Warning: Police DUI Checkpoint Set for Friday Night in Studio City

Don't drink and drive, LAPD will patrol Cahuenga Boulevard.

As if it weren't enough of a problem to get through the Cahuenga Pass, there's going to be an LAPD checkpoint on the lookout for drunk drivers Friday night.

The Los Angeles Police Department will conduct a driving under the influence and driver's license checkpoint.

It will begin at 8 p.m. and go on for an unspecified period of time on Cahuenga Boulevard, between Broadlawn Drive and Fredonia Drive.

This is your warning—don't do it!

Need some more convincing? See these stories below . . .

Lightnapper February 25, 2012 at 07:12 PM
One reason the LAPD announces the location of checkpoints is because the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution prohibits unreasonable search and seizures. There must be "probable cause" to arrest based upon "reasonable suspicion" based upon "facts" that a crime has occurred. The US Supreme Court acknowledges sobriety checkpoints infringe upon the 4th. However, state's interest in reducing drunk driving outweighs the infringement of individual rights. Hence, a SC majority ruling, and a "DUI exception to the Constitution." A legal defense which can result in a DUI case being dismissed is to file a "checkpoint suppression motion." If substantiated-- all evidence is then precluded from trial. Case dismissed! In CA, there is a strict legal requirement that before a DUI checkpoint is set up, there must be adequate warning of that upcoming DUI checkpoint, and it's exact location. The media helps to ensure this "legal responsibility" is meet-- along with LAPD Media Relations. In effect, The Patch is actually helping to ensure legitimate DUI's are prosecuted-- rather than the opposite. A driver can always turn before a checkpoint-- another legal requirement and defense loophole.
Lightnapper February 25, 2012 at 07:23 PM
See my comment below. Goggle "DUI checkpoint legality" for a in-depth look at why checkpoint locations are readily "advertised." California legal defenses for DUI include: there was no adequate warning of a DUI checkpoint. there was no supervisor present or in charge of the DUI checkpoint. there was no available route for the driver to turnaway from the DUi checkpoint.
Craig Clough February 25, 2012 at 07:25 PM
Thank you and well put! I was just doing some more research on the topic this morning. The Supreme Court ruled on checkpoints and their legality in 1990. Learn more in this NY Times article - http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/15/us/excerpts-from-supreme-court-s-decision-upholding-sobriety-checkpoints.html?pagewanted=all&src=pmcheckpoints.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
Stu Miller February 25, 2012 at 07:59 PM
OK, I surrender, but a dumb idea is a dumb idea, Supreme Court or not (and please, let's not assume the SC isn't capable of creating, issuing and defending dumb ideas). But, if only one DUI person avoids a checkpoint because of an early warning, takes another route and kills or injures someone, that's two too many.
Craig Clough February 25, 2012 at 11:19 PM
I was unaware of the Supreme Court ruling on this issue until this morning, so I do thank you for raising the question. ( I don't thank you for 'moron, though. We do welcome robust online conversations here at Patch, but it just wasn't necessary.) I was peripherally aware that there were legal reasons the police announce the checkpoints, but I thought it was a preventative measure to strengthen their DUI court cases and to spread awareness. At a glance I can see how us publishing this information would seem reckless, but we would never do something reckless that jeopardized a police operation. I live not far from this checkpoint so trust me, I want to see drunks off the streets too.


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 »