.

Holiday DUI Arrests Spike in Orange County

The California Highway Patrol arrested 44 suspected drunk driver on OC roads over Thanksgiving.

California Highway Patrol officers in Orange County arrested 44 suspected drunken drivers from Wednesday evening to 6 a.m. Saturday, seven more than the tally for the same Thanksgiving holiday period last year.

DUI arrests were only those made by CHP officers.

There were no fatalities reported for the same Thanksgiving holiday period either year. Fatalities were for all law enforcement agencies.

This year 11 vehicle occupants were killed over the holiday period in the CHP's jurisdiction statewide. Six of them did not wear safety belts. Two motorcyclists were killed in the CHP's jurisdiction. Both of them were wearing helmets. No pedestrians or bicyclists were killed this holiday season.

CHP officers throughout the state arrested 840 suspected drunken drivers on freeways and on roads in unincorporated areas during the reporting period, 63 less than the same time period last year, according to the CHP.

Statewide, 17 traffic fatalities were reported this year. Law enforcement agencies reported 14 people were killed during the same Thanksgiving weekend period last year.

The CHP investigates all crashes on freeways, and on all roads in unincorporated areas.

 - City News Service

Andromeda November 26, 2012 at 04:20 PM
Then why not promote random warrantless searches on our homes too, Mr. Friedrich? Let the police search our homes without our consent and without a warrant signed by a judge for 'our own safety'. Who knows? They could find narcotics, illegal prescriptions or even an unlicensed gun and possibly save someone's life. If the police could save just one life wouldn't warrantless seaches of our homes be worth it, Mr. Friedrich? And instead of walking to Rob Zombie's concert we could all goose step over there together. Wouldn't that be fun??? Drunk driving checkpoints is just a way for cops to accumulate huge OT paychecks and violate the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. It's disgraceful that such practices are allowed in these United States of America - the so-called "land of the free and home of the brave". I salute those States that have determined the checkpoints to be unconstitutional and and a violation of their citizen's inalienable rights. (to be continued)
Andromeda November 26, 2012 at 04:21 PM
(continued) And if you took the time to research the facts you would clearly see that the per capita death rate from drunk driving is just as high in States with checkpoints than it is in those without checkpoints - which completely destroys your argument that checkpoints make us safer. If the cops are really that interested in stopping drunk drivers why don't they put undercover police cars in bar parking lots and watch as drunk patrons leave the bars, get into their vehicles, drive away and then pull them over for DUI's??? Is it because they prefer not to disrupt commerce, Mr. Friedrich??? heh. Commerce is more important than a human life, isn't it, Mr. Friedrich??? But violating the rights of law-abiding citizens is okay. Hypocrites. I don't expect a response here. I think we've reached the end of the discussion. Logic wins again.
Andromeda November 26, 2012 at 04:33 PM
Groping small children or grandma's in wheel chairs at airports dehumanizes and desensitizes the masses by forcing them to submit to disgraceful actions by authorities. It is a form of forced compliance that Hitler would have been proud of. There has never been an act of airline terrorism committed by a small child or a grandma in a wheel chair. All of these acts have been committed by muslim males, if you check the records. Yet we are told the authorities are prohobited from 'profiling'. What an absurdity. And, Mr. Friedrich, it doesn't matter whether one is a teetotaler and hasn't had a drink for decades. He is FORCED to pull his car over to the side of the road and comply with orders from authorities. Is that the 'freedom' that America boasts about? Sounds more like totalitarianism practiced in Germany in 1939 to me. So even if you follow the rules and don't drink before you drive - you are still punished for your good behavior. That is not my idea of 'freedom'.
MFriedrich November 26, 2012 at 05:02 PM
