.
News Alert
Temecula Winery's Kitchen, Tasting Room Destroyed …

Four Arrested at DUI Checkpoint in Temecula

Police stopped vehicles Friday night checking for impaired drivers.

Three drivers were arrested for suspicion of DUI during a checkpoint Friday night in Temecula, according to police. A fourth person was arrested on a misdemeanor warrant.

The DUI/driver’s license checkpoint operated from 9 p.m. until 3 a.m. at Winchester and Nicolas roads. Of the 3,504 vehicles that drove through the checkpoint, 2,960 were screened by Temecula police officers looking for signs of impairment and checking licenses.

Officers sent 44 vehicles to a secondary-inspection area, where 20 drivers were given field sobriety tests, according to police. Four unlicensed drivers were cited, and seven vehicles were towed.

The checkpoint was funded by a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety, through the National Traffic Safety Administration.

Samantha December 24, 2012 at 09:06 AM
I'll be wishing some of my loved ones a very Merry Christmas this year. Though, I can't send them a card, nor buy them a gift. I can't hug them and tell them I love them. I can only remember them because someone else thought 'I'm okay to drive'. Or some idiot like you 'helped' them to avoid a DUI checkpoint. And just like that, someone who is innocent is DEAD. Senseless deaths occur every day in this country because of people like you -so mentally warped all you care about is your own personal agenda. You feel a need to turn everything into a political game. You have no value on human life, only your own. I guarantee you would sing a different tune if you witnessed someone they love gasping to take a final breath that would never come. You call me 'stupid' and 'evil' because I do not believe your facts justify innocent lives being cut short. You throw around facts to justify your asinine opinion. - 72% of NON-DUI's kill people. Well that leaves 28% that do - Do you know how many lives of adults and children encompass that 28%? Do you even care? No, it is obvious you don't. And unlike you, I am not filled with anger and hate at the police department. If you feel they are so bad perhaps you should do something about it - volunteer your time, make change happen, or you could just continue to spew your hatred here and do nothing at all. Which is what you will do. You people truly make me sick.
Timber December 24, 2012 at 04:41 PM
The actual perpetrator is solely to blame for your loss not even the police are to blame because they failed to protect someone's loved one in spite of the mistaken belief that it is their duty to do so. I have never claimed DRUNK driving is acceptable nor is drinking before one drives. It should be noted that the state of California has implied 'DRINKING' and driving is acceptable up to .079 BAC. Washington, Alaska, Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Wisconsin, and Wyoming, do not permit sobriety checkpoints. Would it be a fair statement to claim they 'help' drunk drivers avoid checkpoints as well? Rights are not political games. Many of the previously listed states also understand the value of their peoples' Rights. Ordered Liberty comes with risk. Abandoning our foundational principle of Liberty for the sake of an imagined belief of security is presumptuous. It is pretentious to think I have not witnessed a loved one take a final breath. I agree that people needlessly die every day.
Timber December 24, 2012 at 04:41 PM
Continued There is a mistaken belief that DUI checkpoints serve the primary function of preserving lives when in fact they primarily serve to educate and deter. This costly practice of ensnaring the public at large through a show of force and subjugating everyone’s Liberty mainly to promote education and deterrence is a misallocation of resources let alone a detriment to anyone's Rights. Trying to 'educate and deter' the mass of law-abiding individuals through punitive and coercive methods, like checkpoints do, maintains an adversarial position between police and some of the public. Communicating through fear and coercion imparts distrust and undermines others self-motivation. What advocates of punitive justice miss is the long term effects of such methods. The publics' behavior may improve under such treatment in the short term. When fear is the motivator, moral development stops, and behavior is ‘good’ only until fear can be escaped. I have no anger or hate for the police, in this case they are merely a misdirected tool of nanny-crates pandering to an illusion of safety. And I am doing something about it by volunteering my time, making change happen. Please get well.
Galactic Cannibal December 24, 2012 at 05:27 PM
To all you so so so concerned people. who decry DUI 0.8 why don't you protest DUI's and reduce that lever to 0.1% from 0.8%. That would almost eliminate the need for DB Cops to harass drivers with these draconian DUI 0.8% check points. So go out and put my proposition of DUI 0-1% on the State ballot. And quit acting like holier than though hypocrites. I am not alone in owning and driving a fast car in So Cal , and live with and accept the daily harassment created by our pathetic DMV driving laws. A new DUI level @ 0.1% will not bother me, as I never drink before I drive.
Timber December 24, 2012 at 05:49 PM
@Brenda 7:06 pm on Sunday, December 23, 2012 You stated: "There should be a way for everyone who types something negative about the police where they get your name and number and never have to answer a call to you." And you directed at me, in another post, the following: "Read what you said please. :/ It sounds crazy." Which I think aptly applies here except your position is 'crazy'." My original response to james p. was framed around this very issue of speech or lack of freedom to express it. Advocating against such an American principle is disturbing to say the least. While I may disagree with others opinions I do support their right to express it. What say you?
