2 Arrested During Lake Elsinore DUI Checkpoint

The checkpoint was stationed at Riverside Drive and Walnut in Lake Elsinore.

Patch file photo/Daniel Lane
Patch file photo/Daniel Lane

Two motorists were arrested for drunken driving during an overnight driver's license/sobriety checkpoint in Lake Elsinore.

Otilio Medina, 50, of Santa Ana, and Edgar Felix, 21, of Wildomar, were arrested at Riverside Drive and Walnut in Lake Elsinore at a checkpoint that began at 6 p.m. Friday and ended at 1 a.m. today, according to a report from Sgt. Peter Giannakakos of the Lake Elsinore Sheriff's Station.

Giannakakos reported 1,124 vehicles passed through the checkpoint; three vehicles were impounded and five unlicensed or drivers with suspended licenses were sent to court.

"Alcohol and drug impaired driving causes serious injuries and deaths that have marred recent holiday celebrations," the sergeant said. "The Lake Elsinore Police Department is committed to working aggressively to reduce the incidence of needless tragedy that accompanies any alcohol related collision."

The checkpoint was funded by a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety, through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

And Justice For ALL... December 14, 2013 at 07:45 PM
Some argue in favor of DUI checkpoints because any drunk driver off the road is a potential life saved-if that's all checkpoints did that argument would have moral merit. But in reality stopping drunk drivers has become secondary to filling cities pockets via tickets, towing, impounds, & our civil rights. While the justification for checkpoints is to locate drunk drivers, police also request drivers license, insurance, and essentially search vehicles on no legal ground such as "articulable facts" as required by the 4th Amendment- just on the off chance you might have something illegal in your car. The bottom line is, police are much more likely to find unlicensed drivers, and, although in 2005 an appellate court ruled that police cannot impound cars solely because the driver is unlicensed-they do. In 2009, police impounded more than 24,000 vehicles at DUI checkpoints in California. By comparison, they made 3,200 DUI arrests-ironically police do not typically seize the vehicles of a suspected DUI drivers, who are allowed to pick their cars up the next day. These impounded vehicles generated an estimated $40 million, which is split between the cities and the towing companies. Who really benefits from these checkpoints? I think it's pretty apparent who does. Not only do pay out of our pockets, but at the cost of our civil liberty. The sad thing is, we not ALLOWED this-we CONTINUE to allow this infringement on our rights. ANY infringement on our Constitutional AND general rights, no matter how small it may seem, and no matter on the good of cause, CAN NOT BE ALLOWED. Any violation of our rights on ANYONE, is a violation of ALL our rights for ALL of us.
rayne December 14, 2013 at 09:43 PM
I am in total agreement with Just the facts Ma'am. I am aware of these violations being trust upon us. This same infringements were fought and won in Oregon Courts with regards to illegal seizure or property. 4th Amendment upheld by the 9th circuit court.
T December 15, 2013 at 12:56 AM
Driving is NOT a right, it is a privilege. Have you forgotten the paper you signed when you applied for your drivers license? It states that you will show proof that you are able to legally drive in this state. That means you have a license, proof of insurance, current registration, a safe car and abide by all laws. If you don't like the rules stop driving, turn your license in and take public transportation.
kristin c December 15, 2013 at 02:44 AM
Heres the problem I see withhanding out DUIs... they arent prosecuted as they should be. My brother has had several and he only gets a slap on the wrist. His most recent DUI , he crashed his leased and uninsured bmw into someone and hurt 2 people. One person had to be cut out of the vehicle. They have postponed his hearing 3 times over 3 months... one Dui he hit a parked dar and was caught but never was prosecuted. All he had to do was pay 3000.00 to the owner of the car. So a checkpoint is pointless if they arent going to follow up
Gene Trosper December 15, 2013 at 03:03 PM
"Driving is NOT a right, it is a privilege. Have you forgotten the paper you signed when you applied for your drivers license?" The paper we are FORCED to sign in order for the king to grant us the "privilege" to travel? Humans have the natural right to travel and driving is an extension of that right.
BLUESGUITAR777 December 15, 2013 at 03:13 PM
T- while I certainly don't agree with driving while intoxicated you have to remember that we are supposed to be a free country. Driving is not supposed to be a privilege but something we should be allowed to do as free men/women. Our country/state is in the business of controlling people now a days and they're pissing on our constitution every day. Pretty soon we'll have little to no rights and full-on communism will be in place under the guise of "safety" and weak minded little drones like you only give them more power.
T December 15, 2013 at 03:18 PM
Let's keep Gene's thought process going out a little further . . . I also have the right to drink alcohol so to go along with your giving everyone the right to drive we can all drive drunk? You can travel all you want by walking or hiring someone to take you if you do not want to do what is asked of you to get a license. Again Gene, since traveling is a "right" and traveling any way we choose is an "extension" of that right why do I have to deal with pat downs at the airport when I fly? Or the body scan? Now don't tell me I don't have to fly because it is my extended right of travel.
jim woodward December 16, 2013 at 04:54 AM
well T, the absurdity of gene and the other ignorant clowns would be hilarious, if it weren't so pathetic. driving is an extension of the right to travel? that is as looney tunes as it gets. EVERYONE, without exception, with an iq above forty, and the ability and willingness to use it, comprehends the simple FACT that NO ONE has a right to drive. there is not a single line in the constitution that confers such a right. we can only pity the fools who are not able to understand something so simple
Marjie December 28, 2013 at 01:20 PM
Yea well ....lets see I've never had a dui or an accident but they took my roght to drive away because some idiot that bought my broken down car for 100.00 fixed it and drove it ..and because it wad technically never re registered ..still titled to me ..wrecked it and I got sued ...four times and I never knew I was sued until five years later because the law is wayyyy behind ...so now I can't legally drive or legally insure any car ....is that constitutional. ..I think not ....and don't say ...opt out or relinquishing ownership ...because it was a junk car and the dmv said gave me a temp tag to park and sell it and I did all that but guess what they made a mistake and guess who pays
Martha L. Bridges December 28, 2013 at 01:54 PM
Anyone selling, giving or donating a car to anyone for any purpose should take the precaution of notifying the DMV of the transaction immediately. It's just one of the things that is part of the business of life and needed to protect your personal interests. The same is true about loaning your car to ANYONE including immediate family members. You need to check for and retain a copy of their valid driver's license and proof of insurance or run the risk of shouldering the liability of being responsible for the costs of any damages. You need to drive defensibly, and take the responsibility of protecting yourself with good record keeping.
jim woodward December 28, 2013 at 03:59 PM
well margie, i'm sorry that happened to you, but, it was so easily prevented. all you had to do was file a release of liability, and, wallah, you are not responsible for ANYTHING involved with that car anymore. it is a simple piece of paper that takes all of about three minutes to fill out. it's possible that you might even be able to do it online anymore unfortunately, at this juncture, it looks like your only redress is to sue the clown that bought the car, for enough to cover the judgement. then, you can get your license back. it might not hurt to have a half hour free consultation with an attorney
Marjie December 29, 2013 at 02:03 PM
He's still in prson for the incidence that occurred and I did do all that ...except release of liability because it didn't exist in the state where the this happened forgot to mentionit was not in California...attorneys wat a lot of money still haven't found one to help for payments because the parties involved are five different people including to idiot and the DMV was aware that I was to using the vehicle I went there when I changed the tag to a new car and they said all I needed to do was put the temp tag u til the car was sold or salvaged ..but they are also the ones that placed the lien on my license even though I recievedd a paper to only have the car parked to be sold ...this is fallen through the cracks kinda thing and nobody all the way to the capital cares to fix why because it did t happen to them ...


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