Andromeda, Take it easy. You're calling me out in e-mails and stating things I never said. And why? Because I have an opinion on drunk driving enforcement? You seem to believe I'm wrong about this? OK, let's excuse all women from searches. In fact, let's let them all drive drunk. The rest of us will just have to be more careful, because Andromeda equates police investigations of females with sexual assault. What world are you living in? There's no police state, Andromeda, except in your mind. Take off the tinfoil. Nobody's searching your home without a warrant. And female TSA employees aren't assaulting and groping grandmothers and 7 year old children. But it's true. I'll admit it. After decades of PSAs and public education imploring and begging people NOT to drive drunk, I really don't much care for the excuses anymore for driving drunk. That's my entire point. As far as I'm concerned, the police should take them ALL down. Your "freedom!!!" to drive drunk on the road ends at my niece's crush cranium. Any more questions?
Andromeda November 26, 2012 at 05:17 PM
Naturally you avoided most of the points in my comments, Mr. Friedrich. You just continued your previous comments without responding specifically to my counterarguments. That is an indication that you have no good answers and concede that I won those arguments. You seem to promote profiling drunken drivers by forcing law-abiding citizens to pull over to the side of the road and to submit to orders by the authorities. Since most, if not all, acts of airline terrorism have been committed by muslim males - why not stop all muslim males who enter airports and frisk them and ask them for identification so a background check can be done??? If you promote drunk driving checkpoints certainly you should promote racial profiling "to keep us safer", right, Mr. Friedrich??? And if the police are so interested in our 'safety, why do they chase stolen vehicles @ 100 MPH on our roadways and place innocent families in danger of fatal collisions, Mr. Friedrich? In all your wisdom, please respond!!! heh. And why not make police officers profile bar patrons from the parking lot as they leave the bars to see if they show signs of inebriation and pull them over as they drive away for investigation, Mr. Friedrich??? Wouldn't that be an effective way to keep us safe from drunken drivers??? Oh, but oooops. The City would never allow that because it would be harassing a business owner!!! heh!!!! Got ya, Mr. Friedrich!!! Please respond specifically to my counterarguments.
Shripathi Kamath November 26, 2012 at 05:41 PM
NO. Make alcohol illegal instead. Nobody will drive drunk because once something is made illegal everybody follows the law. It is a FACT!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!1! Maybe they should make drinking and driving illegal. Oh wait...
Andromeda November 26, 2012 at 06:01 PM
Why not just make cars illegal? If people don't have cars to drive that will certainly solve the problem of drunk driving and make us 'safer'. Mr. Friedrich is interested in making all of us "safer". He must be in favor of eliminating all motor vehicles then! :^)
MFriedrich November 26, 2012 at 06:06 PM
Q1: "Then why not promote random warrantless searches on our homes too, Mr. Friedrich?" A: Warrantless searches don't fly. In 1990, the US Supreme Court decided that properly conducted sobriety checkpoints to be constitutional Judges said the state's interest (citizen's interest, a.k.a. greater good) outweighs the minor infringement of an individual's constitutional right. Q2 "If the cops are really that interested in stopping drunk drivers why don't they put undercover police cars in bar parking lots...? Is it because they prefer not to disrupt commerce, Mr. Friedrich? Commerce is more important than a human life, isn't it, Mr. Friedrich?" A: Police do this already, so the answer is yes they do. They also come into bars and arrest drunks and disorderlies. Q3: "But they have no problem with interfering with the lives of law-abiding motorists with their drunk driving checkpoints. The system is a scam." My law-abiding life is interfered with on a regular basis, whenever some teenager decides not to use the turn signal to cut across 8 lanes of traffic. There are varying degrees of "interference". The police deploy checkpoints to arrest drunk drivers. It's not a scam. With evidence of non-sobriety or other crimes, they arrest and fine people.
MFriedrich November 26, 2012 at 06:15 PM
Q4: "If you promote drunk driving checkpoints certainly you should promote racial profiling "to keep us safer", right, Mr. Friedrich???" A: No, I would not . The two are completely different, in the same way that a police sting operation to stop prostitution does not equate to peanut butter sandwiches in your lunchbox. I know it's a shock to your attitude about the way the world works, but these are not even remotely related. Well-respected small business owners, teachers, and even 4.0+ students of all ethnic origins break sobriety laws and kill innocent victims. Arrest and fine them all, I say. If they're not sober, then they shouldn't be operating a motor vehicle. Period. Next time, call a cab, buddy. Easy.
