Escondido Police Department’s great reveal about its Jan. 28 DUI/Drivers License checkpoint took some reading between the lines to get the rest of the story.
Nowhere in Lt. Mike Kearney’s “Sobriety Enforcement Results” was the most pertinent subject of a DUI/Drivers License checkpoint revealed in so many words.
Which is to say, yet again, the sobriety enforcement roadblock yielded no DUI suspects.
“Checkpoints are placed in locations that have the greatest opportunity for achieving drunk and drugged driving deterrence and provide the greatest safety for officers and the public,” Kearney said in a DUI Checkpoint Results news release issued Feb. 25.
In the case of last month’s checkpoint, Centre City Parkway and Decatur Way was the chosen location for the checkpoint. Coincidentally, that’s across the street from Escondido Police Department headquarters at 1163 Centre City Parkway.
So, the greatest opportunity to catch drunk drivers is when they zip past the one place in the world they wouldn’t want to be seen, i.e. police headquarters. Must be true, as this location has been used at least four times before in the last year.
“A major component of these checkpoints,” Kearney said, are the deterrent effects it has on those who might drive alcohol or drug impaired, bringing about more awareness and encouraging everyone to use sober designated drivers.”
Another major component in the effort apparently is the annual state of California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) grants through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for the checkpoints that pay for equipment and salaries of officers — they receive overtime benefits.
In the past, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers have participated in the DUI checkpoints, although they weren’t specified as participating in last month’s effort.
OTS awarded $310,000 in both Nov. 2015 and Nov. 2016 for year-long programs “of special enforcements and public awareness efforts to prevent traffic related deaths and injuries.”
The latest Escondido DUI checkpoint across the street from the police department resulted in the following stats:
- 1111 vehicles drove through the checkpoint.
- 562 vehicles were screened in primary.
- 25 vehicles were sent to secondary screening (drivers who could not produce a driver’s license or who were suspected of being under the influence of alcohol or drugs)
- 8 total citations were issued during the checkpoint. (2 for suspended license and 5 for unlicensed driver, 1 for no insurance.)
- Educational material was distributed regarding DUI problems.
A full accounting of all Escondido police DUI checkpoint results from January 2013 through January 2017 can be found at http://escondidocheckpoints.blogspot.com.
While the latest Escondido non-DUI, DUI checkpoints merely have been targeting driver non-DUI infractions, that hasn’t always been the case.
A 2012 ACLU research study “Wrong Turn: Escondido’s Checkpoints and Impound Practices Examined” found that Escondido police had used the checkpoints from 2004-2012 to enrich city coffers through vehicle impound fees and detain and deport illegal immigrants.
Popular outcry, however, stopped the practice of using the checkpoints to harass and impede immigrants and their cars, and no such evidence of that practice has been found in the last three years, by officials accounts.
DUI checkpoints are authorized in 38 states. Checkpoints generally net relatively few drunken-driving arrests, but police and other experts say they have deterrent and educational value.
“DUI checkpoints are proven to be effective at deterring drunk drivers,” said Barbara Harsha, executive director of the Governors Highway Safety Association. “The goal is not to write tickets or make arrests but rather to remind the public that they should drive sober or face serious consequences.”
Critics of sobriety checkpoints say they are less effective than random patrols and encroach on civil liberties. Some police argue that if drivers can pinpoint the locations of DUI checkpoints, some will drink all they want, and then drive on roads that skirt the crackdowns.
Roving DUI patrols also are considered more cost effective. “Each roving patrol costs about $300, while a single sobriety checkpoint can cost between $8,000 and $10,000,” said Sarah Longwell, managing director of the American Beverage Institute.
“States should resist enforcement measures that try to catch drunken drivers in the checkpoint traps they already know to avoid,” Longwell said. “Instead, let’s use our tax dollars and our police officers more efficiently by utilizing roving patrols.”
In the age of cell phones these check points are obsolete. I have been at parties where people who leave early have phoned back to the party to let the host know where the checkpoints are! This is passed on to those attending so that you know to take alternative routes if they have had a drink or two. Let’s spend our tax dollars wisely.
What a crock! This rag claims to have the “best practices of old school journalism,” yet allows for this kind of uninformed, unresearched, obviously biased “reporting”? Barbara Harsha has not worked for the Governors Highway Safety Association in over three years. The American Beverage Institute is the PR agency front for the bar industry.
You make several inferred accusations without actually doing the work to check them out. Location suspect? By law they must be in places of high arrest or high crash rates. If you suspect something is not right, do your reporter’s job and research it to see. ICE participation? Go ahead and call them up and ask, not just leave it as an unanswered point hanging out there as if it were legitimate today. Trump loves his Tweet ending one words. Try this for the reporting in this story – lazy.
As for the researched facts, when you look at DUI Checkpoints vs. DUI Patrols, you have two different tactics with two different expected outcomes.
Checkpoints are highly visible, highly publicized events meant to deter drinking and driving in the first place. Checkpoints have been shown to have the potential to lower DUI fatality rates by up to 20 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.
Patrols are meant to catch active drunks, get them off the streets and prosecute them. Patrols have little deterrent value, but high enforcement value. They are both good tactics and both should be in the arsenal of DUI combating tactics, along with others. In terms of catching drunks, nothing beats patrols. In terms of saving lives, nothing beats checkpoints.
Apparently the Escondido Grapevine doesn’t approve of comments about its reporting. Not only didn’t my comment post, they didn’t even have the professionalism to email me as to why they didn’t post. Although it’s easy to see, since it was all about them.
Comment:1 What a crock! This rag claims to have the “best practices of old school journalism,” yet allows for this kind of uninformed, unresearched, obviously biased “reporting”? Barbara Harris has not worked for the Governors Highway Safety Association in over three years. The American Beverage Institute is the PR agency front for the bar industry.
Reply1: A. Rude leading with “What a crock” Screw you, too; B. So what if Barbara Harris hasn’t worked there for three years, her comment is valid, so what if it’s a pr agency for bar industry, they represent the bar industry, so what’s not valid about a viewpoint expressed from a perspective.
Comment 2:You make several inferred accusations without actually doing the work to check them out. Location suspect? By law they must be in places of high arrest or high crash rates. If you suspect something is not right, do your reporter’s job and research it to see. ICE participation? Go ahead and call them up and ask, not just leave it as an unanswered point hanging out there as if it were legitimate today. Trump loves his Tweet ending one words. Try this for the reporting in this story – lazy.
Reply2: “By law they must be in places of high arrest or high crash rates.” How do YOU know that’s a high crash zone? High arrest zone? Yeah, the police department headquarters probably is a high arrest location, d’uh. You also don;t cite the “law” that says they must be in those zones. What law? They can set their checkpoints literally anywhere. As for ICE participation, ICE participated from 2004 to 2013, the story clearly states they were not confirmed as participating. Lazy? Not really, your point is minor and ill-considered.
Comment3: As for the researched facts, when you look at DUI Checkpoints vs. DUI Patrols, you have two different tactics with two different expected outcomes.
Checkpoints are highly visible, highly publicized events meant to deter drinking and driving in the first place. Checkpoints have been shown to have the potential to lower DUI fatality rates by up to 20 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.
Reply3: Plenty of sources dispute your claims that the publicity is worth the money and plenty say the best way to deter DUI is through roving patrols, not the BS checkpoints. Just like everybody is aware that cancer is deadly, EVERYBODY is aware that DUI is bad. Nobody in the world says otherwise, so this tactic being used as so-called “education” is bogus. your 20 percent claim on fatality rates is unsourced and BS.
Comment4:Patrols are meant to catch active drunks, get them off the streets and prosecute them. Patrols have little deterrent value, but high enforcement value. They are both good tactics and both should be in the arsenal of DUI combating tactics, along with others. In terms of catching drunks, nothing beats patrols. In terms of saving lives, nothing beats checkpoints.
Reply4: What’s important is getting DUI’s off the streets, so that’s good. Please apply the $300,000 to something that works, not BS. Your assertion “in terms of saving lives, nothing beats checkpoints.” is unsourced and BS.
Comment5: Who are you? Please identify your location and profession. Your tone and comments were rude and stupid, which is why I didn’t post them. I also didn’t want to waste my time with an idiot, but I have now. so there.
“Rude leading with “What a crock” Screw you, too.” — You are right. I wrote this thinking that it was from a reporter at a news site, not a blogger. I should have been more politic.
“So what if Barbara Harris hasn’t worked there for three years, her comment is valid” — Why not find out what the current executive director says? Perhaps the organization’s position has shifted over time. At what point does a quote become stale?
“So what if it’s a PR agency for bar industry, they represent the bar industry, so what’s not valid about a viewpoint expressed from a perspective.” – Readers should know it so they can weigh the validity.
“By law they must be in places of high arrest or high crash rates.” How do YOU know that’s a high crash zone? High arrest zone? Yeah, the police department headquarters probably is a high arrest location, d’uh.” — I don’t know that’s a high crash zone. If it’s not, then a good DUI defense attorney could get an arrest thrown out. Most cities overlay maps showing DUI arrests and DUI crashes to show the “hot spots” and place their checkpoints accordingly. As a journalist, you perhaps should ask them how they do it. Maybe they are doing it wrong, which should be pointed out.
“You also don;t cite the “law” that says they must be in those zones. What law? They can set their checkpoints literally anywhere.” — The smallest amount of research would show that there is case law that covers this. The law is a combination of California Supreme Court findings (Ingersol v. Palmer, Calif. v. Banks) with guidelines outlining what circumstances would make a checkpoint allowable under the Constitution. Both are quite famous and any journalist covering this area should be very familiar with them. Upon reading it, you will find that they cannot “set their checkpoints literally anywhere.” Here is the section from Ingersoll quoted directly – “The sites chosen should be those which will be most effective in achieving the governmental interest; i.e., on roads having a high incidence of alcohol related accidents and/or arrests. (See State v. Coccomo, supra, 427 A.2d 131, 134.) Safety factors must also be considered in choosing an appropriate location.”
“As for ICE participation, ICE participated from 2004 to 2013, the story clearly states they were not confirmed as participating. Lazy? Not really, your point is minor and ill-considered.” — When does something that happened in the past become unworthy of a passing mention? Apparently longer than three years.
“Plenty of sources dispute your claims that the publicity is worth the money and plenty say the best way to deter DUI is through roving patrols, not the BS checkpoints.” — They are not just my claims. They are the claims of NHTSA, NSC, CDC, and universities, state governments, independent researchers, and dozens of studies in the U.S. and around the world. For a couple of international meta-studies and to answer “your 20 percent claim on fatality rates is unsourced and BS,” check out http://www.thecommunityguide.org/mvoi/mvoi-AJPM-evrev-alchl-imprd-drvng.pdf . The studies covered had fatality rate drops varying from -3% up to +26%. I said up to 20% because I tend to throw out the extremes, when the high average works well enough.
“Just like everybody is aware that cancer is deadly, EVERYBODY is aware that DUI is bad. Nobody in the world says otherwise, so this tactic being used as so-called “education” is bogus.” — I don’t like to see them use “education” either. It’s really public awareness or social norming. First, though, not everyone agrees that DUI is bad. A giant problem are those, often alcoholics but including plenty of the self-deluded, who think that they really can handle the booze and that their driving is not bad. Everybody else, but not them. And obviously, with roughly 7% of drivers on the road under the influence of alcohol between 9 p.m. to midnight on Friday and Saturday nights, there is a communication gap. Checkpoints are designed to be the up-front, highly publicized, in-your-face communication to a wide audience. Patrol busts communicate to one person – the driver.
“What’s important is getting DUI’s off the streets, so that’s good.” – you are right, and so is keeping people from hitting the streets as a DUI in the first place, which is why both checkpoints and patrols are recognized tactics, not mutually exclusive. They work together.
“Who are you? Please identify your location and profession.” — I am not a cop, nor have ever been, nor affiliated with any law enforcement agency. I am a safety advocate and former journalist that just wants to counter misinformation.
“Your tone and comments were rude and stupid, which is why I didn’t post them. I also didn’t want to waste my time with an idiot, but I have now. so there.” – Well, I guess you told me! I’ll keep looking and if I see more misinformation, I’ll let you know. I’m sure you won’t post it, but at least you will have the facts, not old quotes and errors.
You still haven’t said who you are and where you’re coming from, plus you didn’t answer any of my comments directly. Simply repeating what you said without attribution doesn’t make it any ore accurate. You a former journalist? Where? What school? What’s your actual profession? As for my journalism background, I have reported and edited at The Arkansas Democrat (now Democrat-Gazette), Albuquerque Journal, UPI, St. Pete Times (now Tampa Bay Times), Sacramento Bee, North County Times, Rancho Santa Fe Record, Valley Center Roadrunner; won first place awards for local news coverage and investigative reporting from the California Newspaper Publishers Association (CNPA- the state press association) and investigative reporting from the Florida Press Association as well as was named ag writer of the year by the California Farm Bureau. Also have been a fellow at the Knight Digital Media Center, University of Southern California. I don’t feel like spending all my time on a DUI story that is accurate to deal with endless minutia that you apparently have the time to pursue, nor do I need to waste time informing you of various online news techniques with which you are unfamiliar; you strike me as one of those alt-right weirdos from the tone and type of your comments, so please tell me you aren’t. As for using old quotes, this story, in case you haven’t noticed is simply a follow-up from previous stories of the same type, so older material was affixed for depth. This is a COMMON news service practice referred to as “turning around” a story. As far as fact checking and letting me know, no problem with that, I appreciate the feedback actually since it shows you care, so that’s OK.