Concord Police Department to Hold DUI Checkpoint on Friday

July 17, 2017 8:00 am · 16 comments

The Concord Police Department Traffic Unit will be conducting a DUI Checkpoint on Friday, July 21, at an undisclosed location within the City between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 3:00 a.m.

In recent years, California has seen a disturbing increase in drug-impaired driving crashes. Concord Police Department supports the new effort from the Office of Traffic Safety that aims to educate all drivers that “DUI Doesn’t Just Mean Booze.”  If you take prescription drugs, particularly those with a driving or operating machinery warning on the label, you might be impaired enough to get a DUI.  Marijuana can also be impairing, especially in combination with alcohol or other drugs, and can result in a DUI.

In California, alcohol involved collisions led to 1,155 deaths and nearly 24,000 serious injuries in 2014 because someone failed to designate a sober driver.  Over the course of the past three years Concord Police officers have investigated over 100 DUI collisions which have claimed four lives and resulted in another 145 injuries.

Officers will be looking for signs of alcohol and/or drug impairment, with officers checking drivers for proper licensing, delaying motorists only momentarily.

When possible, specially trained officers will be available to evaluate those suspected of drug-impaired driving, which now accounts for a growing number of impaired driving crashes.

Funding for this checkpoint is provided to Concord Police Department by a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety, through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, reminding everyone to ‘Report Drunk Drivers – Call 9-1-1’.

House July 17, 2017 at 8:55 AM

Y’all know the reality of checkpoints by now and their unconstitutional nature.

You all just don’t mind eroding constitutional rights.

Keep all three Barrels Up July 17, 2017 at 9:28 AM

Wow! That didn’t take long!!!

Bill Cutting July 17, 2017 at 10:23 AM

The whole Dui enforcement is geared wrong. They entrapped everyone I’ve known that’s gotten a dui. They are being predators on the regular citizens snatching working citizens who have one or two drinks after work. The limit is so low it’s basically 1 drink. They don’t have a tier system like it should be. Instead it’s a one size fits all money machine designed to milk your money as if it wasn’t expensive to live here the first place. The dui classes are a joke it’s like an insulting daycare service that makes the third party company running it filthy rich. While I can see some merit in the program it should only be for extreme cases not the 90% who had little to drink and were just minding their own until a cop rides their butt at 1am with blinding bright lights. If you didn’t hurt anyone or cause an accident or were not all over the place on the road then leave the citizens alone predator cops! They sit by bars which shouldn’t be legal. The fact that you can’t beat them even with a good lawyer as most have tried shows the system is flawed. How are you helping those that don’t drink all the time who you caught a couple of points over your low .08 bar? You legally sell alcohol everywhere but have unrealistic limits that are used to basically rob people of their livelihoods and in most if not all minus 728 deaths a year in this state which is sad but let’s factor that with the population for the odds. Did we the citizens ever get a vote on these laws? Do you want to fork out 15000-20000 cause rookie cop of the year hot shots out to get you leaving the bowling alley after two beers to go home and sleep? Middle finger to all that counter signal this

Retired LEO July 17, 2017 at 10:30 AM

@house #1….

So if you claim it’s unconstitutional, you should be able to eliminate them nationwide…. right?

So what’s stopping you from getting an injunction?

Or are you just another armchair constitutional law “expert?”

The Reasonabilist July 17, 2017 at 11:26 AM


You think the government cares what is/isnt constitutional?


David July 17, 2017 at 11:49 AM

To LEO retired.
So far the checkpoints are being allowed by the Court. That does not mean it
Is actually a constitutionally sound practice. If you don’t believe me then you should look at the historical eb and flow of the SCOTUS interpretation of the commerce clause. Spoiler alert, it’s a joke.
The problem with the checkpoints is that they are an illegal search under the fourth amendment. If I am required to stop and interact with a government agent, I am legally detained. Since the checkpoint is a screening, there is no probable cause for the stop in the first place. This makes it an invasion of my right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. I don’t want to have a history lesson now, but this is a search similar to the ones the framers intended to protect citizens from.
One could argue that public safety is a significant government interest sufficient to warrant the search. However, as the OP pointed out, this practice us a revenue grab. It can be shown by who is actually effected by the checkpoints and how much money is being generated by violations that have nothing to do with impaired driving. The whole thing is a sham and yes unconstitutional. However I will concede that reasonable people do disagree on this…. half of them are wrong, the rest agree with me.

And the right has it July 17, 2017 at 12:22 PM

Bill- so that is a big f you to anyone who doesn’t agree with you? Nice way to bring on civil conversation with that last sentence. I don’t agree with you at all. It is not entrapment to pull a drunk over. No one is forcing them to consume too much alcohol and drive. If people make bad choices, they deserve bad consequences. How about just don’t drink and drive? It is not that hard. So many have been hurt by “buzzed” drivers. I am not willing to risk my family or yours, for that matter. Driving drunk means you are impaired. And that means you should not be driving.

Jerk July 17, 2017 at 12:22 PM

Would have MORE SUCCESS with a Saturation Patrol instead of a dragnet.

