POMONA - Thursday, August 21 2008

Pomona Speaks/Pomona Habla, a coalition of community groups, held a forum to discuss police checkpoints and formulate an action plan.

Pomona Speaks/Pomona Habla was formed in response to the checkpoints, which have resulted in hundreds of cars being impounded, in most cases, due to the driver's not having a valid driver's license. Many of the city's unlicensed drivers are unable to receive a California license due to their immigration status.

The most egregious checkpoint was held earlier this year on May 3, when police set up a four-way roadblock at the corner of Mission Boulevard and San Antonio. The massive operation required the support of the Los Angeles County Task Force and police from neighboring cities. In response, hundreds of Pomona residents and supporters marched on city hall to denounce the excessive police presence. City councilmembers Cristina Carrizosa and Paula Lantz both witnessed the police action and made comments at the council meeting the following Monday. Carrizosa commented that the use of force reminded her of film depictions of the Nazi Gestapo, while Lantz characterized the events as "disturbing." During the city council meeting's public comment period, five people spoke in opposition of the checkpoint. According to the minutes, the speakers "expressed concern with the over reach [sic] of power by the Police Department, the affect [sic] on the children of the community, the undue burden on the business in the immediate area, the use of outside agencies and the loss of trust for law enforcement." Commentary in the media criticized the checkpoints for unfairly targeted the Latino community due to their timing (which coincided with the Cinco de Mayo holiday) and placement (near a Cinco de Mayo celebration.)

Carrizosa's comments proved controversial, and she was criticized by police chief Joe Romero, who called her comments offensive. The fallout continued the following week, when the president of the West Covina Police Officers Association defended checkpoints and further criticized Carrizosa for comparing law enforcement to the Gestapo. The comment also angered Paul Koretz, executive director of the Western Region of the Jewish Labor Committee, who criticized the comparison for "diminishing the real horror" suffered by the Jewish people.

Since the May 3 checkpoint, the coalition has been pushing for clarification of the city's policy and adherence to the law. The forum was held to give people a chance to express their frustrations and feelings regarding the checkpoints and to offer suggestions.

The forum was held at the Centro Promesa de Dios, a Catholic church in Pomona's historic arts colony. Attendees began lining up prior to the announced 6:30 start time to sign in and receive a copy of the meeting's agenda and the coalition's demands.

Two hosts, Mari Cruz and Raúl, welcomed us to the forum and then introduced Father Guillén, who led us in a bilingual prayer. Following the prayer, Al, a member of the Inland Valley Council of Peacemakers, sang an indigenous song, accompanying himself on a drum, to invoke the spirit of friendship.

Angela Zambrano, an organizer with the coalition, followed the song. She began by thanking the church and its youth group for helping to organize the forum and then recognized the coalition's member groups: Latin@ Roundtable of the Pomona and San Gabriel Valleys, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, Pomona Latino Chamber of Commerce, Gente Unida, the Inland Valley Peacemakers Council, Mexican-American Political Association, Hermandad Mexicana Latinoamericana, Brown Memorial Temple, and Saint Madeleine's Catholic Church. She then reviewed the agenda and asked if any amendments were needed. Next, she reviewed the demands of the coalition, among which are the inclusion of coalition members in the city council's subcommittee on checkpoints. At the end of her review, an audience member asked if she could speak in English. "Yes I can. But--but the problem is that we're gonna be-- it'll be-- we're gonna be here till midnight." She then summarized her speech in English and offered copies of the demands in English to non-Spanish-speaking members of the audience.

Zambrano was followed by José Calderón-Zapata, a professor of Chicano studies and sociology at Pitzer College in neighboring Claremont who also presides over the Latin@ Roundtable and has been active in the local immigrant rights movement. Calderón, translating for himself, summarized the coalition's achievements, including a commitment from the Pomona Police Department and a recommendation from the city council that checkpoints not be carried out prior to nine p.m., that they not be carried out in residential areas, and that the checkpoint of May 3 be investigated. He emphasized, however, that these gains were only a partial victory and that much work remained to be done. Professor Calderón then raised the issue of an appellate court's ruling that the section of the vehicle code requiring the 30-day impounding of vehicles of unlicensed drivers unconstitutional and the Legislative Legal Office's subsequent recommendation that suspects be allowed a certain amount of time to find a licensed driver to remove their vehicles from the scene rather than have them impounded. He also proposed pressuring the city not to renew the grant from the Office of Traffic Safety that funds Pomona checkpoints.

The floor was then opened up for testimonies from attendees. During the introduction to the open forum, somebody in the back yelled out that police were harassing forum attendees just outside. Then Professor Calderón framed the struggle against excessive checkpoints in the historical context of the fight for civil rights.

Hecklers in the back began yelling statements such as "Driving without a license is a crime!" A woman, unintimidated, took the floor.

She forcefully denounced racial profiling on the part of the Pomona police department. "It's not just the checkpoints. It's also the motorcycle cops who stop anyone they see who looks Latino to them," she said in Spanish. She went on to discuss the financial burden her family has suffered since her husband's car was impounded.

She was followed by Douglas C. Pierce, a Pomona resident who requested that his comments be translated into Spanish. Pierce supported the idea of checkpoints to counter drunk driving, but insisted that they also be carried out in the wealthier areas of the city. He also recommended that agencies specify the exact location of checkpoints. He also recommended that undocumented immigrants be issued a "B Social Security" card and pay $10 quarterly into social security. He further suggested that undocumented people be granted drivers license. Finally, he addressed the language issue, citing the first amendment as the legal basis granting people the right to speak whatever language they desire, and expressed his hope that conditions improve next year. His comments were then translated.

After Pierce, a man named Ramiro shared his feelings that the Pomona police department seeks only to protect all the city's residents, regardless of the race or color. He then expounded on the evils of drunk driving, mentioning a recent incident in which a Pomona police officer was hit by a drunk driver at three o'clock in the afternoon. "As long as we have people that are drinking, driving, under the influence, none of us in this entire room are safe," he explained. A translator then summarized his comments in Spanish.

Rosa then spoke, informing those gathered of the statistical likelihood of having a car impounded at a checkpoint, explaining that it was greater than the likelihood of being hit by a drunk driver. She also insisted on the importance of resistance and of refusing to be intimidated.

Rosa was followed by a woman who appeared to be African-American who questioned the use of the word "coalition" by the event's organizers. "As a citizen of Pomona, I'm trying to understand what's going on, OK, because it says 'coalition,' alright? I feel left out, because I'm a citizen of Pomona, I have subjected to these checkpoints as well, OK? 'Coalition' means 'We do this together.' I'm --I cannot offer my support if I do not know what's going on, and I really feel excluded in this meeting because of the language issue, OK? However, I am a concerned citizen. I believe in helping anyone's cause if it's a just cause, but I don't really understand what this one is."

She continued: "When I first got my driver's license, I was told, 'You have to have your driver's license with you at all times when you are driving.' OK? Now, I vote religiously, every election, alright? We vote laws in, and it is voted by the general public. And when we vote a law in, the police officers have an obligation to enforce that law. And the law says, if you drive without a license, you go to jail. Ok, now, I understand about the hardships and all, but we can avoid the hardships if you just have your license with you." She summarized: "I think the cause is misconstrued. OK? I don't understand the cause. I feel, actually, I feel like I'm being profiled. Because, you know, we're speaking Spanish, and I don't understand it, I wanna support, how can I support something I don't understand? I've lived in Pomona for 36 years. I wanna be a part of whats going on, but 'coalition' mans we're all included. OK? Thank you."

At that point, Zambrano announced that the woman would be the last speaker, but then, realizing that the translator was approaching the microphone, allowed the translator to speak.

After translating the comment, the translator herself commented in response to the last speaker. "The driver's license laws in California are a racist persecution of the community because people who are undocumented do not have the right to a driver's license." This comment was booed by several minutemen in the back of the church, who interrupted the speaker. "It is not possible to enforce a racist and unjust law in a good way."

She then translated her own comments. While doing so, she was interrupted by a man yelling in the back. I couldn't make out what he was saying but the general feeling was that it was somebody from the pro-checkpoint/anti-immigrant element that attended the event. "I think everybody has a chance to speak. You have to stand in line," responded the speaker.

Her suggestion was that Pomona devise alternative strategies for ensuring that people were driving safely in ways that would not penalize people for driving without a license, such as allowing them to provide proof of driver training. Again, she was interrupted by yelling hecklers.

At that point, Arturo Jiménez, a leader in the coalition, approached the group of hecklers and spoke to them. People in the audience began to pay attention to the confrontation rather than the speaker. People began yelling anti-immigrant and anti-minuteman slogans, and a man who appeared to be white held up a sign. I heard somebody yell, "He's a cop!"

Zambrano asked that people not yell, and explained that since people still wanted to talk, she would extend the forum for ten minutes and asked the remaining speakers to take no longer than a minute each. She then set the groundrules: "The people that cannot respect the rest of us, we're going to ask you to leave. And if you don't leave, we're going to ask someone to take you out."

A young man from Upland, speaking in Spanish, began recounting his experiences with the law, but people in the back continued to shout, rendering his story unintelligible.

