Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Facebook
Twitter
Google+1
del.icio.us.
Digg!
Yahoo! Buzz
Diigo
google
newsvine
reddit
technorati
Yahoo!
MyspaceGovernor Jerry Brown signed a bill that will prohibit law enforcement agents from impounding cars stopped at DUI checkpoints if the drivers are not intoxicated. Currently, the vast majority of cars are impounded because the driver lacked a valid driver’s license, not due to intoxication. State Senator Gil Cedillo (D-L.A.), who authored the bill, argued the change was necessary because law enforcement agencies target Latino neighborhoods when locating checkpoints. In the past, Cedillo has introduced bills to allow driving privileges to immigrants in the country illegally. While this was supported by the California Police Chiefs Association, then presided over by Santa Barbara Chief Cam Sanchez, it failed.
Latino activists throughout the state have complained that the impounding of vehicles places an undue burden on financially vulnerable immigrant communities, and the current law seeks to soften the enforcement impact. The law calls on police to release the impounded vehicle to legally licensed relatives — or friends — of unlicensed drivers. And the law makes explicit that cars, once impounded, can be released to the owner within 24 hours. Current law allows impounded vehicles to be kept up to 30 days. The towing and impound fees frequently exceed the price of the vehicle; impounded cars are often abandoned.
Santa Barbara City Attorney Steve Wiley said the department was already moving in the direction dictated by the new law. But last year, when community activists sought Chief Sanchez’s support for a 30-minute amnesty period — as other cities have done — to allow unlicensed drivers to get a legally licensed friend or relative to take possession of their car, he and other law enforcement executives declined.
Previous Month
Comments
What a crock! Viva La Salsipuedes!!!!
rukidding (anonymous profile)
October 13, 2011 at 4:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Gil Cedillo: "the change was necessary because law enforcement agencies target Latino neighborhoods when locating checkpoints."
Gotta call bull on this 1! Are you telling me that Los Carneros & Hollister or Calle real & Kellog or Hollister & Magnolia are "Latino hoods"?
"Cedillo has introduced bills to allow driving privileges to immigrants in the country illegally.
So wait a minute! If a "White" person does the same, do they get the same leniency as us Latinos?
What if the Latino is a registered/licensed/insured driver (such as myself)?
Do they get equated to the "White" people & get the same treatment (go to jail, car impounded)? :) henry
hank (anonymous profile)
October 13, 2011 at 5:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What Hank said.
Holly (anonymous profile)
October 14, 2011 at 8:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Um, Hank, Jerry Brown is the Governor of California, not Goleta ;)
And let me be the first to say, "Papers, please!"
DUI checkpoints are not only unconstitutional, but they are inneffective because they take police resources off the road where they could potentially be able to identify reckless driving behavior (which should be punished), and instead focuses on a very small targeted group of drivers, some of whom, while intoxicated at some level, may be driving perfectly safe and are innocent of any wrongdoing.
loonpt (anonymous profile)
October 14, 2011 at 8:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Loonpt: "DUI checkpoints are not only unconstitutional"
I would agree w/ that, but that ain't my point of discontention, it's the differentiation based on race that is TRULY unconstitutional. Equal treatment for all, now wouldn't that be nice?
But on the subject of "constitutionality" here's a loop for you: News media & the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.
As it stands, police/sherrifs/CHP plan to set up a DUI checkpoint, they notify the local news outlets & guess what the 1st thing on the 6:00pm news is:
THE LOCATION(S) OF SAID CHECKPOINT(S)!
That's using the 1st Amendment to counter the "unconstitutionality" of those pesky checkpoints, always happens.
Just a big MAYBE, but as for those DUI checkpoints being "ineffective" as you say, maybe that's the reason why: They get advertised by the local media.
As for those "of whom, while intoxicated at some level, may be driving perfectly safe and are innocent of any wrongdoing" comment, WAIT AMINUTE!
If you have a BA of = or > 0.8 in your system you are in effect IN VIOLATION of the CA motor vehicle code & are therefore already in violation of the law, therefore NOT innocent of any wrongdoing.
My good friend, until that BA level gets changed, if you're driving above stated level, YOU ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW AS IT CURRENTLY STANDS!
I didn't write the law, but I follow it. Maybe I'm not a "rebel" like some folks like to think they are.
But I don't see driving impaired as being a "rebel" in any way, that's just being an idiot.
How's that song "Famous Last Words" go?
It's o.k
It's not loaded.
I'm a good driver.
Don't worry honey
In fact, if I drive the Gray Goose I won't even touch 1 beer or any alcohol for that matter just to avoid any potential hassles.
Do I enjoy my life less for not having that beer? Absolutely not, I own the beer, it don't own me.
On a funny note, leaving the Mercury lounge last Thursday nite around 12:00 am I was pulling onto Hollister to turn right on Magnolia when a law enforcement unit passed me by. They quickly turned right on the next street over, hightailed it to come up behind me & follow me as I drove along the business park road that connects to Fairview in order to get back into IV.
That car followed me all the way up to where Fairview bends @ SB Airport, he then stopped, turned around & went on his/her merry way.
My assumption is they did a license check on me, saw no warrants, arrests, parole status or DUI/DWI priors & figured he's wasting his/her time.
Of course, this was all because I was leaving a bar @ an odd hour of the nite.
So what was I drinking @ the Merc? ROOT BEER. If there's a law against that, I'd been screwed, downed about 3 of those.
By the way, that same scenario has happened to me before on more than 1 occassion. did it upset me? Nope, just another nite in a world where the entitled think they're above laws & consequences & those won't affect them because after all, they're "rebels" :) henry
hank (anonymous profile)
October 14, 2011 at 12:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why don't Jerry Brown and Gil Cedillo and the other like minded politicians and activists come out and admit that they oppose any and all immigration laws?
At least if they did that, they would be honest.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
October 15, 2011 at 3:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)