MFriedrich November 26, 2012 at 06:24 PM
Q5: "And if the police are so interested in our 'safety, why do they chase stolen vehicles @ 100 MPH on our roadways and place innocent families in danger of fatal collisions, Mr. Friedrich? In all your wisdom, please respond!!! heh." They typically don't chase car thieves at 100 mph speeds anymore. They often deploy helicopters to pursue thieves of stolen vehicles and video tape the escapes for evidence. You're rambling now, aren't you. It's OK. Just say it. You got pulled over and fined for drinking too much one day, and you're still upset about it. It's understandable to be mad. Unfortunately, your poor judgement and assumptions of fact, doesn't give you license to rail on without evidence of the Lake Forest police being pederasts and corrupt Nazis. Some police are corrupt and do wrong in their service. But the majority risk their lives to do good work. I applaud them every time I see them make sobriety arrests in Lake Forest.
Andromeda November 26, 2012 at 06:36 PM
"Warrantless searches don't fly. In 1990, the US Supreme Court decided that properly conducted sobriety checkpoints to be constitutional Judges said the state's interest (citizen's interest, a.k.a. greater good) outweighs the minor infringement of an individual's constitutional right" "You got pulled over and fined for drinking too much one day, and you're still upset about it" Another inaccuracy. I haven't had a moving violation on my record for over 25 years. And I have never ever been arrested or cited for DUI. Wrong. Police can search your cell phone/texts/emails for information if they suspect you were involved in wrongdoing or after an arrest without a warrant. So your claim that warrantless searches are prohibited is factually wrong. "Police do this already, so the answer is yes they do. They also come into bars and arrest drunks and disorderlies" No they don't. Ask any cop. The cities prohibit cops (either overtly or covertly) from targeting bars for drunk drivers since it upsets business owners and hurts commerce. That's the truth. Do your research. "They typically don't chase car thieves at 100 mph speeds anymore." Totally inaccurate. In fact over the Thanksgiving holiday police chased a stolen vehicle in Orange County at high speeds causing a severe multi-car accident on the freeway which shut down traffic for many hours. Holiday motorists were delayed 6 hours or more from reaching their intended destinations. So you are wrong again.
MFriedrich November 26, 2012 at 06:36 PM
Q5: "You seem to promote profiling drunken drivers by forcing law-abiding citizens to pull over to the side of the road and to submit to orders by the authorities." A: No, I don't believe in profiling of anyone. Those are your words. I simply statec that I believe drunk drivers should be arrested and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. They should be treated as any other criminal. I don't much care for the excuses either because there simply are none in this new era of information. The constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens are infringed every day by varying degrees. You brought up the airline security checkpoints as an example. People immensely dislike being searched. They like mechanical-related flight delays even less it seems. Yet while being pissed off for such infringements, inconvenience and delays, they often fail to consider the alternative: Engine failure at takeoff and a crash, a midflight bomb detonation, or a drunk driver careening into an oncoming minivan full of toddlers off to a birthday party at Scooter's Jungle. I take it all back. You're so right Andromeda. Congratulations. You win the internet argument today. The police are all Nazis and racial profilers. Drunk drivers in LF must not inconvenience the law-abiding citizen.
Andromeda November 26, 2012 at 06:41 PM
"No, I would not." Then IMO you are a hypocrite. You are in favor or pulling cars to the side of the road that committed no offense whatsoever under orders of the police to keep us 'safer' yet you opposed racial profiling of muslim males in airports even though most, if not all, acts of airline terrorism have been committed by muslim males. Your logic is totally flawed, Mr. Friedrich. I suggest you choose a side and stick with it instead of waffling back and forth. Enjoy your day.
Douglas Martin November 26, 2012 at 06:57 PM
A friend is a Chief of Police in a northern CA city. He's also the drummer for a country rock band. While leaving a gig in another city he was pulled over by the local cops, right in front of the club. We had all seen the blacked out police cars up the street watching the club. We were in earshot as he laid into the cop. "You lit me up because I looked unsteady walking to my truck? What if I really was drunk, and I tried to evade and blew a light and hit someone? If you thought I was wasted you should have stopped me before I got in the truck. You let me drive away so you could pad your DWI arrests and if you were one of my officers I would fire you on the spot. I'll talk to your cheif in the morning". Of course, we all wish we could talk to a cop like that. But he speakes the truth. He later said he knows of many agencies where it is an unwritten rule that the cops let a suspected drunk drive because DUI's generate a lot more income than a drunk-in-public.
Andromeda November 26, 2012 at 07:02 PM
"No, I don't believe in profiling of anyone" Now you're in denial, Mr. Friedrich. You said that you favor drunk driving checkpoints. That certainly is profiling. It profiles anyone who drives a motor vehicle onto the road where the checkpoint is established, whether they're in violation of the law or not. That is MASS profiling, Mr. Friedrich. So your opposition to racial profiling at airports is, IMO, hypocritical when you favor profiling motor vehicle drivers. Airport profiling should be even more justified since we know that most, if not all, acts of airport terrorism have been perpetrated by muslim males. So your claim to place 'safety' above our individual freedoms is flawed since you are not consistent in your views. I rest my case. :^)
Andromeda November 26, 2012 at 07:12 PM
Chances are even if your cop friend was drunk behind the wheel he would've gotten a free pass just by virtue of being a cop. I think it's the rare exception to the rule when a cop is cited for a DUI. It does happen, but rarely. They call it 'professional courtesy'. And anyone who thinks such a system is not in operation is very, very naive. Mr. Martin, I don't understand your final comment. If DUI's generate lots of income (revenue) who would a cop allow someone to drive drunk? Revenue, after all, is the name of the game. That's the primary reason behind most traffic enforcement. To generate revenue. Someone has to pay for those big fat pensions.
MFriedrich November 26, 2012 at 07:35 PM
Sobriety checkpoints are not mass profiling. But I do favor both sobriety checkpoints and airport security checkpoints. And unfortunately for you, drunk driving is still a crime. So it carrying weaponry on commercial airliners. Now go have a pitcher of beer and drive home. I rest mine :)
MFriedrich November 26, 2012 at 07:37 PM
Andromeda, You're welcome to your own opinion. I've shared mine. My logic is not flawed. You are the one who is confused. Just because I don't tie two completely errant and unrelated ideas together in some mass conspiracy of rights infringement does not equate to you winning an argument. Next time do better.
MFriedrich November 26, 2012 at 07:43 PM
Andromeda, You may be right in your opinion, but in terms of framing an argument, I can see you need some help. I'm not an advocate of eliminating cars. None of my comments above suggest that even remotely. However, now that you mention it, German and Japanese automakers are developing vehicles in the next 8 years that will operate automatically without tactile human control, will obey all moving and speed regulations, to drive eventhe most physically and mentally impaired persons safely home. This is great news no doubt for people such as yourself. :)
MFriedrich November 26, 2012 at 07:46 PM
"Wrong. Police can search your cell phone/texts/emails for information if they suspect you were involved in wrongdoing or after an arrest without a warrant. So your claim that warrantless searches are prohibited is factually wrong." Andromeda, there's no point in arguing with you. You simply do not understand law enforcement. Of course, after a car accident the police and the insurance companies can issue a writ requesting phone records of the car crash victims/perpetrators. This is not filed under warrantless, when an moving violation occurs.
Andromeda November 26, 2012 at 07:49 PM
"My logic is not flawed" I've proved though rational thought that it's inconsistent and flawed. Life is a journey of self-discovery. Like I said, enjoy your day.
Andromeda November 26, 2012 at 07:53 PM
"Sobriety checkpoints are not mass profiling" More denial. Pulling over 200-300 cars by force in order to find one drunk driver is the very definition of mass 'profiling'. Many States have determined it to be unconstitutional for good reason. You need to develop more consistent opinions, sir. Enjoy your day.
Douglas Martin November 26, 2012 at 08:06 PM
Yes, income. Instead of doing the ethical thing - preventing an intoxicated person from getting in a car - they wait until they're behind the wheel so they get a DUI arrest. Much more cash flow through the system than a sinple drunk in public. And I don't agree with your "professional courtesy" take. I work with cops all the time and I have gotten out of things like speeding tickets a couple of times, but cops will pretty much arrest anyone nowadays for DUI. It's a liability thing. They can't just give them a ride home anymore because their every move is tracked, recorded, and searchable, forever. And CHP, especially O'side, would arrest their own mom. Pensions = That's why we all wanted to be cops/firefighters. Work for 30 years, retire at 53, and open a bike shop. The work is physically demanding; after age 50 it's pretty tough to chase a crook over a fence or drag a 350lb diabetic down 4 flights of stairs. They pretty much HAVE to retire 15 years before the rest of us to make room for the young bodies. I applied to LACity Fire when I was 23, and the pension was one of the main reasons I wanted the job. I was accepted but decided to take another path. And now I'm in my 50's WISHING I taken the job!!
Andromeda November 26, 2012 at 08:31 PM
You don't make sense, Mr. Martin. You say that cop's are tracked, recordable and searchable so that they cannot let a drunk driver go free. Yet you say that cops see a drunk staggering out to his car and let him drive away so that they can make a drunk drivng arrest and generate more revenue. Well, if a cop saw a drunk staggering to his car wouldn't have have to honestly report that fact in his official report. Doing otherwise would entail submitting a false (or incomplete) report and perhaps committing perjury on a witness stand. Jurors would ask the same question: Why did the cop allow a drunk to drive away when he could have been prevented from doing so? So are you saying that cops fudge their reports? There are a million ways for a cop who stops another cop driving drunk to provide 'professional courtesy' and leniency. To believe otherwise is very very naive. "Professional Courtesy" (ie. allowing cops to go free after breaking traffic laws) is reknown in law enforcement. Any honest cop would tell you the same. Just because a person became a cop or FF for a fat pension does not justify paying a retired cop or FF as much as a license medical doctor with a $3-$10 million dollar pension at age 50-55. It was born of corruption between the public safety unions and the politicians. Pay for play. The unions bought off the politicians to sell the taxpayers down the river by awarding these massive pensions. The only ones who approve of them are those on the receiving end.
MFriedrich November 27, 2012 at 05:22 AM
"I suggest you choose a side and stick with it instead of waffling back and forth." If you ask someone about a hypothetical scenario with limited details and information, then you'll receive a response that may also be less than perfect. This isn't the part where you do an endzone victory dance because the person you asked gave an imperfect hypothetical answer. With more details of a circumstance, I might make a different and more informed decision. There's nothing wrong with that. That's not "waffling back and forth". That's called considering the facts, using critical thinking skills and applying rational thought. So when you ask me my opinion about a ridiculous hypothetical situation with leading commentary (like "why don't cops just lie in wait to arrest bar patrons? Because it's bad for business!...and omg it's all a huge conspiracy for commerce", I still responded with an answerthat happened to be correct by the way. It is interesting to encounter people like yourself who think that taking a drunk driver or twenty off the road, or apprehending one would-be-airline-terrorist at a security checkpoint, would be in all cases a negative outcome because the effort by law enforcement infringed on the privacy and personal liberty of 100+ people. I agree that it's unfortunate. I'd rather it not have to happen. But what you fail to recognize is that out of a pile of very bad outcomes that would happen, some of them can be a lot "less bad".
Andromeda November 27, 2012 at 05:38 AM
Mr. Friedrich, as a society we could condone 24/7 martial law to make everyone safer. I bet lots of crime could be stopped with martial law. Germany did a great job of suppressing crime in the late 30's and early 40's. However, America is supposed to stand for freedom without the threat of a totalitarian government. Pulling innocent, law-abiding motorists to the side of the road for involuntary searches and interrogations is not my idea of freedom. Sorry. That's where we differ. And, as I said before, it does not make us any safer than States that have outlawed sobriety checkpoints. If you research it you would note that States with checkpoints and those without checkpoints have about the same number of drunk driving fatalities per capita. I guess you could outlaw motor vehicles. That might get you to where you want to go! :^) And if the police are really interested in protecting human lives they should stop chasing stolen cars @ 100 mph on the freeways or on residential streets placing the lives of innocent motorists in grave danger. And they should stop shooting 50,000 volts of electricity into humans with their taser guns which has caused an inordinate number of deaths which we read about all the time. Now there are 2 suggestions to increase citizen safety. Whatdya think?
MFriedrich November 27, 2012 at 06:24 AM
Andromeda, We agree that police sobriety checkpoints infringe upon personal liberty, in very much the same way as a TSA airport security screening, or the end of a long line of patrons wishing to enter a nightclub (after being "mass profiled" because a certain percentage are really < 21 years old and attempting ID fraud). 28 states apply sobriety checkpoints - a majority. The efficacy numbers are mixed. The CDC claims a reduction in alcohol-related crashes by 20% from sobriety checkpoints. In Germany, they still operate field sobriety testings of motorists in 2012. If you are caught drunk driving in Germany, you are banned from driving for 8 months minimum. There are no appeals. This often means losing your job. You also must take mandatory psychological and physical training and pay a Euro 20K fee to re-obtain your driving privileges. I get your frustration about personal right violations and invasiveness of sobriety checkpoints, but there is no evidence that such efforts are being taken to the extremes you mentioned earlier. The USA has the most lenient drunk driving laws on the planet. My attitude about DUI arrests is formed by my experience. I've lost both family and close friends to drunk driving. Moral suasion, S.A.D.D. chapters and billboard ads are not enough. I'm in favor of sobriety checkpoints.
MFriedrich November 27, 2012 at 06:26 AM
So, if sobriety checkpoints are always ineffective and far too invasive of personal liberty, then what do you suggest as an effective deterrent to drunk driving-related accidents and deaths?
Andromeda November 27, 2012 at 06:38 AM
I already told you. If you want to catch a fish you take your pole and go to the water hole. If you want to catch a drunk driver you go to his watering hole and patiently wait until the drunk walks to his car, turns on the ignition and drives away. Then you pull him over. It's so simple it's stupid. But cops are instructed not to do this. That it's not 'fair' and makes the bar owners mad. heh. But they think it's perfectly fair to force innocent law-abiding motorists to pull to the side of the road for forced searches and interrogations. I can't believe people can't figure this stuff out on their own. It's a sad, sad commentary on the state of our society. We're a nation of educated morons.
MFriedrich November 27, 2012 at 04:21 PM
Andromeda, So there's no binge drinking taking place at homes, concerts, company parties, restaurants, sporting events. Just bars. They should just zero-in on the bars parking lots. I'm afraid you underestimate just how pervasive and widespread drunk driving is, particularly in OC. But I already told you that police do this kind of enforcement already. It is a common tactic, and there is nothing illegal about it.According to CA Supreme Court ruling, there are strict guidelines for sobriety checkpoints. I found this list of the 8 key guidelines for CA sobriety checkpoints. It addresses your question about bars only: http://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/dui-and-sobriety-checkpoints?ref=kb_serp_title_6

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »