.

Holiday DUI Crackdown Totals 971 OC Arrests

The figure is up over last year's, says the O.C. Sheriff's Department. And agencies are already thinking ahead to operations for Super Bowl Sunday and St. Patrick's Day.

Orange County law enforcement's holiday driving crackdown resulted in 971 DUI arrests, according to the Sheriff's Department.

The city, county and state agencies involved in the Avoid the 38 campaign, which took place from Dec. 14 to Jan. 1, used sobriety checkpoints, special saturation patrols and routine patrols in its effort to curb impaired driving. The campaign's name refers to the number of agencies taking part.

According to the Sheriff's Department, last year's arrest total was 836. As during last year, there were no DUI deaths in Orange County during the campaign dates, though the figures for this campaign are provisional, says the department; some agencies have yet to report.

Law enforcement is already planning for more such operations—during Super Bowl Sunday in February and then again for  St. Patrick’s Day celebrations in March.

Grant funding for the holiday program was provided by the California Office of Traffic Safety through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which contends that sobriety checkpoint programs can yield cost savings of $6 for every $1 spent.

JustUs January 03, 2013 at 08:54 PM
Lots of money made off of violating civil liberties with DUI checkpoints, eh??? I bet the bar owners who fed these drunk drivers the liquor that got them drunk made nice profits too without any punishment. What crooked system these thugs have created for profit. Land of the free and home of the brave, eh??? HAH! What a farce!!!! HAH! :)
Dusty W Otero January 03, 2013 at 09:28 PM
971 x dui cost,,,and insurance companys...and the bars sold each one lets say $100.00 woth of booze,,,yep lots of money..
JustUs January 03, 2013 at 09:44 PM
That's right, dusty. It's a huge money making operation. And they screw the little guy in the process. They fill him full of booze and send him out onto the street while the cop is waiting to nab him. The bars make out like bandits, the government makes out like bandits and the little guy gets set up to lose. None of these bar owners go to jail for getting the guy drunk in the first place, do they??? Of course not. You don't see any stings on the bars, do you??? Of course not. They work hand in hand to screw the small fry.
aygot yurstuff January 03, 2013 at 10:59 PM
Yeah Justus, bar owners go out and kidnap people, force them to drink, then set them free, all to make a buck. Take some responsibility you idiot.
CDC January 04, 2013 at 03:03 AM
Lots of money made by impounding cars. http://www.vcstar.com/news/2012/mar/22/grand-jury-report-vehicle-impound-fees-in-county/ However, it is ILLEGAL to knowingly send a drunk driver on the road. The bar and bartender can be totally liable if they do. That is why they call cabs. No bar wants to kill people or get sued for millions! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dram_shop
JustUs January 04, 2013 at 06:12 AM
hey fool, it's actually against the law for a bartender to continue serving a drunk customer. But they do it anyway. And there are no police sting operations on that, are there? Then the drunk goes and get's in his car, drives away and kills someone. Do you promote that type of thing, fool? Bartenders and bar owners should have to follow the law like everyone else. And there should be sting operations on bars where undercover cops follow drunks away in their cars and arrest them. And for every drunk arrested the bar should get fined $15,000, since they got him drunk by serving him alcohol past the limit. Let some of that sink in between your ears, fool. hah. :)
Paul in SB January 04, 2013 at 02:27 PM
JustUs...I know you will have a snappy attacking comeback, but where does personal responsibility come in to play? You have made punishing bars and bartenders your mantra, but I have yet to hear you condemn the person who chooses to drink and drive. If the government were to intercede at a higher level, you would decry that as an invasion of civil liberties! You can't legislate morality my friend...ultimately, the responsibility falls on the person who starts to pour the drinks down their throat and then choose to get in a car. They are the ones that start the ball rolling, and thus should live with the consequences subsequent to arrest.
JustUs January 04, 2013 at 03:41 PM
Paul in SB, where was I ever an apologist for drunk drivers? I think once caught they should have the book thrown at 'em. I don't sympathize with them one bit. But IMO bartenders and bar owners ARE JUST AS RESPONSIBLE for continuing to feed these drunks more booze after they're inebrieated. If I were a legislator I would propose a law that called for a drink maximum per individual in the bars. No more than 2 drinks per hour per person. But you will NEVER see such a common sense law because, just like the cops, the legislators don't want to offend the bar owners and the liquor industry which gives them HUGE payoffs in form of campaign contributions. I am vigorous opposed to the system punishing INNOCENT PEOPLE WHO HAVE DONE NO WRONG for the actions of a drunk. And this is PRECISELY what DUI checkpoints do.....THEY PUNISH INNOCENT LAW-ABIDING TAXPAYERS. So there you go, Paul in SB. No attacks - JUST THE FACTS. Have wonderful day.
Paul in SB January 04, 2013 at 05:36 PM
Actually JustUs, we agree on setting limitations of service at a bar...I think that is a great idea. I also agree that special interest groups and the legislators lobbied by the liquor industry would fight it tooth and nail. I don't think the cops are in cahoots with the bar owners or liquor industry...they see the effects of irresponsible drinking first hand. Since they see innocent individuals and families injured and killed as a result of drunk driving, it would be unlikely the cops would try and protect bar owners.
MFriedrich January 04, 2013 at 05:39 PM
It probably would have been a lot cheaper and less publicly embarrassing had these individuals decided to simply pull out their stupid cell phones and called a cab. Oh, except every single one of them was drunk at the time. "Don't drink and drive". Seems like a reasonable proposition.
JustUs January 04, 2013 at 05:44 PM
I have talked to cops about this. They are nothing but excessively paid little soldiers of the King who voluntarily violate our civil liberties when instructed to do so. That's why they don't sit next to bars at 1am and watch the drunks pour out into their cars and pull them over - even though they KNOW they are endangering lives fo the public. Because they are GOOD LITTLE SOLDIERS who do as they are told. To heck with REAL public safety!!! HAH! So you don't fool me, Paul in SB. My guess is that somehow you are connected with law enforcement and you are standing at the public trought too! heh. That's my guess. Have a good day, sir!! :)
JustUs January 04, 2013 at 05:48 PM
Don't force innocent law-abidiing taxpaying motorists to pull to the side of the road for mandated police actions @ DUI checkpoints, to include interrogations and searches. Don't punish good, law-abiding people who have done nothing wrong for the actions of a few drunks. Seems like a reasonable proposition. heh. :)
MFriedrich January 04, 2013 at 05:52 PM
I'm a law-abiding taxpayer and do not drink. I don't find these actions punishing at all. I'm fine with being inconvenienced for a few minutes, or even arriving late to my destination, if it means I'm alive with my passengers at the end of the journey. Just want to point that out. I completely lament the damage to civil liberties with JustUs. It is indeed very sad. It angers me too, particularly at airports, etc. Using the pareto principle, probably 20% of the people are using horribly bad judgement, and "ruining it" for the other 80% who are reasonable and law-abiding. The part that isn't registering is the violent, permanent consequence and loss of these 20%ers. It's not like they are jaywalkers. They're not riding a bicycle on the sidewalk without a helmet. I think this non-registration can be attributed to simply not yet being affected by a drunk driving death. Sadly the statistics in OC and California are so damning in this area, we are all more likely than ever before to lose someone we know or love right now to a drunk driver. Perhaps bartenders could do more. This doesn't mean we should allow the 20%ers to keep killing innocent people because of their lack of personal control and good judgement.
JustUs January 04, 2013 at 06:15 PM
"I'm a law-abiding taxpayer and do not drink. I don't find these actions punishing at all." Then you are promoting what I consider to be fascist police-state policies. Punishing law-abiding innocent people by forcing them to submit to police actions is fascist by definition - whether you refuse to acknowledge it or not. "I completely lament the damage to civil liberties with JustUs." No you don't. Your previous opinion rejects that notion. Now you speak from both sides of your mouth. "I think this non-registration can be attributed to simply not yet being affected by a drunk driving death." You're right. I am not emotionally involved here. I am thinking objectively and with a clear mind unlike others (if the shoe fits, put it on). "This doesn't mean we should allow the 20%ers to keep killing innocent people because of their lack of personal control and good judgement." I have mentioned REPEATEDLY on this board how we could take drunk drivers OFF THE ROAD more efficiently and effectively without violatin the civil right of innocent, law-abiding, obedient taxpaying citizens. Yet you continue to ignore my proposals - which means that you are IMO really no better than the fascists who promote these unspeakable violations of our taxpayers civil liberties. Have a wonderful Friday, btw.
MFriedrich January 04, 2013 at 07:02 PM
With the logic of your "the bartender" proposal, we should be fining any McDonald's restaurant franchise owner for fulfilling a double quarter-pounder with cheese meal order to an obese person. This is non-sense, not to mention stupidly addressing the wrong problem. People go to bars for a reason. They want to have a drink or maybe 10. You're addressing binge drinking, not drunk driving. You're hatred of police DUI checkpoints has too blinded you to notice, but your own stupid proposal violates and punishes the law-abiding, taxpaying citizens who simply want to have 3 drinks or more, and who have the common sense and self-control to hire a cab or ride with a designated driver. Who's talking out of both sides of their mouth now? Yes, I lost a very close friend to a drunk driver. He had been drinking beer since 3:00 p.m. and then drove home at 10:30 pm. She was decapitated by him in her car and died on the scene. Her body was burned beyond recognition. Her death destroyed her once happy family completely. I'm not going to apologize to you or anybody else for my convictions on this subject. So you're inconvenienced for 5 minutes at a DUI checkpoint. Deal. You're like the sighing, whining business man complaining aloud at the airport security line behind of a young family of 4, or an elderly woman in a wheel chair.
MFriedrich January 04, 2013 at 07:10 PM
Don't force innocent, law-abiding, taxpaying motorists to die on the road for your lack of self-control and for willfully placing yourself in a situation of impaired judgement. Don't kill, injure or inconvenience good, law-abiding people (including young children) who have done nothing wrong just because you can't manage to pick up your stupid iPhone and perform one simple task: call a sober friend or a taxicab. Yes, seems like a reasonable proposition.
S.A.P. January 04, 2013 at 07:17 PM
JustU said "If I were a legislator I would propose a law that called for a drink maximum per individual in the bars. No more than 2 drinks per hour per person." Are you kidding me? Aren't you the person screaming from the rooftops about civil liberties? You want to tell a private businessperson how much of their product they can sell in what amount of time? Drinking is not against the law. Drinking & DRIVING is the crime we are discussing. What about the RESPONSIBLE people who walk home, ride their bike, use a DD or call a cab? You want to restrict EVERYONE's right to consume a legal product because you don't want to be inconvenienced for 5 minutes by a DUI checkpoint? Not to mentioned that your ridiculous idea could easily be circumvented simply by going to more than one bar. You've got to be the biggest hypocrite I have ever encountered.
MFriedrich January 04, 2013 at 07:34 PM
"Bartenders and bar owners should have to follow the law like everyone else." You have it back assward again JustUs. The bartender is not keeping count of the quantity of drinks you've had and the hours in between each one. He's not doing it for one customer, let alone 100 different customers that may come and go. You are certifiably insane with this line of thinking, man. But ok, sure, let's also have the grocery store checkpoint lady pick over your selections too while we're at it. Ah, she notices you've bought another package of double-stuff Oreo's! That's two in one month! Nope, can't have it. Sorry, you've hit the double-stuff Oreo limit, dude. You lament away about police searches and actions and lunge away at Nazi-ism that exists only in your mind, but then you advocate the exact same thing only disguised in another costume. Maybe time to head back to your laboratory and drawing board to cook up some other less bad ideas.
JustUs January 04, 2013 at 07:46 PM
mfriedrich, why do you completely ignore my salient point which speaks the truth? Oh, I know why. You know that I'm right and refuse to acknowledge it. Stop being so prideful. You know that they say: Pride and stupidity are 2 branches that grow from the same tree. I am not arguing that drunk drivers are good people. I am only saying don't punish (yes, forcing good obedient taxpayers to pull their cars to the side of the road when they've done NOTHING wrong IS PUNISHMENT!) good law-abiding taxpayers with DUI checkpoints when there are much more effective and efficients ways to catch drunk drivers (which I have clearly documented!) Enjoy your Friday. Contribute to the next policeman's ball. They only make as much as medical doctors and need your contributions to fund their social activities too! heh. :)
Dusty W Otero January 04, 2013 at 07:50 PM
cops are in the bars along drinking and driving man come on,,,and its not there fault its the system we grow up tp know the judge leaves the court room and is headed straight to the bar,,a couple drinks and home...I say smoke pot in the bars too,,best thing is dont drink alcohol at all ,,I hate the stuff,,its a waste of money,,and is way out of control..
JustUs January 04, 2013 at 07:51 PM
"Aren't you the person screaming from the rooftops about civil liberties?" More ignorance. Bartenders who serve customers past the point of inebriation are already breaking the LAW. Oh, but you don't like that LAW, do you??? But you like LAWS that punish innocent, law-abiding, obedient taxpayers by FORCING them to pull their cars to the side of the road and submit to police actions. HAH! What a clown you are! heh. You don't want the cops to harass law-breaking bar owners and their employees but you have no problem with the cops harassing innocent law-abiding citizens just driving their cars down the street minding their own business while obeying all the traffic laws. You like that harassment!!! HAH! Like I said....you're a clown. :)
JustUs January 04, 2013 at 07:56 PM
"cops are in the bars along drinking and driving man come on..." yeah, no doubt you're right, Dusty. But there is a difference. When a cop drinks and drives and gets pulled over by one of his "brothers" he gets a free pass - a wink and a nod - and either told to be careful or a free ride home. There's your difference, sir. heh. Has DVM ever done a per capita study that compares how many cops are arrested for DUI versus the general population? Of course not. heh. The system has to protect the 'King's men". heh.
George P. Burdell January 05, 2013 at 09:56 AM
OK bickersons, You have earned yourself a nice little New Year's joke: --------------------------------------------------------- One new year's eve night a police officer was stalking out a particularly rowdy bar for possible DUI violations. At closing time, he saw a fellow stumble out of the bar, trip over the curb, and try his keys on five different cars, before he found his own car. This "falling down drunk" got in and sat in the front seat fumbling around with his keys for several minutes. Meanwhile, the other patrons began leaving the bar and drove off while the officer kept his eye on the "falling down drunk" guy. Finally after fumbling for his keys for so long, he found the correct key, started his engine and began to slowly pull away. The police officer was waiting for him. As soon as he pulled onto the street, the officer stopped the "falling down drunk" guy, read him his rights and administered the Breathalyzer test to determine his blood-alcohol content. The results showed a reading of 0.0. The puzzled officer demand to know how that could be? The driver replied: "Tonight I'm the designated decoy."
MFriedrich January 07, 2013 at 01:57 AM
What you know couldn't fill an empty sack. Look it's not my fault that what you define as "salient" or call an "argument" is unlettered and shoddily structured. I suggest you give the whole thing up and start on another unrelated thread.
JustUs January 07, 2013 at 02:48 AM
More attacks without substance from mfriendrich. Par for the course. That seems to be his trademark. When he has no rational argument his shallow mind searches and searches for an insult. He probably goes on-line and researches insults then comes up with something as lame as this: "What you know couldn't fill an empty sack." Thanks once again for the victory, mfriedrich. You are way too easy. :^)
JustUs January 07, 2013 at 02:52 AM
That's the reason the cop would follow him for a couple blocks. If he were as drunk as he appeared to be he would swearve over white or yellow line or make wide or narrow turns. Then if he couldn't be cited for drunk driving, he would be cited for breaking other traffic laws. Very easy solution. And probably the last time he would ever act as a decoy drunk. heh. Btw, the joke really wasn't very funny. What it home made by chance? :)
MFriedrich January 07, 2013 at 03:42 AM
This supposed mastery of the argument on LF Patch obviously makes you a legend in your own mind. How many imaginary debate victory trophies are in that attic of yours?

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