DUI Checkpoints Are Cash Cow For Cops, Cities
Feb 23rd, 2010 | 30 responses
This article written by California Watch, an investigative team run by Lowell Bergman, former “60 Minutes” producer, blew my mind. It was emailed to me by a Riverside County District Attorney investigator and previous participant in the sobriety checkpoint program while a member of the National City Police Department. It is reprinted in its entirety. It is also on line at the California Watch web site.
Sobriety checkpoints in California are increasingly turning into profitable operations for local police departments that are far more likely to seize cars from unlicensed motorists than catch drunken drivers.
An investigation by the Investigative Reporting Program at UC Berkeley with California Watch has found that impounds at checkpoints in 2009 generated an estimated $40 million in towing fees and police fines – revenue that cities divide with towing firms.
Additionally, police officers received about $30 million in overtime pay for the DUI crackdowns, funded by the California Office of Traffic Safety.
In dozens of interviews over the past three months, law enforcement officials and tow truck operators say that vehicles are predominantly taken from minority motorists – often illegal immigrants.
In the course of its examination, the Investigative Reporting Program reviewed hundreds of pages of city financial records and police reports, and analyzed data documenting the results from every checkpoint that received state funding during the past two years. Among the findings:
. Sobriety checkpoints frequently screen traffic within, or near, Hispanic neighborhoods. Cities where Hispanics represent a majority of the population are seizing cars at three times the rate of cities with small minority populations. In South Gate, a Los Angeles County city where Hispanics make up 92 percent of the population, police confiscated an average of 86 vehicles per operation last fiscal year.
. The seizures appear to defy a 2005 federal appellate court ruling that determined police cannot impound cars solely because the driver is unlicensed. In fact, police across the state have ratcheted up vehicle seizures. Last year, officers impounded more than 24,000 cars and trucks at checkpoints. That total is roughly seven times higher than the 3,200 drunken driving arrests at roadway operations. The percentage of vehicle seizures has increased 53 percent compared to 2007.
. Departments frequently overstaff checkpoints with officers, all earning overtime. The Moreno Valley Police Department in Riverside County averaged 38 officers at each operation last year, six times more than federal guidelines say is required. Nearly 50 other local police and sheriff’s departments averaged 20 or more officers per checkpoint – operations that averaged three DUI arrests a night.
Law enforcement officials say demographics play no role in determining where police establish checkpoints.
Indeed, the Investigative Reporting Program’s analysis did not find evidence that police departments set up checkpoints to specifically target Hispanic neighborhoods. The operations typically take place on major thoroughfares near highways, and minority motorists are often caught in the checkpoints’ net.
“All we’re looking for is to screen for sobriety and if you have a licensed driver,” said Capt. Ralph Newcomb of the Montebello Police Department. “Where you’re from, what your status is, that never comes up.”
Additionally, the 2005 appellate court ruling includes exceptions, allowing police to seize a vehicle driven by an unlicensed motorist when abandoning it might put the public at risk.
Examples include vehicles parked on a narrow shoulder or obstructing fire lanes.
But reporters attending checkpoints in Sacramento, Hayward and Los Angeles observed officers impounding cars that appeared to pose no danger.
Reporters also noted that many of the drivers who lost their cars at these checkpoints were illegal immigrants, based on interviews with the drivers and police. They rarely challenge vehicle seizures or have the cash to recover their cars, studies and interviews show.
Some tow truck company officials relayed stories of immigrant mothers arriving at impound lots to remove baby car seats and children’s toys before leaving the vehicle to the tow firm.
“I have to stand here for days and watch them take their whole life out of their vehicles,” said Mattea Ezgar, an office manager at Terra Linda Towing in San Rafael.
This wasn’t what lawmakers intended when they passed an impound law 15 years ago – the same law that the federal court has since questioned, said David Roberti, former president of the state Senate.
“When something is that successful, then maybe it’s too easy to obtain an impoundment, which should usually be way more toward the exception than the rule,” Roberti said.
The impound law granted police the authority to seize unlicensed drivers’ cars for 30 days. The California Attorney General’s Office said in a written statement that the state law is murky in terms of whether vehicles driven by unlicensed motorists can be taken at all.
Police do not typically seize the cars of motorists arrested for drunken driving, meaning the owners can retrieve their vehicles the next day, according to law enforcement officials.
With support from groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving, California more than doubled its use of sobriety checkpoints the past three years.
To be sure, DUI checkpoints have saved countless lives on the nation’s roadways and have brought thousands of drunken drivers to justice. And by inspecting driver’s licenses, police catch motorists driving unlawfully, typically without insurance, and temporarily remove them from the road.
State officials have declared that 2010 will be the “year of the checkpoint.” Police are scheduling 2,500 of the operations in every region of California. Some departments have begun to broaden the definition of sobriety checkpoints to include checking for unlicensed drivers.
To recover an impounded vehicle, owners have to pay between $1,000 and $4,000 in tow and storage charges and fines assessed by local governments, municipal finance records show.
Owners abandon their cars at tow lots roughly 70 percent of the time, said Perry Shusta, owner of Arrowhead Towing in Antioch and vice president of the California Tow Truck Association. Many of the unrecovered cars are sold by the tow firms, which keep the proceeds.
Cities show big disparity in DUI arrests and vehicle seizures.
The city of Montebello’s DUI checkpoints rank among California’s least effective at getting drunks off the road, the Investigative Reporting Program found. Last year, officers there failed to conduct a single field sobriety test at three of the city’s five roadway operations, state records show.
Montebello collected upward of $95,000 during the last fiscal year from checkpoints, including grant money for police overtime.
The California Office of Traffic Safety, which is administered in part by officials at UC Berkeley, continues to fund Montebello’s operations, providing a fresh $37,000 grant for this year.
Most of the state’s 3,200 roadblocks over the past two years occurred in or near Hispanic neighborhoods, the Investigative Reporting Program’s analysis shows. Sixty-one percent of the checkpoints occurred in locations with at least 31 percent Hispanic population. About 17 percent of the state’s checkpoints occurred in areas with the lowest Hispanic population – under 18 percent.
Further, police impound the most cars per checkpoint in cities where Hispanics are a majority of the population, according to state traffic safety statistics and U.S. Census data.
Officers do not inquire about the drivers’ residency status. Nor do they contact U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement when they suspect unlicensed motorists are in the country illegally.
For 12 years, Francisco Ruiz has run El Potro, a Latin music nightclub, at the northeast corner of A Street and Hesperian Boulevard in Hayward. Not once had he seen a DUI checkpoint. Then, in 2009, the city’s police department conducted four operations just outside his front door.
“They’re not taking drunk drivers,” Ruiz said as he watched cars crawl through a Dec. 18 checkpoint at the intersection. “They’re taking people without a license.”
An hour into the operation that evening, officers had yet to make a DUI arrest, reporters observed. But about a half dozen cars were impounded, leaving drivers stranded.
Only one of the drivers could show he was a legal U.S. resident.
The state does not consistently collect data on where local police departments set up checkpoints. A majority of California law enforcement agencies declined to release records showing which intersections they target, or what transpired at checkpoints, making it difficult to perform a statistical analysis of seizures in heavily minority communities.
But cities across the state operate checkpoints in high minority communities, the Investigative Reporting Program found through demographic data and more than three dozen interviews with law enforcement officials at DUI crackdowns.
Checkpoints in cities where Hispanics are the largest share of the population seized 34 cars per operation, a rate three times higher than cities with the smallest Hispanic populations, the Investigative Reporting Program’s analysis shows.
The disparity between vehicles impounds and DUI arrests exist in virtually every region of California.
