.

DUI Checkpoint Planned for Studio City Tonight Along Ventura Bouelvard

Don't drive drunk between 8 p.m. and 2 a.m. or you will be caught in Studio City.

Police will be checking for intoxicated drivers at a pair of checkpoints this weekend, one tonight in Studio City and another on Saturday in downtown Los Angeles.

Officers from the Los Angeles Police Department's Emergency Operations Division will staff a checkpoint on Ventura Boulevard between Blue Canyon Drive and Colfax Avenue from 8 p.m. tonight to 2 a.m. Saturday, according to a department statement.

This is not far from the scene of the fiery crash earlier this month at Tujunga and Ventura Boulevard.

Another checkpoint will be located on Figueroa Street between Eighth and Ninth streets from 8 p.m. Saturday to 2 a.m. Sunday, police said.

"Research shows that crashes involving alcohol drop by an average of 20 percent when well-publicized checkpoints are conducted often enough,'' according to police. Funding for the checkpoint comes from a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, police said.

Maureen Driscoll September 22, 2012 at 12:01 AM
Your subheadline should read "Don't drive drunk." Period. I don't think you should be making it easier for people to avoid these checkpoints by publicizing them. Drunk drivers kill people. Often.
Lightnapper September 22, 2012 at 12:46 AM
On June 14th, 1990, in a 6-3 decision, the U.S. Court found properly conducted sobriety checkpoints constitutional (Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Stiz (1990). Noting checkpoints infringe on a constitutional right, Chief Justice Rehnquist also argued the state’s interest in reducing drunk driving outweighs this infringement. However, properly conducted checkpoints must have specific guidelines to avoid intrusiveness. Checkpoints cannot simply be set up haphazardly. The Supreme Court left it for states to determine safeguards. In Nov. 1990, the National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. issued a report reviewing recommended checkpoint procedures entitled “The Use of Sobriety Checkpoints for Impaired Driving Enforcement”, DOT HS-807-656. A prior decision by the California Supreme Court ruled on the necessary standards for planning and administering a DUI checkpoint (Ingersoll v. Palmer (43 Cal.3rd 1321 (1987)). 1 of 8 recognized standards is-- “Advance publicity is necessary to reduce the intrusiveness of the checkpoint and increase its deterrent effect.”
Lightnapper September 22, 2012 at 12:47 AM
Then People v. Banks (1993) 6 Cal. 4th 926 followed up Ingersoll. "In this case we decide whether advance publicity is a prerequisite to the operation of a constitutionally permissible highway "sobriety checkpoint."” "...we conclude that the operation of a sobriety checkpoint conducted in the absence of advance publicity, but otherwise in conformance with the guidelines we established in Ingersoll v. Palmer, supra, 43 Cal. 3d 1321, does not result in an unreasonable seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution." But in dissent they rule: "For six years the Ingersoll guidelines, including advance publicity, have served the state well by minimizing the intrusiveness of one type of warrantless, suspicionless search.
Lightnapper September 22, 2012 at 12:47 AM
Today, however, the majority concludes that "the United States Supreme Court's analysis of the constitutionality of sobriety checkpoints in Michigan State Police Dept. v. Sitz (1990) 496 U.S. 444 ... establishes that advance publicity is not a constitutional prerequisite to the operation of such a checkpoint." (Maj. opn., ante, p. 931.) What? Perhaps the majority is saying: While the presence or absence of advance publicity is still relevant in assessing intrusiveness, and constitutionality of DUI checkpoints, an unpublicized checkpoint is still constitutional if it adheres to the other seven Ingersoll factors. Basically, it’s just legally clearer if LE adheres to both the U.S. Supreme Court and the CA Supreme Court rulings. This way they are judicially safe. Otherwise, prosecution evidence may be challenged by the defense, and then denied by the court. This is why LE announces DUI checkpoints-- deterrence and to assure the inclusion of evidence gathered during a lawful detainment resulting in a DUI arrest.
Craig Clough (Editor) September 22, 2012 at 01:27 AM
Thank you, Lighnapper. This comes up in the comments section often when we post these stories about DUI checkpoints. The police are required by law to notify the media about them in advance and we are encouraged to publicize them.
Justin Valle September 22, 2012 at 04:37 AM
Think about the kind of idiot that actually starts his night planning to drive home drunk, now ask yourself, "is that the kind of guy that's going to look for checkpoints online before he goes out?" Yeah right! That guy's an idiot who only uses the internet for Pron and Farmville! If the science says it detours, nothing else should matter. Although LN's conclusion is an even better reason for wtf not. The stats will change once there's an app that can collect and map these things.

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