SA December 24, 2012 at 06:05 PM
I warn all that is close to me re checkpoints as 9 times out of 10 it stops them from driving while impaired, which is bad for business for me. Your reference to a deceased child is disturbing in itself. These checkpoints are bs and the cops should focus on patrol…
Timber December 24, 2012 at 07:17 PM
Excellent, maybe the other five people will return at the next one as well.
TVOR December 24, 2012 at 08:25 PM
Not to nitpick, but the legal limit is .08%, not .8%. .8% would be fatal.
Brenda December 24, 2012 at 10:18 PM
Samantha, excellent opinions Honey. One actual long comment Iread all the way through. It is a personal agenda and some sickness that tells them inside their little brain that the USA is out to get them. So they relay that here, that check points are for no other reason then to step on your rights, pull you over illegally, even if you are drunk for godsake. It was after a petition went in, I think with Madd that these check points were voted on by us but GAl Cann doesnt want to believe that, cause it doesnt fit his government behind every door waiting for him. I picture him living in a bomb shelter surrounded by food, news articles, computers, weapons, with cameras all around he watches all day. I dont mind so much what he believes in as long as he would leave the name calling at home, not in the bunker with him. Name calling just makes everything look completely stupid and without merit. I know he wants to be looked at with merit so if the name calling ends he might recruit a few. Hell sometimes I have even agreed with him. ****scary thought I know**** I am happy to have one drunk driver taken off the road, and I am thrilled to see how many we pick up each night with our arrest reports. It all works, saturation patrols, check points(cover all areas of wrong doing), and there does not have to be a maximum or minimum. You might have saved someones life by pulling that one man over into the check point.
Brenda December 24, 2012 at 11:17 PM
Timber, I am very surprised you and I are so far from each other on this one. You, simply could say its a violation of your "Rights" to be snagged or tricked, whatever, into a check point that checks for drunk or drugged drivers, license, insurance, registration, parole violations, lights or other things on cars not functioning. Very simple right? I am happy if we get one person in violation of any of the above is great! I am not intimidated, scared, nor feel punitively and coerced or that I and the officer are put in an adversarial position. Nor do I feel my rights or Liberty are taken away. I don't feel overwhelmed or think 4-6 officers iis scary or a show of force. During the convo I have never felt scared or coerced nor they stole my self motivation. LOL. I have not suffered long term effects of 5 check points so far in my entire life.***twitch*** I only think, I sure hope they catch some tonight. Timber what concerns me is you come up with this huge story of how people who get stopped at check points can be basically, in lay mens terms so we all understand, ruined for life! Scared out of their pants, believe their liberty and rights are taken away. You know that is going WAY overboard right? For a maybe 3 minute stop if even that? One or two of my stops I was just waved through. My others, I had info ready, handed it over, he looked it over, said Thank you Ma'am, and gave me a booklet on drunk driving. Always been positive checks.
rich green December 25, 2012 at 12:02 AM
That ratio is pitiful. Put check point at head of wine country at Rancho California and butterfield Stage but that would upset the revenue/taxes collected by the city. There is no where to turn around. I ran into that traffic jam and just turned around and went a different route thanks for nothing Tem. Police or just put more cops on the street around bars at 11pm-2am much more effective.
KB December 25, 2012 at 12:16 AM
Brenda: What you fail at is logic. Those are your feelings about checkpoints...congratulations. I think most who oppose the dui checkpoints understand they are a violation of not only the constitution, but of human rights. And let's be clear, they are far more than DUI checks - DUI is just the cover story. And as far as MADD is concerned, they are an enemy of freedom, period. The ability to travel without police intervention in the absence of probable cause is a right guaranteed in the Constitution. Activist courts have destroyed that right. DUI checkpoints are warrant-less stops without probable cause. A Reminder: The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Brenda December 25, 2012 at 03:03 AM
Mr. Rich Green I agree with you completely, that would be so easy, and cost alot less gas and man power. Alot of people including me, have mentioned it here in this post. But, our City wants the revenue that the wineries give us from our own people who want to sit and get a drunk on close to home, and then to many many who drive in from out of town. I bet there is even a rule that if a police officer pulls someone over out of town that we have a row of hotel rooms reserved, no tickets, just given a ride to a room for the night. God forbid we should sit on the west side, and east side, and make our presense known so that they make sure someone is a designated driver. Same thing with old town, and the bars in the Mall. Pre-warning visitors to alcohol establishments will let them know that Officers are out there and to make sure they sit that extra hour drinking water and coffee to sober up :) Save the City alot of law suits also. If I had time I would look up to see how many lawsuits the City has had for vehicle accidents, or anything involving DUI's. People that scream "set up, entrapment" need to just realize their age, dont drink and drive, and we need to sit our officers right out there in plain sight to get the ones who wobble out of the driveways. Our Officers should not have to hide to save lives.
