and ACTIVELY look for swerving, stumbling, speeding drunks.
Sorry, ** “I agree on this, but for different reasons.”