DUI Enforcement Operations Planned in Concord for 12/28/12 and 12/29/12

December 25, 2012 23:30 pm · 25 comments

Officers from the Concord Police Department’s DUI Enforcement Team will be deploying the weekend of December 28-29, 2012 to stop and arrest alcohol and drug-impaired drivers in the Department’s ongoing traffic safety campaign.

DUI Saturation Patrols will deploy on Friday December 28, 2012 and Saturday December 29, 2012 between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 3:00 a.m. in areas with high frequencies of DUI collisions and/or arrests.

CPD Traffic Sergeant John Nunes said, “This is a ‘Zero Tolerance’ crackdown so Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over!”

In California, this deadly crime led to 791 deaths in 2010 because someone failed to designate a sober driver. After falling dramatically for five straight years, preliminary figures for 2011 indicate an increase in fatalities. Over the course of the past three years, DUI collisions have claimed 7 lives and resulted in 137 injury crashes harming 192 of our friends and neighbors.

DUI can impact the economy in addition to the pain and suffering of those immediately affected. Conservatively, a fatality has a $1.4 million impact, an injury $70,000, and a crash that only damages property averages nearly $9000.

“Despite the recent increases, California’s roadways are still very much safer than they were before 2006,” said OTS Director Christopher J. Murphy. “The Concord Police Department will be keeping the pressure on through enforcement and public awareness so that we can continue saving lives and reach the vision we all share – Toward zero deaths, every 1 counts.”

Funding for this program is from a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety, through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Report Drunk Drivers, Call 911!

DUHHH3x DUI December 26, 2012 at 1:56 AM


DUHHH3x DUI December 26, 2012 at 1:57 AM


kiarfy December 26, 2012 at 10:07 AM


It seems you have more information than anyone else.

kiarfy December 26, 2012 at 10:09 AM


When and where would be a good thing to know/.

Just a Concordian December 26, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Oh really? You guys dont know??? Concord Ave or Monument Blvd.

Avoid… if you remember to do so!

And let me take this opportunity to clue in any of the LEOs reading this, that a more effective checkpoint would be Willow Pass, right after the 680 ramps, on BOTH directions.

A concerned citizen

mileena December 26, 2012 at 10:45 AM


Um, December 28-29 from 7PM-3AM in Concord. Maybe read the article next time?

Anon LE Recruit December 26, 2012 at 11:09 AM

No need to avoid them just dont drink and drive. The boys are going to catch a bunch of drunk drivers no matter what, will you be one of them? Shine up that crystal ball or just dont risk it, you might just be one of the ones that actually hurts someone.

mileena December 26, 2012 at 11:23 AM

Do you people know what a DUI saturation patrol is? It’s not a checkpoint. It’s what the whiners on claycord.com have been asking for instead of the checkpoints. Yes, it’s more police officers, on the streets, driving around (gasp!), looking for drunk drivers.

I swear, some people just complain for the sake of complaining.

Don P December 26, 2012 at 12:04 PM

When driving drunk just remember if youre white, youre allright. If your brown, your getting booked downtown. The moral? If you drive drunk dont be brown.

Just a Concordian December 26, 2012 at 12:19 PM

a bunch??? I would hardly call 3-6 people “a bunch”

We’ve calculated the return rate of these checkpoints. It’s less than 1%. In fact it varies anywhere between 0.5% and 0.7% Even in this crap economy, a 3 month CD will give you a 1.1% return.

Call it what it is… a violation of your rights. By being stopped, you are being presumed guilty and must prove your innocence.

Elwood December 26, 2012 at 3:34 PM

@ just a concordian #10

Here’s a clue for you.

Don’t drive drunk and your “rights” won’t be violated.

Elwood December 26, 2012 at 3:35 PM

@ just a concordian #10

And it’s not a checkpoint, fool!

Lou December 26, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Bottom line: Nooneshould be driving while intoxicated in the first place. My grandmother was killed on Mother’s day 1967 & was decapitated & my grandfather lived. The two men that were in the driver’s brand new Corvette that day on Ygnacio Vally Road, whe it was 2 lanes only were doing 120mph & hit my grandparents head on doing that speed. They were also killed instantly. So #7 Anon LE Recruit good for you & #9 Don P, drunk driving doen’t know racism, who is brown, who is white & so on. Never knew my grandmother & my mom was only 24 when she lost her mother Our lives have ever been the same since. #9 Don P you are _ _ _ _ _ _ _ kidding me right? Noone should ever get behind a wheel intoxicated or under the influence of a controled substance or an illegal one. Get it?

Just a Concordian December 26, 2012 at 5:39 PM


They are checkpoints unless the term “deployment” used somehow has changed its meaning from stationary to mobile.

Or you can see below:

1 a : to extend (a military unit) especially in width
1 b : to place in battle formation or appropriate positions

2: to spread out, utilize, or arrange for a deliberate purpose

In addition, nowhere did I claim I was going to drive drunk. Though, my right to free movement will be impeded by a police officer who will require proof of my innocence, hence the presumption of guilt, hence the stop.

Now, I understand the purpose these checkpoints serve, and while I agree with the idea, the rate of return is far too low for what it delivers. A 0.8 blow is not the same in a 120 lbs female vs a 240 lbs male. In addition, no blow percentage or physiological data is given for people who end up arrested.

The best way to catch a drunk driver is to drive behind them. Or, block 680 at the Benicia bridge, 24 at Caldecot, and 80 at Bay Bridge, eastbound. But sorry, rational solutions just are too inconvenient… So we’ll just take a bunch of officers and give them overtime pay and let them employ their already overinflated power trip. Hell, Bay Bridge alone would be a joy to behold in rate of return.

Elwood December 26, 2012 at 7:18 PM

@ just a concordian #15

” my right to free movement will be impeded by a police officer”

Oh, no! Not that! See sign, stop; light, traffic; limit, speed; turn, no left; etc.

Driving is a privilege, not a right. We all give up certain “rights” for the privilege of operating a vehicle.

Fig Newton December 27, 2012 at 6:20 AM

Concord Police protecting us all year long,,,,,,,,,,,, These DUI checkpoints work!!!!!!!!!!!! I’m proud of Concord Police for the Superior, un matched Police Work they do! You goot know these officers could be home on the Check point nights, Instead they are out making Concord Safer by the minute! These guys deserve a big round of applause!!!!!!!!!!! Thank you Concord Police !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

DUHHH3x DUI December 27, 2012 at 8:28 AM


MamaP December 27, 2012 at 1:33 PM

What is your “rate of return” on a dead family member, ass hat?

Elwood December 27, 2012 at 3:10 PM

You tell ’em MamaP!

Just a Concordian December 27, 2012 at 3:56 PM

As high as the life insurance they bought.

yea let’s make me the bad guy because I’m pointing out the truth. The checkpoints draw away resources from other places and they waste money that could be put to better use.

WC doesn’t do these checkpoints, do they? Instead, they have loads of cruisers on standby on Main and Locust, catching the bad guys as quick as they leave the club. What a concept… catching the drunks before they do damage. Instead of a very very expensive fishing trip.

Elwood December 27, 2012 at 4:35 PM

@ Just a Concordian #21

Ass hat!

Travis Bickle December 27, 2012 at 6:34 PM


The Supreme Court ruled that while DUI checkpoints (and I see nothing in this article that indicates a checkpoint will be used rather than patrols) are a violation of Fourth Amendment rights, the potential benefit to public safety outweighs such violation. Between your opinion and that of the SCOTUS, I’ll stick with SCOTUS.

Elwood December 27, 2012 at 7:32 PM

“The U.S. Supreme Court has held that sobriety checkpoints meet the Fourth Amendment standard of reasonable search and seizure. Sobriety checkpoints are not conducted in 12 states, including five in which they are illegal under state constitution.”


Kevin Juszczyk = ass hat who should move to one of the five states.

Just a Concordian December 28, 2012 at 10:17 AM


Seems you haven’t quite reached maturity yet, hence the use of an “insult” used by a 10 year old. Now mind you, this does not devalue your arguments. It just renders them, and your credibility, useless.

Elwood December 28, 2012 at 1:04 PM

@ Just a Concordian #25

You’re still an ass hat Kevin.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: