Escondido has had an increase in Escondido DUI checkpoints. Escondido is a corridor near I-15 and SR-78, so it makes sense there is an increase in Escondido checkpoints.
As you go through the Escondido area be smart and safe. The last thing you want is to be in the middle of an Escondido DUI Checkpoint.
Officers in search of drunken drivers in Escondido over the weekend instead found and arrested two people named in felony warrants and a third person suspected of auto theft and narcotics possession, police said Monday.
All three people were taken into custody Saturday night during a DUI saturation patrol, according to Escondido police. During a saturation patrol, police deploy more officers on the streets in search of a specific violation: in this case, drunken driving.
Forty-four traffic stops were made during the saturation patrol, police said, adding that field sobriety tests were given in six of those stops but none of the motorists stopped were arrested on suspicion of drunken driving.
Also, seven citations were issued to unlicensed drivers or drivers whose licenses were suspended, police said.
The Full article can be found here.
Hire a Proactive, affordable, and quality defense when you are facing San Diego DUI charges. Whether you have been charged of a San Diego DUI, Poway DUI, Chula Vista DUI, La Mesa DUI, Santee DUI, Mission Valley DUI, Clairemont DUI, Point Loma DUI, La Jolla DUI, Carmel Valley DUI, Mira Mesa DUI, Pacific Beach DUI, Del Mar DUI, Encinitas DUI, Oceanside DUI, Ocean Beach DUI, Escondido DUI, Vista DUI, San Marcos DUI, Carlsbad DUI, El Cajon DUI it is vital you need to hire an attorney who knows how to defend your rights and can determine if the government can prove their case. Contact the Law Office of Mark Deniz now for a free case evaluation at 858-751-4384 or send an email to [email protected].
Escondido (/ˌɛskənˈdiːdoʊ/ es-kən-dee-doh) is a city in California‘s North County region, occupying a shallow valley ringed by rocky hills, just north of the city of San Diego and 30 miles from Downtown San Diego. Founded in 1888, it is one of the oldest cities in San Diego County. The city had a population of 143,911 at the 2010 census. Its municipal government set itself an operating budget limit of $426,289,048 for the fiscal year 2010-2011. The city is known as Eskondiid in Diegueño.
In 2007, the city ranked #65 by violent crimes per capita and #58 by property crimes per capita among 165 cities in California with populations greater than 50,000. Compared with the 12 largest cities in San Diego County, it ranked 6th in both categories. Its crime rate was lower in both categories than San Diego, El Cajon, and National City; higher in both categories than San Marcos, Carlsbad, Encinitas, and Santee. Escondido had a higher violent crime rate but lower property crime rate than La Mesa and Chula Vista; it had a lower violent crime rate but higher property crime rate than Vista and Oceanside.
However, since 2008, Escondido has seen a drop in overall crime. In 2009, 629 violent crimes and 3,880 property crimes were reported in Escondido. There were four murders and non-negligent manslaughters, 42 rapes, 249 robberies, 334 aggravated assaults, 779 burglaries, 2,402 larceny thefts, 699 vehicle thefts, and 23 arsons. In 2010, Escondido saw a 5 percent drop in violent crime, with only 597 reported violent crimes according to the Escondido Police Officer’s Association. However, there was a 3.9 percent increase in the number of property crimes, including residential and commercial burglaries, from 3,880 in 2009 to 4,033 in 2010, according to FBI statistics. In 2011, violent crime has decreased by 17.09% as compared to the same time frame in 2010. Leading the reduction is rape which is down 24.32%. Armed robberies went down 23.86%, followed by aggravated assault which is down 16.81%. There here were 3 homicides in the city, the same as the previous year.
In the landmark case Ingersoll v. Palmer, the California Supreme Court carved out an exemption to the “search and seizure” rule that would pave the way for twenty-five years of DUI checkpoints.
We felt it would be appropriate, at the quarter-century mark, to review the case and remind the public of the holdings.
DUI checkpoints were a new thing back in mid-1980s California. In fact, Ingersoll was filed just three days after California’s first DUI checkpoint. State officials studied existing cases and statutes and devised what was supposed to be a constitutional plan. Much of that plan was incorporated into the Ingersoll opinion, which likens DUI checkpoints to agricultural checkpoints and airport screenings to avoid the Fourth Amendment.
The following factors help determine the constitutionality of a checkpoint:
- Decision making by supervisors: This is important to ensure that checkpoints aren’t set up in “arbitrary and capricious” locations. The court didn’t say so, but we’re guessing they wanted to avoid any accusations of racial profiling.
- Limits on discretion of field officers: The theme of distrust of the officer continues. Strict procedures and a random selection of drivers according to a preset pattern (every third driver, for example) are suggested to avoid abuse.
- Maintenance of safety conditions: We’re not sure how it applies to constitutionality, but the court wanted lots of bright lights and signs.
- Reasonable location: The location should be based on relevant factors, such as areas with high incidences of DUI or DUI accidents.
- Time and duration: There are no hard and fast rules, but the timing should be set to optimize the effectiveness of the checkpoint. In other words, put ’em up when the drunks are out.
- Indicia of official nature of roadblock: This is more babble about bright lights and warning signs. They do mention that the lights and signage should be visible for the sake of notification to the drivers. Drivers also can’t be pulled over for avoiding the checkpoint, unless they violate a law to do so.
- Length and nature of detention: The time of the stop should be minimized as to infringe on a person’s rights as little as possible. That means peek at the eyes, smell for booze, and look for cans. If there are no signs of intoxication, the driver should be let go. If they look or smell drunk, field sobriety tests are appropriate.
- Advance publicity: Ingersoll was in favor of advance publicity. It referred to the deterrent effect and stated that the notice minimizes intrusiveness to a person’s rights. In 1993, the court in People v. Banks stated that publicity was not a requirement, but it certainly helps.
These guidelines are not created equal. Some, like the random selection of cars, are more important than others, like advance publicity. As for the applicability to a specific checkpoint, we’d recommend discussing the matter with a local attorney