Skip wrote on Nov 30, 2008 6:28 PM:I would really like to know the breakdown of the suspects by race and if they were licensed and insured.

How else can we know if this is racial profiling or racist.

What if we need to start holding candle light vigils for the accused.

Bonedog wrote on Nov 30, 2008 6:30 PM:Seems like an awfully number. They should pull over everyone who changes lanes without using a turn signal, on suspicion that the driver is so toasted that she forgot to use her turn signal. I'd like that! A LOT!!!

Thats.... wrote on Nov 30, 2008 6:46 PM:just what was reported by CHP, what about the rest of the County and City law enforcement agencies, both local and statewide..??? And yes, a breakdown of how many are un-liscensed and un-insured would be a nice footnote too...

leo wrote on Nov 30, 2008 8:21 PM:nice one skip.that candle light vigil for unlicensed drivers cracks me up every time i here it.on a serious note let's never let the radicals ... compromise safe streets for the citizens.

Mexicat wrote on Nov 30, 2008 8:28 PM:To Skip, so basically what you are saying is is that white people are perfect.

Wow wrote on Nov 30, 2008 9:42 PM:The whole state saw declines. Great work EPD - keep up the checkpoints! They're affecting numbers statewide!

dang wrote on Nov 30, 2008 10:37 PM:makes me glad I work during the holiday. I am safer at work than in my car...

juanita wrote on Dec 1, 2008 2:31 AM:Agree with bonedog. Seems like a low number. Maybe drinking drivers are also talking on the phone while driving, so they get away with it. Seems like police don't enfore the phone law, because I see it all the time. Oh, and definitely get those people making the unsafe lane changes, AND the ones who don't signal turns. If someone is in a left-turn lane with NO signal, there should be a legal presumption that the driver intends to go straight. That would make them automatically responsible for any accident that may ensue. Your turn signals INDICATE your INTENTIONN! Let's recognize that. And if they are not on, then you are presumed to INTEND to go strainght!! Bust 'em!

boggled mind wrote on Dec 1, 2008 3:37 AM:Thats alot of drunks.

attaboy wrote on Dec 1, 2008 5:49 AM:go get them judge, tell them they can't drive on Tuesday's for 6 months. How about 6 months home confinement, oh, they will will loose their jobs. Well, maybe when they get their next job they won't drive intoxicated. Thats for 1st time'ers, driving is a privilage, not a right. What do you mean, we'll say lives, ba humbug, there's tax money in boose, and lawyers to get paid. Let's have a drink to that!

DUI Program Counselor wrote on Dec 1, 2008 6:28 AM:And of all these DUI arrests, how many actually had their vehicles IMPOUNDED? Probably too few of them! If CA law had a law like NY (where you LOSE your car permanently for a DUI), then we would see a lot less of these!

Not wrote on Dec 1, 2008 6:48 AM:Mexicat, Skip is just pointing out ONE of the obvious factors we're not informed about because it's PC.

A wine festival will produce notably lower dui's than a strawberry festival held in adjoining towns. Same workers.

News reports on TV won't even advise us it was, in fact, a well-tanned anglo with shoulder length blond hair wearing denim pants and a blue plaid flannel shirt that just robbed a liquor store and is at large and dangerous in a red prius! Or would they?

Gringo wrote on Dec 1, 2008 7:48 AM:Remember that DUI means one beer now days. Most of these were probably not drunks by definition but just an innocent drinker on his way home after one or two beers with his meal while watching the game with his friends.

Hey wrote on Dec 1, 2008 7:54 AM:Arrests of possible DUI's, how many convictions for DUI's??

To Gringo wrote on Dec 1, 2008 8:25 AM:DUI doesn't mean "DRIVING WHILE DRUNK" It's driving under the influence. Some people are more influenced by one beer maybe, than you are. Two beers in a short time period then driving about 20 minutes after the last drink just might put you over the .08%. That number hasn't changed for quite some time now, so chances are, these weren't innocent drinkers.
And to the other posters: Where did race get mentioned in the press release at all?

to Gringo wrote on Dec 1, 2008 8:37 AM:Oh, if life was so simple. You do not give a statistic for "most not drunks" and "innocent drinker". Seems like you have a prejudice (belief without facts) agains DUI stops. First know that one or two beers, especially with a dinner, will most likely NOT register a .08 on the scale unless you are standing right by the meter after downing these beers. All of the equations point to a lot of drinking before a traffic stop and testing. I will give you the point that a field sobriety test is subjective and no one who has been drinking should submit to it (too many problems with the competency of the officer). If you were drinking and got caught the best thing to do is own up and ask for a blood or urine test only - of course you will get a ride to the police station but YOU SHOULD NOT DRINK AND DRIVE...

OH OH wrote on Dec 1, 2008 8:39 AM:The ACLU and illegal Activist are going to be mad. They don't like pulling over or stopping drivers regardless of what they are doing. Obviously the CHP are being racist. I am sure they were only targeting Illegals and accidently got the other offenders. Anyone should be able to drive with no license, no insurance or under the influence. Just ask the ACLU and Illegal Activists

Freitag wrote on Dec 1, 2008 8:43 AM:Thank you to the men and women of the CHP and the other law enforcement agencies for ridding us of these DUI "terrorists" who kill or injure innocent people everyday on California's highways.

Gringo wrote on Dec 1, 2008 8:55 AM:My point is. There is nothing wrong with having a beer or two if you plan on driving as long as you wait the amount of time it takes to register below the legal limit for your body weight. But the minute you tell the any officer you had anything to drink they automatically assume you have exceeded the limit and start the field sobriety
procedure. In my case I have bad balance and I am become extremely nervous around police and perform badly regardless of sobriety in which case I would be mistaken of having too many and would be given a false field sobriety check and would be incovenienced by having to be processed and released only after they discovered my blood alcohol was indeed below the legal limit after all.

Scooter wrote on Dec 1, 2008 9:42 AM:Man, Gringo, I don't know what you do for a living, but you should be writing comedy!! That is the funniest post I have read in a long time! Thanks for a good laugh to start the week!

Oh No wrote on Dec 1, 2008 10:50 AM:Why is it that driving at .08 alcohol level your legally intoxicated. But for a trucker driving a commercial truck your legally intoxicated at .04
Another crazy California law. Maybe it should be changed to .06 for both automobiles and commercial truckers.
I don't drink, but was always curious why they have two different levels.

Hey Gringo wrote on Dec 1, 2008 10:52 AM:Thats why they have those portable breath divices in there police cars

DonkeyPunch wrote on Dec 1, 2008 11:08 AM:Go Gringo!! GO... Gringo is the king of comedy.. I agree with Gringo 100% of the time... Gringo is always right and very funny at the same time... Gringo for Mayor!!!GRINGO FOR MAYOR!!.. paid for by the eagles point counsel for "Gringo for mayor" committee

Arlo wrote on Dec 1, 2008 11:08 AM:Great job there CHP. Thank you for keeping me and my family safe! That goes for the rest of you LEOs out there too.

BAC content wrote on Dec 1, 2008 11:26 AM:everyone receives one of these forms when they get their registration-why not see where you fall for your weight/time frame so you can stay SAFE and not register a .o8. It is surprising how fast you can reach that limit !! You have to stay at no more than ONE DRINK PER HOUR for the first 2 hours....than it goes up QUICK.

robert wrote on Dec 1, 2008 11:57 AM:mr gringo, who do you think you are? sugesting its ok to drink, then drive is the dummest thing ive heard!

and for those phones, i was 13 when i was hit by a car driven by someone talking on a phone. i would not have been hit had the driver not been on a phone. tikets, jail, liscense revocations anyone?

lets get the 50% who dont know how to drive off the road. it might help with traffic to since there wouldint be so many accidents either.

Gringo wrote on Dec 1, 2008 12:15 PM:RE:Hey Gringo
Good point. However, I have the right to deny the breathalizer. Because frankly I believe these devices need to be calibrated regularly and I don't trust that every officer or dept is that conscientious.

Gringo wrote on Dec 1, 2008 12:18 PM:Just for the record the comment posted by DP @ 11:08AM is not me.

We had enough wrote on Dec 1, 2008 12:40 PM:Wild Turkey for the following day:)

Gringo wrote on Dec 1, 2008 12:58 PM:Re: to Gringo
Blah, blah, blah, blah drunk driver, blah blah.

Pink Power Ranger wrote on Dec 1, 2008 2:22 PM:boggled mind
[-] wrote on Dec 1, 2008 3:37 AM:Thats alot of drunks.

-----------------------------
That's alot of idiots that aren't functioning in this century....
drunk driving is ignorant period.

I think....oh yeah here I go again thinking...drunk driving should be right up there with attempted murder or the like.
When you drive while under the influence that vehicle is a weapon.
Take away the vehicle & the license.
Misuse is no excuse !
No warnings, no coppin pleas,no deals....it's OVER the first time.

Scooter wrote on Dec 1, 2008 3:22 PM:"However, I have the right to deny the breathalizer. Because frankly I believe these devices need to be calibrated regularly and I don't trust that every officer or dept is that conscientious."-Gringo

I wonder if having the right to deny the Breathalizer test makes you more or less nervous than talking to a Police Officer or has any additional effect on your balance?!

You just get funnier and funnier!!!!

To You All wrote on Dec 1, 2008 5:54 PM:Ladies and gentlemen it is illegal to drive even if you have had one beer or one shot. If you are not drunk you are "Driving While Impaired-DWI." which is also illegal. If you take any kind of medication that warns of not driving while taking it-prescribed or not you can be arrested and go to jail. "One or two beers or wine with dinner oh I am fine to drive" as you plow into a family going to dinner themselves. yeah keep thinking that and we will read about you in the newspaper. Another statistic HUH.

Scooter wrote on Dec 1, 2008 6:31 PM:Are you drunk?

Scooter wrote on Dec 1, 2008 9:10 PM:To "Scooter" Are you drunk?-

Nope; got over the "thrill" of that many, many years ago. I have no "fear" of being asked to perform a sobriety test, I'm not afraid of Police Officers, and I don't have balance problems either! I do find humor in folks that have more excuses for bad behavior than willpower to stay away from the behavior in the first place. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck....

Thanks for asking though!

To Gringo wrote on Dec 1, 2008 9:26 PM:I'm assuming you know all this because it's actually happened to you? The officers that are out arresting DUI's aren't the rookies. If you say you've had one drink, I'm probably going to be able to either confirm that with a quick conversation and look at your eyes, or debunk that as the normal response from someone that I'll arrest for DUI.
As for your rights, you can refuse any FST's, but then if the officer has any decent driving actions against you, that would constitute your "admission of guilt" as the jury will be instructed at your trial. What you don't the right to refuse is the chemical test if you are arrested, ie. blood or breath. Have fun with your "one drink." I'll be looking for you.....

Uh Oh wrote on Dec 1, 2008 11:26 PM:Why must they discriminate against the drunks of the county, we are a group and we must be represented by people that like to obstruct the law.
Yes it is stupid and irresponsible to drive under the influence, but we drunks do it because we have to get to work and get our food and get more to drink. You just don't like us and you are targeting us.
Where are all the alcohol activists who will stand up and fight against this law that saves lives and is totally within the laws, but doesn't bend because I like to get my buzz on and then drive recklessly and without any regard for anyone else on the road. I want my candle light vigil.

dumb drivers wrote on Dec 2, 2008 6:30 AM:It doesn't matter what race the drunk driver is. If the statistics show the drunk drivers were all black, does that mean you will take the law into your own hands and scrutinize and discriminate every black driver on the road? The best thing to do is to not support anyone who drinks and then decides to drive.If you think it's okay to drink even a sip of beer and then get in a car and drive, then you are the one who is willing to endanger the rest of the population with your risks.

Serious Cop post wrote on Dec 2, 2008 8:44 AM:There was a comment at Dec 1, 9:26 PM that is obviously from a police officer. Read it and understand the attitude of any officer who stops you. IF YOU HAVE HAD A DRINK - YOU ARE PRESUMED DUI BY ANY OFFICER. That is their choice and you have yours - by law - The FST (field sobriety test) is a subjective test that you have no defense against and do not have to take. If you have had a drink - do not take the FST... Even if you were to pass it with a judge standing by, the officer has the right to say you failed - it is his subjective test. He can think anything: are you a pretty blond? are you a celebrity close to home? are you a politician who controls his raise? - it is a subjective test! If you have had a drink - be polite, do not admit to the drink (that is self incrimination of a crime) ask for a urine or blood test.. You will have to go to a technician, probably jail, but it at least that puts you in a truthful, fact finding enviornment that is not subject to the prejudice, bias, bigotry, intelligence or lack of, when 'tested' by a police officer. Always remember what the divorced spouse has to say about a cop!

Umm.. wrote on Dec 2, 2008 8:55 AM:If one 'beer' is what it takes to get you swerving across lanes or otherwise making stupid, attractive moves- then so be it. You are *DRUNK*, got it?

Commentor wrote on Dec 2, 2008 9:39 AM:The argument appears to be over legal limit not ability to handle the amount.

If a driver gets pulled over for a non-dui related traffic violation and the officer happens to ask if he/she has had been drinking today and he/she say's "one drink over an hour ago", the officer is WRONG to pursue the issue and subjecting the driver to harassment if he/she appears sober and cooperative after his initial assessment.

Nanny state wrote on Dec 2, 2008 3:55 PM:Don't drink, don't drink on the beach, don't smoke, plenty of room for chickens that we'll eat, don't hold your phone but talk into it: I'm sick of this nanny state.
All of you should mind your own business and quit worrying about what everyone else is doing. Get a life-

to Nanny state wrote on Dec 2, 2008 6:37 PM:move to Mexico then

To Nanny State wrote on Dec 2, 2008 8:29 PM:It is OUR business when drivers are driving on roads, who are impaired, unlicensed, and not paying attention.
And I will worry what other people are doing, while they are driving on the same road as me.
I agree, you don't like it move down to mexico, they have all the injustices you seem to want.

To The Defense Lawyer wrote on Dec 2, 2008 9:13 PM:who was named Serious Cop Post. You must be a defense lawyer to go and tell everyone that the tests are subjective. They aren't quite subjective when it's pretty much a check the box (did or didn't happen) step by step test administered by a well trained officer. That's the only way defense lawyers make money is by making others think that cops are nothing but liars.