Sobriety Checkpoint Planned for Sherman Way Friday Night

The LAPD is on the lookout for drunk drivers Friday night.

The Los Angeles Police Department will conduct a sobriety checkpoint on Sherman Way Friday night between Lankershim and Laurel Canyon boulevards.

From 8 p.m. to 3 a.m., officers will be inspecting drivers that pass through the checkpoint to see if they are under the influence and if they have a driver's license.

"The purpose of the sobriety checkpoint is to reduce the number of traffic collisions involving intoxicated drivers and hit and run collisions," a statement from the LAPD read. "The checkpoint will educate the community to use designated drivers and not drink and drive. Our message is simple: If we catch you drunk, you will be arrested."

The checkpoint is funded by the California Office of Traffic Safety through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

ALAN HENDRY August 18, 2012 at 02:47 AM
why have a sobriety checkpoint and then advertise where its going to be ? why would you tell the MANY drink drivers where the sobriety checkpoint is going to be .. WHAT IS THE POINT ? its sad really the police help drunk drivers by giving them a heads up but the calm un-life threatening weed smokers get their pot shops closed DOES ALCOHOL NOT CAUSE MORE DEATHS EVERY WEEK THAN WEED CAUSES IN 10 YEARS .. SO WHY IS WEED ILLEGAL AND ALCOHOL IS AVAILABLE EVERYWHERE .. THESE ARE ONLY TRUE FACTS ..
robert August 18, 2012 at 03:40 AM
I know right? Its what i was thinking. But really, who actually finds out this stuff anyway because it isn't shown on the news.
Lightnapper August 18, 2012 at 05:48 PM
Because-- In 3 Parts 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 August 18, 2012 at 05:53 PM
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. 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.
Lightnapper August 18, 2012 at 05:53 PM
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.


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 »