Brenda December 25, 2012 at 03:21 AM
KB, just once if you could respond to me and some others without the name calling it would be a great day! "KB 4:16 pm on Monday, December 24, 2012 Brenda: What you fail at is logic. Those are your feelings about checkpoints...congratulations. I definately do not fail in logic, of all things, LOL. KB, I understand exactly what you are saying and Gal Cann, and Timber, that is your opinion, that is the way you feel, and that is not going to change which shows your belief in the subject. I am the same way but on the other side of the coin. We have different views everyone of us on the comments, one way or the other. I am more of a "rose colored glasses" person and will not go looking for trouble, or make trouble where there is no need for it. That is why I read the article, and list my beliefs and thoughts, and then also any concerns on the other side of the coin and then I am done, until someone comes back with name calling, demeaning personally insulting statements. Those of which are completely unnecessary. Having been a boss for so many years I know there are two sides, two feelings on every single topic, argument. Everyone will believe one way or the other and that is perfectly fine, its life. Its not fine when others feel the need to degrade or personally attack those with a different opinion. Its ok to take it further and like Gal Cann comes back with facts and figures so some may see it all differently, its part of learning.
Timber December 25, 2012 at 08:16 AM
Therein lies the difference, simple to some yet not so to some so educated in these matters, like when Justice STEVENS, stated: “These fears are not, as the Court would have it, solely the lot of the guilty. To be law abiding is not necessarily to be spotless, and even the most virtuous can be unlucky. Unwanted attention from the local police need not be less discomforting simply because one’s secrets are not the stuff of criminal prosecutions. Moreover, those who have found―by reason of prejudice or misfortune―that encounters with the police may become adversarial or unpleasant without good cause will have grounds for worrying at any stop designed to elicit signs of suspicious behavior. Being stopped by the police is distressing even when it should not be terrifying, and what begins mildly may by happenstance turn severe.” Now these are the words of a man sitting on the highest Judicial Court in the land, yet I would hazard a guess his reasoning isn't based upon 'some misplaced notions that this is some political scheme to take away peoples rights.' This is not my 'huge story'. While your personal experience of checkpoints tends to be positive for yourself this obviously is not the case for everyone. Your own words are testament to how oblivious you are to your world around you. There are videos replete with ambiguous circumstances of police/citizen contacts that go horribly wrong (i.e. Kelly Thomas, Terry Bressi, Pastor Steven Anderson)
Gandhi December 26, 2012 at 09:16 AM
I totally agree with you on this one GC!! Ridiculous to harass that many drivers for that miniscule amount of "possibly" impaired drivers!!! Why don't they sit out there and pick off the red light runners - bet they could get a LOT more for their time and not waste so much of ours!!
Gandhi December 26, 2012 at 09:21 AM
Amazingly enough, I have to agree with GC for once on this particular issue, I believe he is right. James P. - your personal comments above are unnecessary, unwarranted, and serve no purpose. Cops DO harass people, I should know, they've harassed me many times, and I am a white, good looking, middle aged woman, who has never committed a crime! You are very rude calling GC a "creep", you do not even know this person, I have been annoyed with him in the past on other issues, and I let him know, but in this case YOU are out of line!
Gandhi December 26, 2012 at 09:25 AM
IF they are actually doing what they're paid to do mateo! As I stated above, sitting by an intersection, you know one of the eight major ones in Temecula, and ticketing red light runners, now THAT would be a good use of time and money. DUI's are bs, I know, I've had one, a big joke, the cops lied, they were crooked, I won't go on and on, but my point is, they don't really stop the drunks out there AT ALL! Kinda like that "border check" on the I15, many illegals just go around it, y'know what I mean?
Gandhi December 26, 2012 at 09:28 AM
You obviously have NO experience with DUI's personally Samantha, so we will consider the source here. I HAVE, and let me tell you, its a huge money making scam!! Its about "brownies points" for the cops, nothing to do with really removing real drunks from the streets, I KNOW this for a fact!! Kinda like Susan B Komen group, they will NEVER CURE CANCER - why? Because they'd lose their entire source of income and cease to exist!! Think about it. GC is correct on this one, although I don't think I care to bring Hitler or Germany into the conversation, but prefer to stick to facts myself.
Gandhi December 26, 2012 at 09:33 AM
Timber, you have NO idea what cops do in real life, you have NO experience with them, I DO!! And I'm telling you, they LIE, they CHEAT, they do whatever it takes to get their brownie points, and they are NOT worried about the public safety, believe me. I was pulled over once, not doing ANYTHING wrong or illegal, I told them "if you believe I have been drinking, I can leave my car here and have somebody pick me up right now", they said NO, you will have to come with us. They lied about test they gave me, lied about everything, I could have and should have insisted on a trial, but I was too intimidated, it was horrible, believe me. So,, please don't speak of things you are ignorant of. Talking about killing people!! Please! Those drunks are going to do it no matter what, and they will continue to do it, the cops never catch them. Checkpoints ARE annoying and a waste of taxpayers money period. YOU are wrong.
Gandhi December 26, 2012 at 09:36 AM
I have actually seen one there, believe it or not. Totally outrageous to do this. Why don't they just shut down all the wineries and restaurants and bars while they're at it? I mean, whats the point? MONEY, thats what its all about, not "serving the public" or even protecting us, hardly. I can't believe they can legally just stop us to see if we have been drinking, they are assuming arent they? I thought all people were innocent until PROVEN guilty? Cops apparently assume we're guilty until WE prove we're innocent. Somethings not right here is it???
Gandhi December 26, 2012 at 09:37 AM
I agree.
Gandhi December 26, 2012 at 09:39 AM
People should DEMAND that this harassment STOP NOW! If we are NOT allowed to drink at all, possibly they should NOT serve alcohol and public establishments! Otherwise, people may have one or two, or three, but if they are driving OK, what does it matter? Pull people over if they are SWERVING or driving dangerously, running red lights, anything illegal, but don't sit there and third degree people when they are doing nothing illegal or wrong!
Gandhi December 26, 2012 at 09:40 AM
I know, and totally agree with you on this.
Gandhi December 26, 2012 at 09:44 AM
I think we need to legalize growing marijuana and tell the damn feds to stay the hell out of our states business and laws! I know I'm "off topic" here, but had to get it out! ;)
Gandhi December 26, 2012 at 09:46 AM
He LOVES to argue! That much I can tell you, so make your point, and then ignore him, because he will always get the last word in, take it from one experienced with him. However, above, his statements regarding this article I actually happen to agree with, for once, which I'm sure will blow him mind! ;)
Gandhi December 26, 2012 at 09:49 AM
At Brenda above here, I did NOT see anywhere that "KB" insulted or name called, just finished re-reading their posting above yours. Lets try for accuracy otherwise we're all just wasting time here arent we?
Gandhi December 26, 2012 at 09:51 AM
Brenda - fyi - "Wine Country" is NOT a part of the city of Temecula, therefor, they actually do NOT receive any "revenue" from them as you are stating here. If they were smart they would try to annex that area in though!! Ever visit Old Town Temecula? Its chock full of CLUBS AND BARS, designed to bring people in to drink, then they have cops all over the area when you try to leave - I call that "entrapment"! What do you call it?
Timber December 27, 2012 at 06:10 PM
@Gandhi 1:33 am on Wednesday, December 26, 2012 It looks like my post that you are referring to wasn't very clear. The first sentence is a quote from JAMES P. not myself. The rest of the post was my response to him. I do agree with most of your comments here. I would like to add that when you are pulled over for suspicion of drunk driving by roving patrol the officer will be conducting an investigation at that point to determine if he can develop probable cause to arrest. So initially the officer doesn't have enough evidence to arrest you on the spot and needs your voluntary cooperation to get you to provide that for him. That is where the physical acrobatics come into play, AKA field sobriety tests, these are voluntary and should be declined to protect yourself. Also the PAS, Preliminary Alcohol Screening device, is voluntary and should be refused as well. These 'tests' are solely used to develop probable cause to arrest otherwise there would be no need for their use. This is done in a manner that gets you to provide self-incriminating evidence to be used against you in court. Your best option is to inform the officer you will not be able to answer any questions or perform any test without the assistance of counsel.
Gandhi December 28, 2012 at 12:20 AM
My Bad! Yes, I apparently misinterpreted your post above, due to the first couple lines! I agree with you of course. I question the ability of them to actually enforce a "check point" and basically interrogate every single person in their vehicle when no crimes have been committed. When they actually see someone swerving or driving erratically, that gives them "probable cause" and the right to pull you over. Just driving along minding your own business and doing nothing wrong, does NOT give them the right to do so! We are in agreement, several of us on here. Most people speak out of "sensationalism" and the tend to "generalize" or "jump on the popular band wagon", I speak from both logic and experience here. Regarding your statement below after being pulled over - I was told to either take a "breath" test or I would HAVE to go to the police station - even though I had done NOTHING wrong or illegal. I ended up going to the station with them, by that time my blood alcohol level had risen to the requisite .08 (not sure if you all are aware of what that means, but when you drink and eat it can take quite awhile for the alcohol to actually get into your system, that is called a rising blood alcohol level) I had just left "Fridays", and had a margarita with some food. The cops were sitting there on Ynez waiting for anybody to come out, it was nearly 2am on a Saturday night - my mistake! However, I drove perfect, they lied about why they pulled me over and other things.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »