Posted by Renee Revenue Tracker, a resident of the San Ramon neighborhood, on Jun 1, 2010 at 10:42 am
Dah! How else will our police forces raise their much needed revenue?? It's pathetic as they lay in wait for people to go nail with a DUI..... Fyi, folks, these people are all being picked up with trace amounts of alcohol or alcohol right on the tolerance boreder! The revenue they reap from these arrests is amazing! A total waste of a police force, judges and court time....Watch your chardonnay intake at local eateries, cause they're just waiting to pluck you off too!!
Posted by Julia, a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Jun 1, 2010 at 11:12 am
Hey Renee Revenue Tracker you are absolutely correct. But if you think the Danville PD is waiting and watching...try enjoying a light evening with friends and a glass of wine in Walnut Creek...Be on the look-out, because they are on the look-out, in fact they park and watch you leave your favorite eatery, if you appear to be having too much fun, you're tagged. I support getting the drunks off the road, but what the local PD's are doing with regard to their 1:00am to 2:30am stake-outs are wrong. But it's easy money and we all know money is tight, so I guess they have their marching orders. We are talking about Big Money.
Posted by Ripley, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Jun 1, 2010 at 12:14 pm
Did you know that even if your BAC is less than the 0.08 limit, i.e. >0.00 and <=0.08, it's the cop's discretion whether or not to cite for a DUI? It is no longer his discretion, however, when BAC>0.08.
Did you know that if you've been drinking, even if you're not driving, but are a passenger in a car with a driver who's had a couple, you can be cited? I know someone who was only a passenger but still had to answer for it in court.
Face it folks, our laws are based on hypocracy. There's no argument that impaired driving must not be tolerated, but it appears that even if there's only a trace of alcohol one assumes excessive and unreasonable risk of running afoul with the law. This is especially ironic in a town like Danville, where the cops are known to have a hair trigger with regards to even trivial violations, yet Danville seems to have more than it's share of businesses that make most of their revenues from alcohol consumption. Go figure...
If we as a society really don't want people to drink and drive, then let the laws reflect that sentiment through zero-tolerance for everyone. I wonder how Danville's economy will fair, however, and should Danville lose significant revenues as a result, who will pay for our police force?