In San Rafael, 10 of the city’s 12 sobriety checkpoints the past two years took place on streets surrounding the city’s heavily Hispanic neighborhoods. Those operations resulted in four DUI arrests and 121 impounded cars for driver’s license violations.
The LAPD’s driver’s license impounds doubled the past two years. One operation in December netted 64 vehicle seizures and four drunken driving arrests.
Funding for DUI crackdowns plays a major role.
The federal government provides the California Office of Traffic Safety about $100 million each year to promote responsible driving that reduces roadway deaths. Of that, $30 million goes into programs that fund drunken driving crackdowns, particularly checkpoints.
Police overtime accounts for more than 90 percent of the expense of sobriety checkpoints. Law enforcement agencies tend to use more officers than a checkpoint requires, according to guidelines established by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Statewide, police departments on average deployed 18 officers at each checkpoint, according to state data. The federal traffic safety agency advises that police can set up checkpoints with as few as six officers.
The additional dozen officers typical at a California roadway operation cost state and federal taxpayers an extra $5.5 million during the 2008-2009 fiscal year, according to the Investigative Reporting Program’s analysis.
At least a dozen officers spent hours sitting and chatting at an operation in early January in downtown Los Angeles. A couple of officers smoked cigars as they watched cars go through the screening.
California police have seized the cars of unlicensed drivers for 15 years under the state law that allows such vehicles to be impounded for 30 days.
But in 2005, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in an Oregon case that law enforcement can’t impound a vehicle if the only offense is unlicensed driving. To do so would violate the Fourth Amendment, which protects everyone within the United States, whether they are legal residents or not.
One exception is called the “community caretaker” doctrine, which permits police to impound a car if it poses a threat to public safety, is parked illegally or would be vandalized imminently if left in place.
The ruling dramatically altered the law regarding vehicle impounds. In response, the Legislative Counsel of California in 2007 called into question the legality of the state’s impound procedures.
A lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of California’s impound law is awaiting oral arguments before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals later this year. The state and several cities that are defendants argue that impounds are penalties for a criminal offense, and therefore car owners are not subject to Fourth Amendment protection.
Former state Sen. Roberti, then chairman of the Senate’s Judiciary Committee, said he and his fellow lawmakers did not consider how the impound law might impact unlicensed drivers.
“It turned out to be a far more vigorous enforcement than any of us would have dreamed of at the time,” he said.
30 Responses to “DUI Checkpoints Are Cash Cow For Cops, Cities”
Hmmmm….
This is supposed to upset me or something?
A State with major financial problems is actually making money by impounding cars from illegal aliens and also from people without licenses as well as drunk drivers who might endanger public safety, rather than having to raise taxes on law abiding citizens?
Forgive me if I'm not offended by this.
Oh no…people breaking the law are being punished…make it stop!
Seriously though….I agree with Leo
Leo,
If I have more time I'll revisit this thread, but at least I want to point out a few items.
* Perhaps it would help you to view this by making the often-correct analogy to red light cameras and photo radar. There is much pro-criminal nonsense criticizing these, but it is true that some governments are not doing this for safety (even if they say so), but because they're greedy — as with ordinary “speed traps.”
* Perhaps it would help you also to view this by making the analogy to the Drug War. It's not just with the use of drugs (alcohol) in this case, but with impoundments of vehicles (seizures), which is a very effective countermeasure against bad driving (better than fines, probation, or jail), but which is abused.
* Better than jail with most offenders is fines or probation. Probation, though, is a huge potential money maker. With DUI offenders (there is often no distinction or classification made to seperate those with serious alcohol problems who are a true threat, from anyone who made a mistake or was that way for other reasons), there's a whole new market with interlocks and alcohol monitor devices, etc., which are a huge source of revenue (potentially hundreds of dollars per month in charges, i.e., revenues, so much it can be split, encouraging more of this in the future). DUI probations offer more revenue than seized cars!
The money involved with probation is potentially corrupting, with possibilities for sharing and kickbacks among courts, agencies, and the industry involved with this stuff, even with kickbacks for lawyers who are involved. (This is also true for lesser offenses such as red-light running as well as speeding.)
* Even if you support all the foregoing, no matter what, consider the bottleneck of the overloaded court system, though which all the offenders have to be channeled. (DUI is a serious offense.) That is in addition to the main thing, that these checkpoints and related consequences (offering huge revenues) are subject to abuse, no matter what you may think of routine pro-criminal or pro-poor-behavior whining.
Don't get me wrong — I don't mind safety, would like a nation-wide practice of 0.05 (a world standard) or 0.025 (already suitable for commercial, meaning truck & bus and metro transport, aircraft*). I would like to get fabulously rich selling the new miniature alcohol monitor (for a market much greater than that of the DUI offenders) and a modern interlock with a new sensing system (it's in my head — it really would be the safety seeker's dream if it could ever be done). But this is an area where government sometimes really are greedy, no matter what you think of offenders. (Probation and “crimes” already are a problem; I've heard many people remark about probation schemes “set up to fail” — increasing penalties and also revenues — and I've heard people complain about things like in Michigan, people arrested merely for being “in a known drug area” — and being run through the courts and probation and the money system.
States are getting desperate, Leo — and greedy.
* I believe the current aircraft and some other transport limit is 0.04.
Are they subject to abuse, sure, almost anything is. Does it disturb me that they make money, nope. Just focus on abuse that really happens and not complain about illegal aliens, drunk drivers, and people driving without a license losing their vechicles and I might agree with you.
A side note: I also find it kinda wierd that this:
Was inserted into an article complaining that the checkpoints were profitable.
“people breaking the law are being punished…make it stop! “
When I was in Phoenix, there was a big deal about photo radar (to catch speeders, a really bad problem in Phoenix as well as all kinds of substandard and aggressive driving — I was struck when on a motorcycle, when I lived there, by an aggressive and careless driver). During the hubbub about it, there were not only the people modifying their license plate areas to preclude photographing them, and at least one news story of people responding in an additionally dangerous way, throwing up obstructions in front of their faces, while driving, to prevent their faces from being photographed. There was at least one “libertarian” right-wing commentator that said people have a “right to speed,” as well as the typical complaints about being caught speeding, and “privacy” issues in case of those who were photographed along with someone else in their car that didn't belong there (not their spouse or other “exclusive” partner).
A worse problem, possibly, was the red-light problem. Even the backward (at least at the time) street system that encumbered normal numbers of drivers trying to turn left wasn't an excuse. (Phoenix, Scottsdale, and Mesa joined Tuscon as among the worst cities for red-light running. Similar behavior with left-turning at an intersection by a motorist lay behind my mishap as a motorcyclist.)
The drunks aren't as big an issue but I've heard ominous things in So-Cal from my brother (cops lined up near bars and clubs, and at events at stadiums, ready for a fine harvest), and I've heard numerous complaints when I was in Michigan about the experiences there.
Here in the Southwest where I am now, the big deal is on photo radar not for speeders but (as in other places I've been, like Washington, DC — anyone there knows about this) for red light runners at many intersections. 85 per cent of the complaints are bogus, but there's also a dark side of “the authorities” that shouldn't be ignored. (What are the charges for a ticket?) At least I haven't seen much abuse with impoundments yet (more effective and practical, but also very Drug War abusive.)
The anti-red-light-running arguments are laughable.
DUI offers bigger bucks. Much bigger bucks when you think about it. (So far, no additional monthly “charges” for some kind of limited license in addition to an interlock — these folks aren't yet in total money mode, but they're getting there. Rather than plunder cars, force them to be additional money-makers. In fact, I really don't see DUI checkpoints anywhere in the country to a large extent yet. Don't be surprised to see more of them soon, if this is a hot trend.)
I happen to have a problem with using police as tax collectors. There's more than a potential for abuse, cities have already been known to increase fines, not to discourage crime, or to increase safety, but for the sole purpose of collecting more money. Any time a system is being used for a purpose that it wasn't intended for, caution is advised.
Jer (and Professor Elwood — you might have thought ahead to this, too),
The big prize (somewhat a side issue, but of note here and with other offenses) is the impoundments as well as seizures (temporary or permanent seizing of the vehicles by the authorities). Grabbing the cars is the most effective measure but is also the most acutely abuse-prone feature of these programs.
“Impounds a lucrative business for cities, towing companies “
One of the additional things about the other offenses that can involve seizures, but in any case involves charging for offenses (red-light running competes with speeding for this), is that the programs (such as the red-light cameras causing the issue here, and this was known in DC for the same thing as well as for parking meters) is that these programs are often outsourced to the private sector. The additional markup on charges and the profits, I suspect are shared, legitimately or otherwise, with the courts and various jurisdictions (the cities and counties).
As I've said, what's been neglected is the future money-making measure (I anticipate governments will discover this shortly, and do it in addition to ramping up their other already-existing money-makers) is to release the vehicles back to the (sobered-up, in more ways than one) drunks (after paying huge one-time fees, of course) and then beginning the practice of charging new stiff monthly “charges” in conjunction with limited or interlock restricted licenses. $$$ $$$ $$$
* * *
“Just focus on abuse that really happens”
My complaint is against abusive government — and I've disparaged the (85% if not more) bogus complaints. While in Michigan I not only encountered people desperate to save their homes, but also a number of people who in my view were truly subjected to abuse, by a system notably appearing to want to be a money-extracting operation or system. That's why I made a remark or two some weeks or months ago about the need for judicial and corrections reform.
And the more powerful the tool (vehicle seizures, DUI and probation versus lesser offenses), the more potential for abuse. I expect to see more of it the more hungry (greedy or desperate) governments are.
It's disturbing to me that so many people think this is OK. Here's the real lesson: Crime pays – especially when the crimes are perpetuated by those who are entrusted to prevent crimes.
Don't be surprised if revenue-greedy Dems appeal in this way to “law and order” members of the public and choose this as one of the way they claim to be “safe and sane” and tough on crime. They can outdo the otherwise-against-government-abuse-or-growth (at least nominally so) Republicans.
[wink]
Dems and Reps? I don't think so. This is local abuse, which is practiced by many politicians. It's their training ground for higher corruption later on.
Well, this is a dilemma. I WANT cops to be stopping illegal aliens and people without licenses. They are breaking the law. And local governments are absolutely DYING with tax revenues drying up at a frightening pace.
But clearly, this is an abuse of the powers and privileges of law enforcement. Don't expect it to change, though. DON'T drive after drinking, follow the laws and keep your nose clean, people.
“This is local abuse, which is practiced by many politicians”
I'm sorry if I hinted that “Dems and Reps” meant state or (especially) federal politicians. This is indeed a local issue (notably so in the Detroit metro communities whose residents as well as mere visitors had tales of woe I heard them often sharing among themselves). It's a municipal-county government abuse. (Note that it's widespread among many of these local governments. They learn from each other, and it's as if all that's missing is a periodical dedicated to various rackets like this.)
The problem is not that the police are catching and fining undocumented people. The problem is that they are obviously setting up these checkpoints to do so, but calling them “drunk driving checkpoints”. If you want to catch undocumented immigrants, set up a checkpoint in those neighborhoods where there are lots of undocumented immigrants. If you want to catch drunk drivers, set up a checkpoint outside of bars where there is no nearby public transportation. The police aren't stupid — they know who they're going after, and that's who they're catching.
Leo, you said it first and best.
Although, I predict a plethora of lowrider '68 Chevy Impalas with dingleballs at police auctions.
Unlike the authors (Cal Watch) I wasn't so concerned about checkpoints snatching illegal alien unregistered vehicles or unlicensed drivers. They're a menace since few have car insurance. What grabbed me was the blatant overstaffing of checkpoints mostly on overtime by police bilking the system on the fed's dime. — Jer
It should also be noted, I think, that in most municipalities, funds for the prevention of drunk driving come from different sources than funds to catch undocumented immigrants. It's fundamentally dishonest to set up checkpoints for the purpose of catching immigrants using funds meant for the prevention of drunk driving. Again: areas where there are lots of drunk drivers are extremely easy to find. Just set up outside a bar at 2am, and these police officers will get hand cramps from all the tickets they'll write. Drunk people also automatically have their cars impounded, with all that revenue that goes along with that. If, instead, you want to catch immigrants, get the funds from the correct places, then set up an “immigrant check point”.
One question, of course, is why they don't just do that?
“What grabbed me was the blatant overstaffing of checkpoints mostly on overtime by police bilking the system on the fed's dime.”
Some Californians still believe Caltrans has no peer. [grin]
* * *
“Just set up outside a bar at 2am”
Actually, I mentioned this earlier. My brother has noticed it in Southern California currently, it is so blatant: outside bars, restaurants, and places like stadiums where there are events that draw crowds.
I also heard on the radio an hour or so ago about an additional item in addition to the other ways of getting tickets listed so far here: the practice in some states of the “speeding vans,” both parked and moving. (I've seen parked speeding vans with apparently legally-required “SPEEDING VAN [ZONE] AHEAD” signs, weird as that is.) The callers hated these more than unmarked moving and parked patrol cars, and at least one noticed their van “experience” included payments not to the police or to a government but to a private party (contracted).
“The problem is that they are obviously setting up these checkpoints to do so, but calling them 'drunk driving checkpoints'”
I forgot! You reminded me — along with immigration status and license status, don't forget insurance status! The scamming is far from complete.
F**king over poor defenseless people so that a bunch of upper middle class a**holes don't have to pay taxes… Sounds like standard conservative policies…
So DLS is a liberal now?
The punishment should fit the crime, not be milked for mercenary purposes. Good grief, has everyone in this country lost their wits?
Relax, nobody's lost their wits on this one:
“The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to get the most feathers with the least hissing.” — Jean Baptiste Colbert
Put this one up with cigarette and booze taxes, and it makes perfect sense.
Actually, it does resemble sumptuary (“sin”) taxation, in that has that superficial moral support among those who aren't distinguishing among the cases and more importantly, the multiple real issues involved here, as well as illustrates how power corrupts.
A broken clock is right twice a day…
“A broken clock is right twice a day…”
I got about the same attitude from elsewhere today.
[chuckle] It probably won't do good to go into “impratical” detail.
Here — these will keep you amused. (Who knows, new threads on here might be spawned by them.)
1. Cheney had another heart attack. Big Eddie (Ed Schultz): “That guy is Felix the Cat!” Eddie also noted that Cheney, at least, gets some of the finest health care in America.
2. This book was briefly discussed on one lefty show today.
http://www.amazon.com/Could-Happen-Here-America…
3. On another lefty show on a later road run, I heard about this.
(“Do they believe the Flintstones was real?”)
http://race42008.com/2010/02/19/poll-watch-ut-a…
People shouldn't break the law….drive dunk…drive too fast…park in handicapped parking zones without a permit. I have a couple of moving violations myself. I'm not blaming greedy government for my need for speed.
I believe that rich people should face the same punishment as poor people in this country and for the most part they do not. We shouldn't stop punishing law breakers because a certain demographic can get around punishment. We should change law to make sure everyone is equally punished.
There is a difference between “Law Enforcement” and “Extortion”, and what we have here is extortion…
[...] DUI Checkpoints Are Cash Cow For Cops, Cities (themoderatevoice.com) [...]
[...] DUI Checkpoints Are Cash Cow For Cops, Cities (themoderatevoice.com) [...]
[...] DUI Checkpoints Are Cash Cow For Cops, Cities (themoderatevoice.com) [...]