Napa Police: 4 DUI Arrests Reported from Yountville Checkpoint

Sunday night's multi-agency checkpoint in Yountville resulted in the arrests of four motorists accused of driving under the influence, according to Napa police. Arrest information does not indicate convictions.

Out of 2,000 vehicles screened at a DUI checkpoint in Yountville Sunday night, four motorists were jailed for driving under the influence, according to an announcement from Napa Police Sgt. Paul Paniagua:

The in conjunction with officers from , and , conducted a DUI/Drivers License Checkpoint on Sunday, September 2, 2012 as part of Napa County’s AVOID the 9 campaign for public safety. 

This checkpoint was one of many that have been or will be conducted throughout the year in the County of Napa. The location of Sunday’s checkpoint was on SR29 at Washington St in Yountville. 

The goal of the DUI Checkpoint is removing impaired drivers and to bring awareness to the public of the dangers of driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol. 

2000+ Vehicles Screened

4 DUI Suspects Arrested

8 Citations issued

4 Unlicensed and Suspended Drivers Sent to Court

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

Source: Napa Police Department.

For the latest reports on crime and arrests in Napa, please see our Police & Fire section, available from the News tab above and at napa.patch.com/police-fire.

For instant alerts, sign up for our Breaking News Alerts emails 

Napa Patch becomes Napa Valley Patch Sept. 27: Follow us on Twitter | Like us on Facebook | Sign up for the daily email with links to the latest news | Got something to say? Start a blog and share your views with the valley.

Abby Lane September 03, 2012 at 04:42 PM
I'm wondering what "4 Unlicensed and Suspended Drivers Sent to Court" means. Were their cars not impounded right then and there? I hope they were not given warnings and allowed to continue on their way. I was rear-ended by someone who did not possess a valid driver's license, registration or proof of insurance, and no police officer felt that was a valid enough reason to come to my aid because I wasn't injured in the accident. He was allowed to continue on after I'd done everything I could to try and get an officer to arrive. Terrible.
Louisa Hufstader (Editor) September 03, 2012 at 05:16 PM
Abby, I'm pretty positive police won't let an unlicensed/suspended driver continue behind the wheel, but to be 100 percent sure I have left a message for Sgt. Paniagua. We should not expect to hear from him right away because he sent the report at 1 a.m. on Labor Day and I hope is now enjoying the worker's holiday. But as our city's traffic czar he will be able to answer our question definitively. Thanks for asking.
Mark Mathews September 03, 2012 at 05:43 PM
Driving is a privilege, NOT a right, and anyone who is caught without eventual proof of a valid driver license or automotive insurance should be singled out from our population, for a long, LONG time. Make them pick up all the trash along those roads, and if they cause a fatality, up against the wall.
MICHAEL WILSON "Republican Kid" September 03, 2012 at 06:32 PM
Good job Napa cops.
Timber September 03, 2012 at 06:38 PM
Privilege or Right is irrelevant, checkpoints are still "...suspicionless stops by roving roadblocks..." according to SITZ v. DEPT. STATE POLICE 193 Mich. App. 690 (1992) Roadblocks are voluntary no one is required to participate.
MICHAEL WILSON "Republican Kid" September 03, 2012 at 10:58 PM
Privilege or not I do not need your car 3 feed in my side of the road.
Larry Cereghino September 04, 2012 at 12:50 AM
That was a good nite...2000 cars-checked and only 4 DUI suspects...at least they didnt have a chance to cause a accident....Driving down valley from up valley resturants... They will always catch some one..Great Job...... I stayed home with my glass of Merlot............
Timber September 04, 2012 at 01:34 AM
Would you mind relating that to suspicionless roadblocks. Thank you.
Timber September 04, 2012 at 01:41 AM
Logic says they potentially did have a chance to cause an accident. Did those 4 operate a motor vehicle that ended at a checkpoint? (without causing any accident mind you) They didn't just magically appear. Think about that.
Tom Davidson September 05, 2012 at 07:21 PM
So, get active, move over, or otherwise avoid "your" car coming 3 feet into your lane, and quit worrying so much about measuring how much "your" car has intruded into your rightful lane. People are so worried about blaming others that they go into "blame" mode rather than "avoidance mode" I don't need people refusing to avoid accidents. There are some unused assumptions left, if you'd care to use them. I have never had a motorist drift into my lane with a bottle in their face, but I've had literally HUNDREDS of people drifting into my lane with a cellphone in their face. But cellphone tickets aren't very lucrative. So we'll focus on the tickets that are.
Belle (Orchid Lady) September 05, 2012 at 08:48 PM
Timber, you're right but in Napa, they use motorcycle officers to go after and chase down any vehicle that turns before the check point. They also set them up on a "long stretch" with little to no where to turn to by pass the road block. Napa repeatedly violates the provisions set in the case law, that DUI?drivers license check points are a violation of Constitutional Rights, except they are 'allowed' with the exception they are voluntary. By preventing folks from turning down a side street, and making a traffic stop on those vehicles who turn, it is no longer a voluntary action.
Timber September 06, 2012 at 05:44 AM
Karl “...just not comply?”-- Please be specific, Not Stopping, refusing document requests, not answering questions, etc. To many variables associate with a general question. “...Validating PD activities in relation to DUI checkpoints...” MCNABB v. U.S., 318 U.S. 332 (1943) MAPP v. OHIO, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) U. S. v. Martinez-Fuerte - 428 U.S. 543 (1976) Delaware v. Prouse - 440 U.S. 648 (1979) Ingersoll v. Palmer (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1321 Michigan State Police v. Sitz - 496 U.S. 444 (1990) 1st case Supremes approve DUI checkpoints SITZ v. DEPT. STATE POLICE193 Mich. App. 690 (1992) Mich. Supremes reject the Feds 2nd time People v. Banks (1993)6 Cal. 4Th 926 CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS et.al. v. EDMOND et.al.531 U.S. 32 (2000) As far as I know Grant Monies used for motorcycle crackdown roving patrols still require some legal justification to seizing you(pulling you over). I am not aware of the police stopping someone by the type of vehicle that they drive as a lawful method of enforcement. “Bulletproof” is not the state of mind for exercising your Rights. These situations are highly fluid and require knowledge of what where how when why and some fortitude on your part.
Belle (Orchid Lady) September 06, 2012 at 08:50 PM
Karl- what Timber is sitting above are case laws not websites. All you new to do to locate them is Google the cases, specifically the Sitz case. The difference between the saturation patrols pulling over drivers is that by are still required to have a REAL reason to pull over any driver. Such as a moving violation or equipment violation. They cannot legally stop you just because they have some "grant money". If the scenario you stated above happens, you should ask why you were stopped and always have he officer identify them self, even if you are not cited for any violation. Lots of the time certain officers will stop people using profiling, that is not a valid stop.
Timber September 07, 2012 at 03:09 AM
Karl, Well I think that the terminology the police are using is merely psychological. Lawful?--well any arbitrariness would only be determined in court, so if a stop(s) seems arbitrary then an individual would have to keep diligent notes about all these types of encounters. Multiple occurrences shows a pattern which would suggest this behavior is likely to continue in the future. A more compelling position would be from a group of people with similar circumstances being arbitrarily detained, no infractions no probable cause, etc., unreasonableness is the basis for challenging such stops, a suit in court, only if no citations arise from those stops. One of the first things traffic cops learn in the police academy is to decide, before leaving their vehicle, whether they're going to give a ticket or just a warning. They may act as though they still haven't made up their minds and are going to let you off only if you'll cooperate. Don't fall for this. The hesitating officer may be trying to appear open-minded in order to extract admissions out of you, to use them against you in court if necessary. The strategy is to try to get you to admit either that you committed a violation or that you were so careless, inattentive, or negligent that you don't know whether you did or not. Give a noncommittal answer, like, "I see," or no answer at all. Silence is not an admission of guilt and cannot be used against you in court.
Timber September 07, 2012 at 03:10 AM
Now in crackdown situations the request for you CDL should be complied with, in general, even in light of “Calif. V. C. Section 14607.6 (b) A peace officer shall not stop a vehicle for the sole reason of determining whether the driver is properly licensed.” Interactions with the police are permissible in one of three ways; by warrant, by reasonable suspicion/probable cause or BY YOUR CONSENT. The stop by way of the crackdown could very well fall under the consent issue. If the stop is not challenged by you then it IS permissible only because you did not timely object. Questions are a very useful tool, this is why the police use them, you should as well, only when necessary. Asking questions helps you understand the situation better and attempts to get some form of admissions or confessions from the officer while at the same time you are not providing them with admissions they will use against you. EXAMPLE Officer: License, please? Me: What is the nature of this traffic stop, officer? Officer: We're checking for driver licenses. May I see yours? Me: Is there any reason to believe I'm unlicensed? Officer: I don't know, but I need to see your license before I can let you go. Me: How long do you plan on detaining me? Officer: Until you show me your license. Me: Have I broken any laws? Officer: Not that I know of, but I need to see your license or you're going to be here a while. Me: Would you mind showing me the law that requires you to verify my license
Belle (Orchid Lady) September 07, 2012 at 05:19 AM
Timber- You are such a breath of fresh air! Too many people give up their 4th amendment rights, yet complain about police violating them! I tried to broach this subject on another thread and was dismissed. Thank you for sharing your wisdom and insight. Sincerely, Belle
Timber September 08, 2012 at 06:56 PM
Thanks Belle Karl the silence is deafening...:) Hope you didn't get sent to the pokey.


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