Balanced justice

The editorial on DUI priorities mentioned many positive results
of the DUI Task Force and the improvements in motoring safety that
have resulted since their implementation.  However, there seems to
be an underlying view that the Task Force should only be checking
for drivers under the influence and somehow overlook other
violations of law.
It is obvious there is a problem with a system that allows
repeat DUI offenders to continue to drive.
The California Vehicle Code is a huge but comprehensive document
full of rules & regulations pertaining to everything having to
do with the driving privilege in our state. The CVC exists
primarily to provide public safety and preclude property damage
& loss. Anyone who conducts themselves in any action addressed
by the CVC is required to abide by it. One should remember that
driving is a privilege, not a right and therefore requires
participants to follow the rules of law for that privilege. 
To infer that sober drivers “caught up in local law agencies
sobriety checkpoints” somehow have their rights and property
threatened is absurd. As long as the driver is unimpaired,
licensed, insured, and driving a registered, insured, maintained
vehicle, NO threat exists.  If they are not following the law as
mandated by the CVC, or breaking any other law, there must be an
expectation that the law is enforced.  People will be less inclined
to break a law if they know it is actively enforced.  Drivers who
justifiably have their vehicles impounded and eventually forfeit
them because of their inability to pay to release them should have
thought about the consequences before breaking the law.  “Don’t do
the crime if you can’t do the time.”
While a primary function of such stops are to apprehend drivers
driving under the influence, I would also expect the officers to be
looking for safety issues such as unbelted passengers, burned-out
bulbs, bald tires, or anything involving ill-maintained vehicles
that could contribute to an unsafe situation for others sharing the
roadways. Also, the status of the driver and passengers should be
checked to determine if they are wanted for any other breech of any
other laws. This check is conducted during every routine traffic
stop, why should a checkpoint be any different?
The checkpoints found less than 1 percent of drivers were under
the influence, much less than many other checkpoints statewide
where some have found nearly 10 percent of drivers were DUI. That
traffic safety checkpoints have resulted in a 20 percent decline in
DUI related deaths statewide is remarkable and an incentive to fund
more of them. 
Any complaint that these checkpoints unfairly ensnare other
travelers that are breaking CVC or ANY other law is ridiculous.
What is unfair about apprehending someone who is breaking the law?
If they expose unlicensed, uninsured motorists that, even when
sober, could cause bodily harm and financial hardship to other on
the roadways is all the more reason they should continue
unchanged!
That the Task Force finds drivers breaking other laws during a
DUI checkpoint stop is somehow excessive, unfair, or our DUI laws
are being over-prosecuted is unacceptable. Yes, “We expect our laws
to be enforced by the courts and police. And we expect equal
treatment and consistent application of our laws.” Being equal and
consistent means just that; Law enforcement officers are sworn to
uphold the law, ALL the law, ALL the time. If society continues to
place “Rules of Enforcement” ala “Rules of Engagement” on our law
enforcement we have lost the war on crime and criminals will
exploit every possibility to do so.  Consistent and uniform
enforcement of our laws is the only true way to have a balanced
scale of justice.
Bryan Wade is a Sebastopol resident.