The next speaker warned the crowd against "falling into provocations." Zambrano then announced that the provocateur was a police officer. Some people started chanting "Justicia," and a man was ejected from the crowd. (video) Forum attendees later identified the man as off-duty Pomona police officer Alemán. Commotion ensued, with activists squaring off with minutemen-types and apparently, other off-duty police officers.

Once order was restored, Professor Calderón returned to the microphone to encourage people not to give in to provocation, because that would accomplish the detractors' goal of shutting down the forum. While he was explaining this, Arturo Jiménez asked a group of four youths to step outside with him, asking them if they had used foul language or been rude to the minutemen.

Zambrano then announced that the remaining speaker were to offer suggestions.

The first was Adriana, a young woman who denounced Officer Alemán and accused him of harassing her mother just prior to to the actions of May 1. She also wondered allowed how people could be expected to follow the law when there was no avenue for them to do so. She also said that she was sure that the meeting would have been better-attended if people weren't so afraid to drive. She was heckled by Ramiro, the speaker who had earlier defended checkpoints, interrupted her. "I'm not gonna go that low to argue, OK? I'm here to unite my race, OK?" At that, the woman who had earlier spoken about feeling excluded stood up and shouted aloud, appalled. Adriana continued her comments, urging unity amongst participants.

Guadalupe then spoke about losing her car and the hardships she has faced since then.

She was followed by Jeff Pomroy. In heavily-accented Spanish, he shared his experience of being hit by an unlicensed, uninsured driver. While his family has recovered physically, the driver has not been punished, and he has not received any compensation for the damage to his truck. He emphasized that the checkpoints were not just for DUIs, but also for licenses. He then translated for himself. In his translation, he added that the coalition was misdirecting its efforts. "If you want to change this law, you need to change it at the assembly level, to say that it is a right to drive, and that you can drive without a license."

A middle-aged Mexican man then suggested that Mexican licenses be accepted.

Next, a woman told the story of her daughter being stopped for attempting to avoid a checkpoint, and then being harassed.

The next speaker, Hassan Alyassin, read aloud the fourth amendment to the Constitution. He informed the audience that there are strict regulations governing checkpoints, and accused the police of not following them. "Some of the checkpoints in Pomona have been against what the OTS grant because each checkpoint is to be conducted at a location that is the area of high-traffic collisions. Some of the checkpoints conducted in Pomona have not been in areas of high-traffic collisions." He then announced that he would run for mayor in Pomona, and that ending checkpoints was part of his platform. His comments were then translated into Spanish.

Father Guillén then argued that the law was just, but suggested that it be enforced without profiling Latinos. He also cautioned against municipal forces overstepping their jurisdiction to enforce immigration law. He touched on the "language issue": "The fact that we have people that speak Spanish, should not be something to be frightened of. Americans, when they go on vacation to other countries, they have to adjust to the language there. And I think that its important for us to be more compassionate or thoughtful about the language barrier. I think we can work through that, and it only takes a generation and a half to really overcome that if we're just patient, also civil, and respectful."

He ended with a warning against "politics of division." "They divide us into groups. [...] You see Hispanics and Anglos, you see African Americans. And I think this is a country that we've said we're 'Unum expluribus,' one country made up of many different people. Diversity is here to stay whether we want it or not."

He was followed by a man who stated that no official should be above the law. He compared the current abuses to the civil rights violations of the 1950s.

Next, a young man argued that barriers such as the lack of drivers license prevent people from reaching the "American dream." He then suggested that people alert one another of checkpoints through a network of text messaging.

An older man spoke on the importance speaking out and of unity for future generations.

Finally, a woman who had just returned from a visit to Utah related her experience passing through a checkpoint there: "There, there was a checkpoint too. And the police asked us, 'Have you drunk? Do you have any drugs? You haven't taken drugs?' No. That was all. They didn't ask us for licenses, for insurance, nothing. So we need to do this the same way in Pomona. We have to fight for this."

Calderón summarized the suggestions, which he had been noting on an easel pad. Then we were invited to join hands in a circle and sing De Colores.

The next meeting was planned for September fourth at seven p.m. and the meeting was adjourned.

error

http://ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/checkpoint_laws.html

These checkpoints are illegal. Checking for sobriety is a legal gray area, in the first place. Some states don't allow sobriety checkpoints because they are illegal according to the state constitution.

So, the right of the state to conduct sobriety checkpoints is an exception to the general law. The general interpretation of the law is that police checkpoints are not allowed. Checking for intoxication was allowed because it's considered a significant safety hazard -- drunk driving is so dangerous that it merits stopping everyone to check for intoxication.

Checkpoints are potentially a violation of the 4th amendment, protecting against unreasonable search and seizure. What makes them somewhat illegal is that the drivers have done nothing to merit a search.

Undocumented immigrants aren't dangerous. Unlicensed drivers, while potentially dangerous, are far less dangerous than drunk drivers. They aren't dangerous enough to merit the general violation of our rights that these checkpoints require.

----

Also, the speaker who complained about language issues is correct. To stop these ICE clampdowns and local police collaboration with the ICE agenda, it will require coalitions, especially at the Federal level, where Latino political power is weak and often fractured.

While there may not always be agreement about immigration, there are many groups that would ally with Latinos regarding the issue of police abuse of power.

" "If you want to change this law, you need to change it at the assembly level, to say that it is a right to drive, and that you can drive without a license." "

The constitution limits the state in its ability to restrict movement. Technically the state cannot infringe upon the "people" the right to travel. At least for non commercial, privately owned transportation.
Physical conditions such as unsafe mechanical configurations are open to law enforcement and subject to regulations but without a visual safty issue to cite, law enforcement is restricted by its operational constitutional limits under the of the Bill of Rights.

What kind of sick mother fucker is _against_ getting drunk drivers, illegal Mexicans, and people driving without license or insurance off of our streets? How much of a fucking insane CRIMINAL does one have to be in order to be _against_ the safety and protection of the American citizen?

During some days of the year having drunk driving checkpoints should be required around the country alnog major highways and through ways as a matyter of general public safety. There are enough drunk drivers out there to warrant preliminary checks of all drivers on certain days, and for actual drunk testing to be increased massively of those who fail the preliminary checks.

Drunk drivers need to lose their driving licenses for one year on the first offsense. They need to go to prison for a year on their second offense. On the third offence, drunk drivers NEED TO BE EXECUTED -- no exceptions.

As for getting illegal Mexicans and capturing other criminals as a consequence of drunk testing, why would _anybody_ be against that?

Good fucking grief. Some people think they have some god-given right to commit any crime they want. They think they have the right to violate the health and safety of others just because they're in the country illegally, trying to pretend that all efforts to STOP SUCH FUCKING CRIMINALS is some how because the mother fucking criminals have brown skin.

Fuck drunk drivers. FUCK illegal fucking Mexicans. And fuck all the other violent criminals driving our streets. The country needs a whole lot more enforcement, executions of repeat offenders, and an end to placating the criminal simpathizers who pull the fucking race card every time some criminal gets caught.

Something about innocent until proven guilty.
Welcome to Mr. Rice's 4th Riech.
Fuck you Rice.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "

The courts made an exception for sobriety checkpoints because drunk drivers are considered a threat to other drivers. Now, of course, even that is contextual. In a city they are. On a freeway, in a suburb, they are a threat. BUT, out in a rural area where there are few cars, is a drunk driver really that much of a threat? Probably not to anyone but themselves.

There are checkpoints out there for insurance. That, IMHO, is not right. If the lack of insurance is such a threat to other drivers, then, why doesn't the state provide insurance for drivers? Then everyone would have insurance, and there'd be no need to infringe the 4th amendment.

There are also these new "sobriety checkpoints" where they seem to be targeting unauthorized immigrants. Again, are these drivers really that much of a threat? I grant that they are likely to be a greater risk than the average driver, because they haven't been tested about their understanding of our laws... but are they that much more of a threat? Common sense says "no". They were probably tested in their country of origin, and those who were educated here, took driver's ed in high school.

So, these checkpoints, if they are allowed to exist, really do little to help us, but infringe on our 4th amendment rights against unreasonable search, without a warrant.

nobody is defending drunk drivers here. what we ARE in opposition to are these so-called "DUI checkpoints" that target minority enclaves . These roadblocks begin while the sun hasn't even set. If these Gestapos REALLY wanted to get drunk drivers the roadblocks would be set up AFTER midnight when all the winos leave the bars and nightclubs.
These "DUI checkpoints" roadblocks are just a red herring, a way corrupt Nazi Pigs can increase their revenue while oppressing minorities. Can you say "Maywood Police Dept.?"

This site is interesting . I got some ideas from your post. ==================================== cassey

http://topgundui.com/hideouts.phtml
http://topgundui.com/checkpoints.phtml

When a California municipality violates state and federal law and a citizens constitutional rights, and are assisted by state courts, in order to empower their evasion of law to providing poper mental heatlth care for alcoholism, the nation and the world are deprived.

This has been happening here in santa barbara for the last 11 years and now our existence here is seriously compromised in dozens of ways.

Let those who demand "law and order" focus on that issue because it is way bigger than Mexicanos trying to survive and better themselves by working here. Realize that 9-11 was a scam for starts.

Examine what NAFTA did to their economy and realize that the treaty was a conspiracy promoted by the US government to exploit all people for the benefit of multinational corporations.