.

2 Arrested At Lake Elsinore DUI Checkpoint

In total, 577 vehicles passed through the checkpoint and five people were given field sobriety tests.

A DUI/driver's license checkpoint Friday night at Grand Avenue and Lake Street in Lake Elsinore resulted in two arrests, a sergeant from the Lake Elsinore Sheriff’s Station is reporting.

Lake Elsinore residents Joy Marie Jacobs, 43, and Michael F. Shelburn, 66, were arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence, according to Sgt. Peter Giannakakos.

Additionally, 20 people were sent to court for not having a license or driving on a suspended license, and three vehicles were impounded, the sergeant said.

In total, 577 vehicles passed through the checkpoint and five people were given field sobriety tests, he added.

“The goal of the DUI checkpoint was to remove impaired and suspended drivers from the roadway and raise public awareness of the dangers of driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol,” Giannakakos said.

The checkpoint, which was conducted by the Lake Elsinore Police Department, was funded by a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

One Voice February 23, 2013 at 05:55 PM
Seems as though these check points lately are not getting as many drunk drivers as they used to which really cuts down on the revenue that the arrests make, compared to the amount of money that it costs to staff these checkpoints. Great though that they are getting the unlicensed off the streets but it seems a bit costly for the taxpayers, I know it's Grant money, grant money is taxpayers money!
Roadeo Driver February 23, 2013 at 06:17 PM
The problem is that people spread the word about the location of the checkpoint and their friends go around it, avoiding the consequence and driving under the influence anyway. I would think that more people would care about their friends and insist that they stay home or designate a driver. Can't imagine the guilt one will feel when they loose a friend because they gave them the ability to slight the system.
blondi22569 February 23, 2013 at 06:32 PM
I'm glad their catching less drunk drivers....hopefully that means there are less on the road then.
blondi22569 February 23, 2013 at 06:33 PM
* they're
Kaleen Itup February 23, 2013 at 06:43 PM
even one drunk loser off the road is worth the cost!
blondi22569 February 23, 2013 at 08:51 PM
Not a blonde moment Steve, just my Fire choosing the wrong word and I didn't catch it. I agree with you 100% Kaleen! I am still hopeful that people are more aware and that there are more designated drivers nowadays. My cousin who I loved very much wash murdered by a drunk driver. Multiple DUI' s in multiple states and thankfully the jury agreed with the murder charge and convicted the low life of 2nd degree murder and he can never kill or injure another innocent person.
tweetledee February 24, 2013 at 01:49 AM
Most people turn on mountain and go around that checkpoint, I did then texted my wife to do the same later in the evening when she came home, You dont have to go through these things as they are voluntary and there is always a exit to go around them as they are a illegal seizure of your vehicle and a illegal search and only voluntary, Smart drivers go around,unless you like the police to harass you and stop you from going on your way,then maybe you need other help thats not available to you on the patch..
Joy February 24, 2013 at 01:54 AM
Whether the checkpoints generate revenue or not shouldn't really be an issue. Yes, they do cost money to run. But it comes down to pay for the checkpoint (in the way of officers' salaries) or pay in lives (by way of drunk driver) I think most people would choose the former... If your argument was more along the lines of unreasonable search or lack of reasonable suspicion prior to stopping an individual I might be more inclined to listen to a call to halt these checkpoints to save the taxpayers' money. As a general rule, though, I think I favor these checkpoints.
tom February 24, 2013 at 02:09 PM
Again 20 people with no license. It should have read 20 cars lmpounded.
Timber February 24, 2013 at 11:30 PM
Those 20 that were sent to court for not having a license or driving on a suspended license did not realize that dui checkpoints are voluntary. The only requirement imposed upon a motorist seized during such a checkpoint is to STOP. The next act is to inquire when you are free to go.
Just another knucklehead February 25, 2013 at 08:04 PM
I believe these check points violate our constitutional rights. However, the rules for them make them voluntary in that you have the opportunity to avoid them. With that, anyone that gets busted at one is a Moron and deserves it.
Just another knucklehead February 25, 2013 at 08:09 PM
Actually, if you do not opt to avoid the check point you are required to produce your drivers license. The advance warning states "DUI / Drivers license" and a sworn officer is requesting it so you are obligated at that point to produce it. If you dont, you can be sited or arrested. By not avoiding it you are in essence agreeing to participate. However, You dont have to produce your vehicle registration or Insurance information.
One Voice February 25, 2013 at 10:40 PM
Trying to avoid these check points will have an officer chasing you down. When they set up a checkpoint on Riverside Dr people were using Machado to avoid it, they were being pulled over by motorcycle cops that chased them down as they tried to avoid going through. It wouldn't be smart to try and avoid unless of course you have something to hide, just sayin.
Timber February 26, 2013 at 05:05 AM
@ JaK That Rights violation is the proximate cause of the individuals actions, not the state or officers themselves, during such encounters. During any investigatory encounters with police “The Fourth Amendment applies to involuntary detention(s) occurring at the investigatory stage as well as at the accusatory stage” (DAVIS v. MISSISSIPPI, 394 U.S. 721 (1969)). Dui checkpoints are warrantless and void of ANY probable cause to justify the seizure in the first instance, this leaves consent as the only remaining principle which any checkpoint hinges upon. Consent is either given or withheld by the individual. Generally, checkpoints function on your voluntary consent. The particular vehicles stopped are determined through a neutral prewritten formula in advance of the operation itself, it's used to overcome the arbitrariness of the contacting officers and the reasonableness issue.
Timber February 26, 2013 at 05:05 AM
Motorist are only required to present a DL 'upon demand of a peace officer' (see VC Section 12951(b) and VC Section 14607.6(b) ). This 'demand' comes only by way of probable cause justifying the stop initially. Checkpoints lack any probable cause justifying the stop---only the neutral formula is used to authorize the stop, not cause itself. The physical act of stopping the car is involuntary but required of the driver. What follows is the meeting of the minds which leads to consent, hence the voluntary nature of the police/citizen contact. Police do not 'demand' your papers they 'request' that you voluntarily admit or deny you have them. Police can ask you anything under the sun but you have no legal duty to answer during VOLUNTARY suspicion-less roadblock seizures. Please read the colloquy towards the end of the landmark SCOTUS case Brown v. Texas http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/443/47/case.html Checkpoint refusal LV, Nevada http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILqc0DMh84k

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 »