.
.
.
.
.
The South Central Neighborhood Council has adopted a critical resolution calling for an end to car confiscations at sobriety check points in their communities. Unanimously passed yesterday, the thrust of the text is aimed the problematic manner is which such check points impound many more vehicles from unlicensed drivers (read: undocumented immigrants) than actual drunk drivers.
Three important “Whereas” portions of the resolution spell out the injustice inherent in this: “WHEREAS, the constant impounding of vehicles through sobriety checkpoints disproportionately targets low income communities such as the South Central area; and WHEREAS, the largest Spanish newspaper in the United States, La Opinion, has reported about the disproportionate use of checkpoints in South Central Los Angeles; and WHEREAS, La Opinion reported that $40 million dollar revenue generated by these checkpoints in 2009”
The SCNC is not simply denouncing the practice, but offering a solution by calling on the adoption of an Oakland policy stating, “This resolution calls on the Los Angeles City Council to adopt the Oakland City Policy of car confiscations which allows police to only tow a vehicle of an unlicensed driver after an opportunity has been granted to allow the unlicensed driver to relinquish the vehicle to a licensed driver already on scene or secure his or her vehicle on scene after a waiver has been signed.”
A press release on the SCNC’s resolution, which if picked up by three neighborhood councils goes straight to the Los Angeles City Council, further reads:
Stealing cars from Immigrants has become a multimillion dollar industry that is now being used to alleviate the city’s budget deficit. In 2009, the state of California shamefully profited $40 million from these checkpoints. This is being done at the expense of the undocumented community and is particularly shameful during this holiday season.
Under the pretext of looking for drunk drivers, the LAPD and Sherriff’s Departments are specifically racially profiling Latinos by strategically placing “Sobriety” checkpoints in predominantly Latino communities. These include “Sobriety” checkpoints on Tuesday mornings in strictly residential neighborhoods. These are obviously traps to catch unlicensed drivers. Both of those departments acknowledge that the GREAT majority of the cars impounded are NOT from drunk drivers but from unlicensed drivers; most of whom are undocumented.
Because Mayor Villaraigosa has publicly stated his opposition to the racial profiling that is taking place in Arizona, we call on him and the City Council to end this same type of racial profiling and attacks on immigrants here in Los Angeles.
Similarly, the practice of impounding vehicles of unlicensed drivers through sobriety checkpoints occurs in Santa Ana. A great many points of the SCNC resolution apply there as well. Research into this issue has been independently conducted by the Orange Juice blog and readers can search the archives for posts by former blogger Art Pedroza here. Just type in “checkpoint” and read many of his informative posts. The OC Register Watchdog also provided helpful data earlier this year, including this glaring juxtaposition:
- For every one drunk driving arrest that the Santa Ana Police Department makes, it impounds 4.5 vehicles.
- For every one drunk driving arrest that the Huntington Beach Police Department makes, it impounds only one vehicle.
Their collected stats from OC police departments showed that for Santa Ana there was 4.5 impounds per DUI arrest. 12 checkpoints conducted, 112 checkpoint DUI arrests, and 504 checkpoint impounds. An overwhelming 79% of “Hispanics” were affected by all of the above. Like Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, Mayor Miguel Pulido has also declared his opposition to Arizona’s racial profiling attempt in the form of a resolution denouncing SB 1070. Given that and given the statistics/practices of the SAPD’s own checkpoints (and where they do and don’t conduct them) a similar call to see if the adoption of an Oakland-style policy is applicable and appropriate should be discussed.
The underlying reasons for the “strategic” use of such checkpoints in concentrated areas of poverty has been well documented by criminologists. In effect, they represent a tactic on the part of law enforcement to sidestep the thorny problem of profiling. By setting up shop in Santa Ana, South Central LA, and similar areas, they mitigate this legal problem through the “random” use of checks in neighborhoods that are hardly random.
On this question, with the sophistication of GIS data analysis, it would be interesting to plot the use of checkpoints in relation to the social, economic and cultural demographics of such areas, as well as their frequency. Assuming that self-reporting data on drunk driving is reliable, such data suggests that drunk-driving among Blacks and Hispanics is less common than among whites (although official data in terms of arrests contradicts this). If this is true, the prevalence of such check-points in minority areas could feasibly be legally challenged in a manner similar to the use of profiling in traffic stops.
To be clear. I despise drunk driving, and I personally think that we should continue to follow in the path of most western European countries in terms of severe punishments for what is by all accounts a “crime of choice” (regardless of race or class) with often fatal consequences. Alcoholism is a disease, but drunk driving is not. That being said, there is a lot of data that tells us that drunk driving is not disproportionally committed by minorities. What is missing from the data (if someone has it I would love to know) is not only how and by whom the location of such checkpoints is determined, but also how much law enforcement agencies receive in direct revenue from the impounding of cars (as they do in the case of civil forfeiture drug laws).
Has stepped up enforcement saved lives?
Is taking cars from those who should not be driving having an impact on the death rate?
I don’t know.
But since the stepped up enforcement around the country (and county of Orange) the numbers of hiway deaths have fallen considerably. For decades 40 thousand plus deaths a year was the norm, now its dropped 25 percent to 30 thousand plus deaths a year.
That is one heck of an improvement.
Cook —
How would the adoption of an Oakland style policy effect the efficacy of checkpoints for nabbing actual drunk drivers? It wouldn’t because it doesn’t concern those offenders.
There’s little to any argument against it because of it is level headed. We know how corrupt these checkpoints can become. Just review how it went down in Maywood. Adoption of an Oakland style policy would rid potential for corruption and maintain public safety.
The gravy train with these “checkpoints” would end if undocumented immigrants were simply given driver’s licenses. That’s been a call since, at least, the days of Gov. Gray Davis. They don’t have access to them. They get taken advantage of.
Foreign driver licenses are allowed same with auto insurance approved of USA use.
Drunks are not the only killers on the road.
How does one get an international drivers license?
i am shocked that such a low percentage of those affected in Santa Ana are Hispanic. Are the cops profiling whites there or what?
An illegal immigrant who gets caught in one of these should be deported. As for his car he should be able to give it to someone legal, not just lose it to police.
DWM: consider the thoughts ww posted and then compare the data that the OC register posted (linked in my write-up) for departments across the county.
and dig up pedroza’s old write-ups from earlier this year.
dmw you know how these illegal alien actvist work . to them LAWS DONT EXIST . NEWSFLASH TO GABE it is ILLEGAL . AGAIN ILLEGAL . a word you guys should know by now to drive in california without a DRIVERS LINCESE and REGISTRATION . if ANYONE DRIVES WITHOUT ONE they are subject the penalities of the crime . you guys make me laugh , give illegals free eud = dream act , give illegals drivers lincense , heck lets have illegals vote too . =NOT
I never understand your posts Mr. San Ramon. You continually seek to thwart the laws of our republic or have others thwart them. You cast anyone that disagrees as “anti-immigrant.” No, we are just “pro democracy.” You are NOT saying that the cars impounded are legally and properly registered and the drivers properly licensed and insured.
Unlicensed drivers cost ALL Californians money and leave our streets more dangerous. According to California DMV studies, “impounding vehicles of unlicensed drivers reduces the chances of collisions by 38%.”
California Department of Motor Vehicles, “Evaluation of the Specific Deterrent Effect of Vehicle Impoundment on Suspended, Revoked, and Unlicensed Drivers in California,” RSS-97-171, by D. J. DeYoung (Sacramento, Calif.: 1997).
Studies have also shown that “Vehicle impoundment is having a positive effect on traffic safety in California, reducing the number of crashes and removing
unlicensed drivers from the street.” http://www.opgla.com/pdfs/Vehicle_Impound_Whitepaper.pdf
I know that I have to pay a significant additional premium to cover myself from risk from uninsured motorists.
Mr. San Ramon, are you saying that we should not try to get unlicensed, unregistered or uninsured cars off of the roads of California? Are you saying that because these cars are, in your own words, largely driven by illegal immigrants that they should be immune from the laws and standards that apply to all of the rest of us?
I find your posts didactic, poorly informed and poorly written.
Mr. San Ramon, I find your posts to be uninformed and poorly reasoned and this post is not exception. You seem to be arguing that it is inappropriate for law enforcement to impound cars of unlicensed drivers at checkpoints. I find it sadly amusing that you continually argue that those here in this country illegally are somehow exempt from the laws of this country. This logic is usually problematic, in this case it is downright dangerous.
According to studies published by the California Department of Motor Vehicles, impounding the car of an unlicensed driver reduces the risk of collision by 38%.
In addition,”Vehicle impoundment is having a positive effect on traffic safety
in California, reducing the number of crashes and removing unlicensed drivers from the street.”
http://www.opgla.com/pdfs/Vehicle_Impound_Whitepaper.pdf
Removing unlicensed drivers as well as unregistered and uninsured cars improves public safety and reduces costs to all Californians.
Are you arguing Mr. San Ramon that just because someone is here illegally, they do not have to follow the same laws and the same standards of other Californians? Are you saying that Californians here legally should just “suck it up” and bear the costs or illegal drivers driving uninsured cars?
I for one believe in a democracy that treats everyone the same under the law. The racist attitude shown by Mr. San Ramon that one racial group should be treated with preference over other racial groups simply has no place in our democratic society.
1) Please spell my last name right.
2) Your counterargument is flawed. What makes an undocumented immigrant an unsafe driver? Just by the virtue of them not being allowed to attain a license? The statistical data provided by the PDF includes statistics of those driving on suspended licenses. Well, that sure can’t be undocumented immigrants because they can not obtain them in the first place, much less have them suspended. Change it, allow for the licenses to be issued and then you will see how non-applicable your thoughts are. That’s the big picture. In the meantime, a city like Santa Ana should look into adopting Oakland’s policy…