Victims of car accident that killed Angels’ Adenhart. Still taken from video put out by Fullerton’s Police and Firefighter PACs.
I was up early this morning. On Facebook, I saw that Pam Keller was asking who had received a robocall yesterday that had been put out by the police and firefighters PACs. I expect you’re going to be hearing a lot about it in the weeks to come, so you might as well take a look at the video that accompanies the call:
I do have an opinion on this, but I’m interested in hearing what others have to say before I offer it.
Disclosure: I’ve endorsed Jan Flory and Kitty Jaramillo in the Fullerton City Council race. Vern has endorsed Jane Rands.
About Greg Diamond
Somewhat verbose attorney, semi-disabled and semi-retired, residing in northwest Brea. Occasionally ran for office against jerks who otherwise would have gonr unopposed. Got 45% of the vote against Bob Huff for State Senate in 2012; Josh Newman then won the seat in 2016. In 2014 became the first attorney to challenge OCDA Tony Rackauckas since 2002; Todd Spitzer then won that seat in 2018. Every time he's run against some rotten incumbent, the *next* person to challenge them wins! He's OK with that.
Corrupt party hacks hate him. He's OK with that too.
He does advise some local campaigns informally and (so far) without compensation. (If that last bit changes, he will declare the interest.)
His daughter is a professional campaign treasurer. He doesn't usually know whom she and her firm represent. Whether they do so never influences his endorsements or coverage. (He does have his own strong opinions.) But when he does check campaign finance forms, he is often happily surprised to learn that good candidates he respects often DO hire her firm. (Maybe bad ones are scared off by his relationship with her, but they needn't be.)
There is no nexus between DUI checkpoints and public safety. To begin with they are publicly advertised and anyone out partying avoids them. On average they net no drunks and only collect a bunch of impounded vehicles from unlicensed drivers (one may argue about the safety of the unlicensed drivers) but lets be honest and call the DUI checkpoints what they are- a big fat fundraiser for late enforcement, who gets massive overtime pay and pockets proceeds from impounded vehicles abandoned for lack of ability to pay for the impound and therefore sold at auction.
I think that announcing them is bad practice — and just shows our lack of seriousness about the whole thing. I also agree that the impounding of cars is a problem that demands rethinking.
Whether or not you agree with them, whether or not you think that the state wastes money funding them, the fact remains that the DUI checkpoints were tied to other LE funding (which someone proposing to reject them ought to have checked first) and that other funding meant that it was in the city’s interest to accept them. Rejecting them doesn’t even save the state money; they’re just going to give it to some other city. The way that it makes sense is if one wants Fullerton to go broke so you can break unions, cut services, and renege on pensions through bankruptcy.
Is that true? I thought that the SCOTUS had decided otherwise — just that they had to be random and not too burdensome. I don’t deal with checkpoints (unless I’m stuck in one), though, and I haven’t looked up the relevant cases.
Ryan Cantor
Posted October 12, 2012 at 8:34 AM
California Supreme Court (Ingersoll v. Palmer (43 Cal.3d 1321 (1987))
Greg Diamond
Posted October 12, 2012 at 8:52 AM
OK. If it’s based on the state constitution, that makes sense. I’ve only followed the federal Fourth Amendment issue.
There are various sides to this. I do support your side that it isn’t a DUI checkpoint as it is used to catch other violations. I was caught in a checkpoint from LAPD. They used the island in the middle of the street on Hollywood Blvd. There must have been 50 officers out there. I was stopped 10 times from 10 different officers, all caucasian, then a black officer gives me a fix a ticket for not having a front license plate. pfft.
But how officers look at non-DUI violators during checkpoints, whether they find 5 pounds of meth with intent to distribute or unlicensed drivers or any other violations other than DUIs, they feel that if they don’t enforce those laws because it is DUI only and something happens to someone and they become a victim from those offenders. Those victims find out that the police knew about it and could have stopped them (from the checkpoint), the police are afraid that the victims may hold them liable for whatever damages they received from the perpetrator.
ANYTHING coming from the FPOA should be considered garbage.
How about a ROBOCALL saying:
“Hi our members killed a mentally ill homeless man, who was completely helpless. We helped cover it up, we have given council canidate (INSERT NAME) money to help us continue our ways”
We would apprecate your support, our members have expensive boats and RV’s that need to be paid for, and with gas at $5.00 per gallon, it’s expensive to play on our PAID DAYS OFF”
That would be more accurate than this hyperboyle.
The FPOA, like others around the state are NOT here to benefit the public. They exist to enrich it’s membership PERIOD.
There is no nexus between DUI checkpoints and public safety. To begin with they are publicly advertised and anyone out partying avoids them. On average they net no drunks and only collect a bunch of impounded vehicles from unlicensed drivers (one may argue about the safety of the unlicensed drivers) but lets be honest and call the DUI checkpoints what they are- a big fat fundraiser for late enforcement, who gets massive overtime pay and pockets proceeds from impounded vehicles abandoned for lack of ability to pay for the impound and therefore sold at auction.
I think that announcing them is bad practice — and just shows our lack of seriousness about the whole thing. I also agree that the impounding of cars is a problem that demands rethinking.
Whether or not you agree with them, whether or not you think that the state wastes money funding them, the fact remains that the DUI checkpoints were tied to other LE funding (which someone proposing to reject them ought to have checked first) and that other funding meant that it was in the city’s interest to accept them. Rejecting them doesn’t even save the state money; they’re just going to give it to some other city. The way that it makes sense is if one wants Fullerton to go broke so you can break unions, cut services, and renege on pensions through bankruptcy.
Announcing them is part of what makes them Constitutional . . .
Is that true? I thought that the SCOTUS had decided otherwise — just that they had to be random and not too burdensome. I don’t deal with checkpoints (unless I’m stuck in one), though, and I haven’t looked up the relevant cases.
California Supreme Court (Ingersoll v. Palmer (43 Cal.3d 1321 (1987))
OK. If it’s based on the state constitution, that makes sense. I’ve only followed the federal Fourth Amendment issue.
There are various sides to this. I do support your side that it isn’t a DUI checkpoint as it is used to catch other violations. I was caught in a checkpoint from LAPD. They used the island in the middle of the street on Hollywood Blvd. There must have been 50 officers out there. I was stopped 10 times from 10 different officers, all caucasian, then a black officer gives me a fix a ticket for not having a front license plate. pfft.
But how officers look at non-DUI violators during checkpoints, whether they find 5 pounds of meth with intent to distribute or unlicensed drivers or any other violations other than DUIs, they feel that if they don’t enforce those laws because it is DUI only and something happens to someone and they become a victim from those offenders. Those victims find out that the police knew about it and could have stopped them (from the checkpoint), the police are afraid that the victims may hold them liable for whatever damages they received from the perpetrator.
ANYTHING coming from the FPOA should be considered garbage.
How about a ROBOCALL saying:
“Hi our members killed a mentally ill homeless man, who was completely helpless. We helped cover it up, we have given council canidate (INSERT NAME) money to help us continue our ways”
We would apprecate your support, our members have expensive boats and RV’s that need to be paid for, and with gas at $5.00 per gallon, it’s expensive to play on our PAID DAYS OFF”
That would be more accurate than this hyperboyle.
The FPOA, like others around the state are NOT here to benefit the public. They exist to enrich it’s membership PERIOD.
I have to agree with this.
Too bad I can’t vote there, so it doesn’t really matter.
I’ve had it with you consultants! That would be a terrible idea for a robocall!
Also: what do you think “hyperbole” (or “hyperboyle”) means?