Concord Police Department arrested one person for DUI while conducting a checkpoint on Aug.16.
The checkpoint was on Clayton Rd. at Ayers Rd. between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 3:00 a.m.
Last year, Concord Police Department investigated 46 DUI collisions that killed 2 people and injured 61 others.
Funding for this checkpoint was provided by a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety, through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
GOOD WORK CPD, ONE MORE OFF THE ROAD MEANS OTHERS WENT HOME SAFELY
I’m not sure why they continue to use that same area for these check points. Does anyone know why?
Hopefully CPD got more than just the 1 DUI……maybe some warrants, suspended license, drug paraphernalia, drugs, guns, etc.
108RS
They have a few locations in the city and they rotate between them. Good job CPD and all involved
Wrong. Saturation patrols have been proven far more effective. You can just Google the Claycord results and see this.
What’s the reasonable cause for stopping me and questioning me WHEN I DO NOT DRINK?!?!
“What’s the reasonable cause for stopping me and questioning me WHEN I DO NOT DRINK?!?!”
********** to see if you are drunk..if not — you get to go home..why is this so hard to understand ??
“What’s the reasonable cause for stopping me and questioning me WHEN I DO NOT DRINK?!?!”
There is none. SCOTUS has determined that the contribution to public safety achieved by checkpoints outweighs the relatively small violation of your rights protected by the 4th amendment.
It’s a fair question. This is a constitutional issue. I agree with what Rollo states, although I am not sure a random search is a small violation. But Scotus has settled this. As to the response by Anon… Do you feel as flippant about the 2nd? Funny how so many strict constructionists are only strict when convenient.
“SCOTUS has determined that the contribution to public safety achieved by checkpoints outweighs the relatively small violation of your rights protected by the 4th amendment.”
With that logic, the “contribution to public safety achieved” by looking at private medical history (like telling your therapist something) “outweighs the relatively small violation of your rights protected by the 2nd amendment.” or “outweighs the relatively small violation of your rights protected by the 1st amendment.”
It’s a slippery slope.
DUI arrests and ocurances (people not getting caught) have been steadily declining over the last 30 years.
Why is that?
Education, education, education.
Lighten up, Francis. I didn’t opine on the decision, I simply shared the results of research I’ve already done.
I realize this is paid for with “grant” money.
But how about some other statistics about the check point?
How many officers, how many hours, and how much did it cost?
Then divide that number by 1.
All those officers, all that time, and all that money, for just 1 single arrest.
I’m not knocking CPD/the officers, but that sounds like a pretty big waste of resources.
This is what you get from government management.
I wonder how many others would have been caught if the officers at the checkpoint were patrolling.
I’ll bet more than 1.
Many of the problem bars in Concord are situated in areas not conducive to check points, that is why CPD produces more out of saturation patrols.
108RS
Ever since I got sober 8 years ago I’ve honestly been HOPING to get pulled over at a checkpoint…. although I still have nightmares about every 6 months of myself drinking again and getting caught and getting a DUI… I hope that nightmare goes away someday… thanks to the CPD for their efforts keeping us safe
Good on you and those eight years RJ. Proud of ya bud. In a non condescending way of course.