Santa Rosa police on Saturday night plan a DUI/license checkpoint.
As is usual, police aren’t saying where, but it’ll be from 8 p.m. Saturday to 3 a.m. Sunday. In the past, Santa Rosa’s checkpoints usually have been scheduled to end at 1 a.m., so this one is unusually extra long. Police couldn’t be reached to explain why.
The checkpoint is funded by a grant from the state Office of Traffic Safety through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
UPDATE: Rohnert Park police Sgt. Aaron Johnson called to say that it’s likely that Santa Rosa police extended the checkpoint hours to cover the time after bars close at 2 a.m. He said Rohnert Park is planning a DUI checkpoint next Friday and it’ll also run until 3 a.m.
Johnson said while the checkpoints don’t net many DUI arrests, they do serve as a great deterrence because word spreads about the checkpoints and that makes people think twice about drinking and driving. He noted that a typical Rohnert Park checkpoint screens about 2,000 drivers. If each car has a passenger, that’s 4,000 people who likely will tell friends about going through the checkpoint, he said.
———
Follow the Road Warrior on Twitter via @PDRoadWarrior
JWMcDonald
Do you think it might be to catch the dregs after the bars close at 2.00am…duh!
December 14th, 2012 8:18 am
Jeremy
These checkpoints are in direct violation of the fourth ammendment of the U.S. constitution and should be outlawed immediately
December 14th, 2012 8:39 am
JCB
Funny, you actually contacted the police to find out why? Maybe it’s because bars stop serving at 2AM and they are trying to catch the drunk drivers that leave after 2AM? By closing the check points at 1AM they are missing the drunk folks that close down the bar.
December 14th, 2012 9:30 am
Road.Warrior
Of course, it makes sense to have the checkpoints up past bar closings. But I was wondering why they changed, why not before. Was it because of past reader comments about the checkpoints ending before bars closed?
December 14th, 2012 9:48 am
jennyjones
“Police couldn’t be reached to explain why”. Just about says everything you need to know.
December 14th, 2012 9:52 am
Maggie`
Never made any sense to me to have DUI stops STOP BEFORE THE BARS CLOSE….HELLO??? Fed up with being stopped on the way back from work at 10 pm, driving home along S.R.Ave and Highway 12 then having to listen to the DRUNKS coming home to their Apt complex AFTER 2 am…
December 14th, 2012 10:08 am
Kevin McGuire
These checkpoints are the low hanging fruit for law enforcement. It’s lot safer for the cops to put up a gauntlet to catch drunks than rounding up the hardened criminals, gangs, thugs and thiefs that pack weapons.
Time to reallocate a majority of the funds from the highway patrol and local cops with radar guns to top notch investigaors looking for the real criminals who kill, rape and steal.
December 14th, 2012 10:32 am
Kevin
I’m sure the grant money that payed for the checkpoint would have been more than sufficient to fund a free taxi service for the evening. It’d be much less invasive too.
December 14th, 2012 10:38 am
yule
So many misconceptions, so little space …
Santa Rosa had 82 killed or seriously injured by drunk drivers last year. There were 2 murders and 56 rapes.Don’t you think cops should be concerned about all of them, or don’t you think those 82 are worth anything?
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that sobriety checkpoints meet the Fourth Amendment standard of “reasonable search and seizure.” The Court is, by force of Article III of the Constitution itself, the final arbiter and interpreter of the Constitution. We may not like what they rule. There are plenty of other decisions I don’t like. We may not agree with what they rule. But what they rule is law until reinterpreted by a later court. We can whine, we can rail, but they win, because the Constitution itself says so.
Patrols are meant to catch active drunks, get them off the streets and prosecute them. Checkpoints are highly visible, highly publicized events meant to deter drinking and driving in the first place.
Patrols have little deterrent value, but high enforcement value. Checkpoints have been shown to have the potential to lower DUI fatality rates by up to 26 percent by virtue of their deterrence. People go through them, drive past them, hear about them via multiple grapevines and get the ongoing impression that drunk driving is dangerous, socially unacceptable, and that law enforcement is actively looking for it. In terms of catching drunks, nothing beats patrols. In terms of saving lives, nothing beats checkpoints.
Even when free or low cost alternatives are given to them, the majority of people want to drive themselves home. That’s human nature and drunk nature.
December 14th, 2012 12:14 pm
PeterM
“Santa Rosa had 82 killed or seriously injured by drunk drivers last year”
Really? Can you provide a citation for this curious data, please?
The data I WAS able to find was from 2009, in which there were 7 fatal accidents, of which 1 was caused by drunk driving.
So our fatality rate went up 11 time in three years? Now THAT would be noteworthy.
Could you please clear up the misconceptions about fraudulent data?
December 14th, 2012 1:06 pm
PeterM
“We may not agree with what they rule. But what they rule is law until reinterpreted by a later court. We can whine, we can rail, but they win, because the Constitution itself says so.”
Right, and that’s why nobody ever brings up Rowe vs. Wade.
December 14th, 2012 1:08 pm
sheryl
Driving is a privelege, not a right. It’s not unlawful for the police to stop anyone to check driver’s licenses, insurance and such.
December 14th, 2012 1:21 pm
Skippy
Every driver who passes the checkpoint exam should get a little sticker that says “I didn’t drink and drive”, kinda like when you vote.
Maybe with a drawing of a martini glass with a red slash across it….
December 14th, 2012 2:56 pm
Dave
It never fails to amaze me, the same people that (complain) about Law enforcement not doing enough then when they do, (complain) again. Imagine someone you love being killed by a drunk driver then you would change you tune.
December 14th, 2012 3:46 pm
yule
Peter M, first notice that I said 82 killed or seriously injured. Your count was just killed and did not contain seriously injured. And my source is the California Office of Traffic Safety Collision Rankings for Santa Rosa – http://www.ots.ca.gov/Media_and_Research/Rankings/default.asp. Check “alcohol involved” under “victims killed and injured”.
As you will be able to see, all is documented.
December 14th, 2012 5:19 pm
kevin mcguire
Lets be clear. We all care if one person dies from a drunk driver or a gun slinging gang member.
The funds need to be allocated proportionaly to the cirmes being inflicted and their severity.
My point is our “law enforcement” disportionatly goes after the cash crimes; speeding, parking, while the gang force recently was proud to announce the addition of one new member. Really? ONE! We had a hooker/rape victim at our door one night (in SR) and the slashed Sheriff force took 30 minutes to arrive because the closest unit was that far away. But they caught a speeder on 101 going 75 and we’re all safer? REALLY???!!!
December 15th, 2012 7:15 am