Quantcast

Is this an example of eroding civil rights?

T-Dog

Monkey
Feb 18, 2004
327
0
different shack, same shotgun
I realize that this is conducted by local government, and not for the purpose of national security but...........



Oakland police halt DUI checkpoints

Immigrant activists say roadblocks discriminate against those without licenses


By Heather MacDonald, STAFF WRITER

OAKLAND -- Oakland police officers have stopped setting up roadblocks to check whether drivers are under the influence because of a rash of complaints from the Latino community and City Council President Ignacio De La Fuente.
The checkpoints, which allow officers to demand licenses and proof of insurance, are an effective way to get drunken drivers off Oakland's streets, city leaders agree. But the checks also have ensnared dozens of illegal immigrants who are not licensed to drive yet otherwise obey the law.

"These checkpoints make people's lives miserable, not make them safer," said Jesus Rodriguez of Oakland Community Organizations, which filed most of the complaints about the checkpoints. "I've watched while the police have towed away cars (full) of groceries, leaving children crying on the sidewalk."



The complaints and pressure from De La Fuente, who represents the largely Latino Glenview-Fruitvale district and plans to run for mayor in 2006, prompted police Chief Richard L. Word to order his officers to hold off on any more DUI checkpoints while new guidelines are drafted.

"The checkpoints are a great tool for law enforcement," Word said. "We'll develop a better focus on drug hot spots and stopping sideshows."

However, the month-long moratorium on checkpoints has outraged Councilmember Larry Reid (Elmhurst-East Oakland), who calls the change a threat to public safety.

"It is absolutely insane to stop these checkpoints," Reid said. "I would not want to explain to a mother why we stopped doing these checkpoints when we know they work and her son or daughter was killed."

Reid also criticized elected officials for "micromanaging" the police department, although he did not single out De La Fuente for blame. Reid and De La Fuente are usually on the same side of issues before the council and recently worked together to propose a measure to raise taxes to hire more police officers.

The new checkpoint guidelines, which are not final, may call for police to notify Latino community organizations of the time and location of coming checkpoints. The checkpoints will be held after the evening rush-hour commute and rotated throughout the city, officials said.

"It's simple common sense," De La Fuente said. "You don't want to stop

people going to or from work. If there are kids in the car, give someone an opportunity to call someone to pick up their kids rather than create chaos."

Legislation that would have allowed illegal immigrants who submit to background checks to apply for a California driver's license was vetoed this week by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Both Word and De La Fuente supported the legislation.

While officers have some discretion, the cars of unlicensed drivers are usually towed. To get their cars back, owners must pay $125, plus any storage fees. That is a significant burden to many illegal immigrants, Rodriguez said.

Reid said he has little sympathy with Rodriguez's position.

"I don't care if they are illegal immigrants," Reid said.

"They should not be driving on our streets without a license, without insurance. I expect the Oakland Police Department to do its job and get them off the street."

The council is expected to take up the issue at its Oct. 19 meeting.

[http://www.oaklandtribune.com/Stories/0,1413,82%257E1726%257E2428344,00.html[/URL]
 

Toshi

butthole powerwashing evangelist
Oct 23, 2001
40,224
9,113
what's your point? posting silly (imo) objections that some people have with the govt does not invalidate everyone's individual beefs with the govt. lisa's rock once more.
 

Slugman

Frankenbike
Apr 29, 2004
4,024
0
Miami, FL
How is this eroding civil rights?

They are making it easier for illegals to stay in the country. They are making it easier for Drunk Drivers to get away with it. They are failing to enforce the laws of the country and failing ot protect people.

If anything this is Political Correctness out of control! The local population is unhappy that their freinds and family are getting caught and deported - so they complain?

I say keep it up. The smart ones have already figured out the system and found a way to get licenses... they are just getting rid of the slackers.
 

Toshi

butthole powerwashing evangelist
Oct 23, 2001
40,224
9,113
i thought that was obvious: no. i've never heard of the right to drive without a license, whether one is an illegal immigrant or not.

if you want stupid pithy comments such as N8 chiming in with his one liners then go ahead, fill this forum up with junk. if you want to argue an issue, argue it directly.
 

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,649
26
SF, CA
Toshi said:
i thought that was obvious: no.
Oh MAN! How did you escape his clever trap?!? I thought he really had you backed into a corner for a moment there...:rolleyes:







Duh. Of course the answer is no.

Although it is true that it wouldn't hurt to:
"If there are kids in the car, give someone an opportunity to call someone to pick up their kids rather than create chaos." Cops don't have any obligation to do so, but it would save them some headaches probably.
 

T-Dog

Monkey
Feb 18, 2004
327
0
different shack, same shotgun
Toshi said:
i thought that was obvious: no. i've never heard of the right to drive without a license, whether one is an illegal immigrant or not.

if you want stupid pithy comments such as N8 chiming in with his one liners then go ahead, fill this forum up with junk. if you want to argue an issue, argue it directly.
I have been debating an issue in the other thread directly. Sorry you think that my questions or ideas for debate are junk, I thought it was relevent. Of course only your opinions are valid.....Next you'll be giving me shiite because I don't have 1000 posts......I think I'll go back to observing. :rolleyes:
 

Toshi

butthole powerwashing evangelist
Oct 23, 2001
40,224
9,113
T-Dog said:
I have been debating an issue in the other thread directly. Sorry you think that my questions or ideas for debate are junk, I thought it was relevent. Of course only your opinions are valid.....Next you'll be giving me shiite because I don't have 1000 posts......I think I'll go back to observing. :rolleyes:
no, it's not because you don't have 1000 posts, it's because (i assume) you're a white male :oink: . (nb: i'm not serious.) sounds like you're falling into the victim trap yourself... :D

i think your comments in the other thread were much more interesting. while they could use some fleshing out (your vague terrorist scenario averted by the govt) they are nothing like this thread, which could only lead to ridicule, as in my post, or backslapping from the i-don't-get-lisa's-rock crowd.
 

T-Dog

Monkey
Feb 18, 2004
327
0
different shack, same shotgun
Actually, there are lots of people here in California who DO think this is a gross invasion of privacy. I'm actually opposed to the checkpoints for a different reason....it takes a perfectly legal activity- having a couple of glasses of wine or beer with dinner and making that an arrestable offense for the drive home. In CA you don't have to be over .08 to be convicted of DUI. And if you told the cop at the checkpoint that you had 2 beers with dinner you'd probably go to jail.

Edit: BTW, I'm actually a blend of two of the most persecuted races in US history: Irish and American Indian. So yeah, basically white. :D
 

Slugman

Frankenbike
Apr 29, 2004
4,024
0
Miami, FL
T-Dog said:
it takes a perfectly legal activity- having a couple of glasses of wine or beer with dinner and making that an arrestable offense for the drive home.
So I can be arrested for doing something legal? :confused:

Seriously... explain this to me, cite some sources too so I can read up on this.
 

Toshi

butthole powerwashing evangelist
Oct 23, 2001
40,224
9,113
T-Dog said:
In CA you don't have to be over .08 to be convicted of DUI. And if you told the cop at the checkpoint that you had 2 beers with dinner you'd probably go to jail.

Edit: BTW, I'm actually a blend of two of the most persecuted races in US history: Irish and American Indian. So yeah, basically white. :D
many races can make that claim, the chinese had it even worse in the railroad building days than the irish from what i've read... :D anyway, it's not a race to the bottom here. i hope.

can you provide a source for this CA dui regulation? i can see how the cops would lock someone up if they refused a breathalyzer, but failing that how can they charge someone with dui if their bac was below the legal limit?
 

BuddhaRoadkill

I suck at Tool
Feb 15, 2004
988
0
Chintimini Bog
T-Dog said:
You didn't answer my question.
The "imigrant' part is a red herring. The real issue is roadblocks, which [unfortunately] where upheld by the Supreme Court.

Sobriety Checkpoints:
[MICHIGAN DEP'T OF STATE POLICE v. SITZ, 496 U.S. 444 (1990)]

Imagration Checkpoints:
[UNITED STATES v. MARTINEZ-FUERTE, 428 U.S. 543 (1976)]

Do roadblocks violate the 4th amendment?
I think so but Rehnquist et.al. do not. There is hope, however:
CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS et al. v. EDMOND et al.

I can see roadblocks in extreme cases [like ebola or rednecks with van loads of manure], but not just because it's friday night. But seeing how the courts have upheld roadblocks for certain safety hazards, they should only be allowed to drag in those violating said hazards. i.e. If it's a sobriety checkpoint, only DUII should be enforced.
 

T-Dog

Monkey
Feb 18, 2004
327
0
different shack, same shotgun
From the State of California Vehicle Code:

Division 11, section 23152 (a) It is unlawful for any person who is under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug, orunder the combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug, to drive a vehicle.

(b) It is unlawful for any person who has 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood to drive a vehicle.

What this has meant in Calfornia courts is that any amount of alcohol or drug can be an influence, and you can be convicted of DUI. 0.08 is the threshold at which your license is suspended. Under that- you can be convicted, you just keep your license but suffer the rest of the penalties. It's the officer's call.

I'd provide a link- but I took that directly from a copy of the vehicle code that I have.
 

BuddhaRoadkill

I suck at Tool
Feb 15, 2004
988
0
Chintimini Bog
T-Dog said:
What this has meant in Calfornia courts is that any amount of alcohol or drug can be an influence, and you can be convicted of DUI. 0.08 is the threshold at which your license is suspended. Under that- you can be convicted, you just keep your license but suffer the rest of the penalties. It's the officer's call.
That is seriously Fvcked up. Sounds to sketchy to be real.
 

Slugman

Frankenbike
Apr 29, 2004
4,024
0
Miami, FL
Why are road blocks bad? I'd prefer to have all the uninsured drivers yanked from the roads. What happens when they hit my car... I get shafted.

And it is an effective method to get drunken drives off of the streets. Would you rather that the officers hope that they spot some drunks by chance, and then have to chase them? We all know drunks make great decisions... have you seen the police chases on TV?

The right to drive a car is not guaranteed by the constitution. It is a privilege that the individual states bestow upon its citizens based on their ability to following the states rules.

So if that state, or a municipality within it, decides that it wants to stop a person to make sure that they are following said rules; That is their right! I could see if they were targeting individuals, but since this is a very random that does not target nor exclude anyone, I do not see the problem.
 

bomberz1qr20

Turbo Monkey
Nov 19, 2001
1,007
0
I say keep the damn blocks up and get drunks AND unlicensed drivers off the road. Both are dangerous.

Of course only a FOOL walks or drives around in East Oakland on a weekend night anyway.
 

T-Dog

Monkey
Feb 18, 2004
327
0
different shack, same shotgun
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/pgs72duichart.htm

They mail a version of this chart out with each driver's license or registration renewal....note at the top it says that amounts under 0.08 may not be safe or legal. The one you get with renewal is even more plain...it clearly states that you may be charged with DUI even under 0.08. I guess it's up to the arresting officer whether or not you were influenced. A gray area if you ask me.....meaning (to me) that any amount of alcohol is unlawful, if you are driving badly enough to suggest impairment. But in the one case I know of personally, it was speeding on the freeway.
 

Toshi

butthole powerwashing evangelist
Oct 23, 2001
40,224
9,113
wow. i would say _that_ is a threat to civil rights. laws with such grey area in their application can lead to no good, since each officers' discretion likely will be as inconsistent as his biases...
 

T-Dog

Monkey
Feb 18, 2004
327
0
different shack, same shotgun
Hot damn, I agree with you on something. Then to add a heavy dose of irony to the situation, off duty cops (in uniform) in SoCal make extra money doing traffic control for events....like century rides and so forth. The so forth also includes an annual wine and beer tasting festival, out at the lake. Your ticket gets you 8 or 10 tastings, and you can buy more or full glasses.....so here's the cops smiling and directing you out onto highway 150 knowing damn well that 99% or so of the drivers are under the influence. Same thing at the Jimmy Buffett concert in Irivine....you're directed out of the parking lot and onto the freeway by Irivine city cops after the show. My point? Don't have one other than it's always struck me as twilitezone-ish.
 

Slugman

Frankenbike
Apr 29, 2004
4,024
0
Miami, FL
T-Dog said:
I guess it's up to the arresting officer whether or not you were influenced. A gray area if you ask me.....meaning (to me) that any amount of alcohol is unlawful, if you are driving badly enough to suggest impairment. [/QUOTE] Wow. If they are saying it is a judgement call, then someone who is at .10 but still "seems" fine should be allowed to drive away... How can a law be so subjective in only one direction(in favor of the cops). Don't get me wrong, I'm all for getting the DUI's off the street - but allowing things to be so subjective is just BS.