Need to add Cell phone saturation patrol to the agenda as well ~ I’m tired of seeing Police pass by Drivers on their cell phones and not taking any action.

anon July 17, 2017 at 1:35 PM

@3 Bill Cutting

Just call a cab. Easy peasy!

WhoDat? July 17, 2017 at 3:27 PM

Keep the undisclosed location a secret! There’s no point in running these checkpoints if you let the drunks know what area they should avoid.

Barbara July 17, 2017 at 4:47 PM

Why do they tell everyone when or where they are having a check point that seems to defeat the purpose. 🙂

Bob Foo July 17, 2017 at 6:44 PM

It seems like they always choose ineffective locations for these.

I wonder why they haven’t done Monument & Oak Grove in a long time, or somewhere more central…

Retired LEO July 17, 2017 at 8:41 PM

@david- so you think it’s unconstitutional, also? Then my response to you is the same as I posted to house #1.

Courts determine whether something is constitutional. Unless you’re a judge and this has been filed in your court, then you should educate yourself before making comments,

CV Mom July 17, 2017 at 9:39 PM

Lemme guess….it’ll be at Ayers & Clayton like the last 15 times.

HornyB July 17, 2017 at 10:59 PM

Damned check points. No excuses for drunk driving.

Dave July 18, 2017 at 8:51 AM

So many issues, so much misinformation. Let’s do this one at a time. Scroll down until you see your favorite hotspot.

1. DUI Checkpoints vs. DUI Patrols – two different tactics with two different expected outcomes.

Checkpoints are highly visible, highly publicized events meant to deter drinking and driving in the first place. Checkpoints have been shown to have the potential to lower DUI fatality rates by up to 20 percent by virtue of their deterrence. People go through them, drive past them, hear about them via multiple grapevines and get the ongoing impression that drunk driving is dangerous, socially unacceptable, and that law enforcement is actively looking for it.

Patrols are meant to catch active drunks, get them off the streets and prosecute them. Patrols have little deterrent value, but high enforcement value. They are both good tactics and both should be in the arsenal of DUI combating tactics, along with others. In terms of catching drunks, nothing beats patrols. In terms of saving lives, nothing beats checkpoints.

2. The Constitution does not prohibit all search and seizure, just “unreasonable” search and seizure. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled (see Michigan v. Sitz, 1990) that sobriety checkpoints meet the Fourth Amendment standard of “reasonable search and seizure.” The Court is, by force of Article III of the Constitution itself, the final arbiter and interpreter of the Constitution. We may not agree with what they rule. But what they rule is law until reinterpreted by a later court. We can whine, but they win, not because of a left or right wing conspiracy, but because the Constitution itself says so. In addition, court rulings over the last 20 years have put more and more restrictions on checkpoints, leaving them less obtrusive and more transparent, with less chance of abuse.

3. In the Ingersoll v Palmer decision, one of the points the US Supreme Court made was that prior notice was one component that could help make a checkpoint legal. The case of Banks v California held that every one of the eight points the Ingersoll decision laid out did not have to be there to make it legal, just a majority. Pre publicity was spelled out to be useful, but not strictly required.

In today’s best practices, prior publicity is used because the primary purpose of a sobriety checkpoint is deterrence, not arrests. The deterrent factor has been shown to have the ability to lower DUI related fatalities by up to 20 percent. Street patrols are good at arrests but lousy as deterrents. Checkpoints are lousy at arrests but good as deterrents. One arrests law breakers, the other save lives.

4. One regular sized drink won’t make anyone into a drunk driver. It might make you a 0.01-0.03 BAC. Driving impairment starts around 0.04 with decreased inhibitions and lack of concentration, some minor impairment of reasoning and memory, lowering of caution. You’re a little buzzed. At 0.07-0.09 you have loss of reasoning and visual acuity, with increased extraversion and blunted feelings, impairment of balance, speech, vision, reaction time, and hearing. Judgment and self-control are reduced, and caution, reason and memory are impaired. You think you are just fine, but are definitely buzzed. You are at 11 times higher risk for crashing your car. 0.10-0.12 you have significant impairment of motor coordination and loss of good judgment. Balance, vision, reaction time and hearing will be impaired. Noticeably drunk. 0.13-0.15 Gross motor impairment and lack of physical control. Blurred vision and major loss of balance. Anxiety, restlessness is beginning to appear. Judgment and perception are severely impaired. 0.16-0.19 Anxiety predominates, nausea may appear. You are now “sloppy drunk.” By 0.20-0.30, you are lucky to even be standing or conscious.

How many drinks get you buzzed or drunk? All depends – on size, gender, condition, circumstances. Women handle it less well than men. Lower weight means fewer drinks. Lack of sleep, run down means fewer drinks. More food right before or during drinking means more drinks. Longer time between means more drinks. A 100 pound woman with a bad night’s sleep and no dinner can be .08 after two drinks. A 250 pound guy in great shape after a steak, bread, pasta dinner might be able to have six drinks over six hours and not hit .08. But I still wouldn’t want to be in his vicinity when he’s on the road. Anything in between is dicey. How about this? One drink is fine. Two, pace yourself over time, eat a meal. More than that, find a sober driver.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: