The Ventura Police Department Traffic Unit conducted a DUI/Driver’s License Checkpoint on Dec.28, The checkpoint was established at 9:23pm and screened approximately 862 vehicles traveling eastbound on Main Street from Callens Road. 3 drivers were arrested for DUI during the checkpoint.

One driver was arrested for 23152(a) and (b) CVC, 2800.1(a) CVC with a blood alcohol level of .20 BAC, one arrested for 23152(a) CVC and elected to provide a blood sample, and one arrested for 1203.2(a) PC and 23154(a) CVC with a blood alcohol level of .05 BAC.

The following is a list of additional enforcement activities during the Checkpoint:

• 460 Vehicles screened
• 12 Standard Field Sobriety Tests
• 1 Driver cited for being suspended (14601.1(a) CVC)
• 3 Driver cited for being unlicensed (12500 (a) CVC)
• 3 Miscellaneous citations issued
• 2 vehicles impounded

The deterrent effect of High Visibility Enforcement using both DUI checkpoints and DUI Saturation Patrols has proven to lower the number of persons killed and injured in alcohol or drug impaired crashes. Research shows that crashes involving an impaired driver can be reduced by up to 20 percent when well-publicized proactive DUI operations are conducted routinely. However, there have unfortunately been cases where drivers have been falsely accused of drunk driving. If you have been falsely accused of drunk driving, you might want someone like this los angeles criminal defense attorney to help protect your freedom.

DUI Checkpoints like this one are placed in locations based on collision statistics and frequency of DUI arrests, affording the greatest opportunity for achieving drunk and drugged driving deterrence. Locations are chosen with safety considerations for the officers and the public.

During the 2017 Christmas (Dec. 22-25) and New Year’s (Dec. 30-Jan. 2) holiday periods, 25 people were killed and 643 injured on California roads, according to data from the California Highway Patrol Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System.

Studies of California drivers have shown that 30 percent of drivers in fatal crashes had one or more drugs in their systems. A study of active drivers showed more tested positive for drugs that may impair driving (14 percent) than did for alcohol (7.3 percent). Of the drugs, marijuana was most prevalent, at 7.4 percent, slightly more than alcohol. If you’ve found to be driving under the influence of alcohol or marijuana hiring a defense attorney to guide you legally is a must.

Funding for this checkpoint is provided to the Ventura Police Department by a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety, through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

by Ventura Police Department

In the smartphone age, people are more connected than ever before, but also attempting to stay connected when they shouldn’t: behind the wheel. And it is not just cell phones. Distracted driving is anything that takes your eyes or mind off the road, or hands off the steering wheel – especially when texting or using your phone. A study from the California Office of Traffic Safety found that 1 out of 8 drivers is on their smartphone while driving on California roadways. Using your cell phone while driving is not only dangerous, but also illegal.

What you should know about California’s Cell Phone Distracted Driving Law:

• A first offense ticket will cost at least $162, and at least $285 for the second offense.
• The law applies at stop signs and stop lights, just like when you are driving. Pull over to a safe parking space to handle your business.
• While driving, you cannot use a cell phone or similar electronic communications device while holding it in your hand. If the device is used in a hands-free manner, such as speaker phone or voice commands, that is legal, but never while holding it. Bottom line you can’t touch your cell phone while you are driving.
• Using communication systems built into the vehicle by the manufacturer is legal. However, it still can be dangerous due to the brain’s inability to safely handle both driving and using in-dash or speaker phone functions.
• To be legal, the phone or device must be placed in a mount attached either on the dashboard, center console, or a seven-inch square section in the lower right corner of the windshield, or in a five-inch square section in the lower left corner of the windshield nearest the driver. The mounting or device placement cannot hinder the driver’s view.
• Emergency personnel such as police, fire and ambulance may use hand-held cell phones, but only in the legitimate course of duty.

Other serious driver distractions such as eating, grooming, reading, reaching for fallen objects, changing clothes and others are just as dangerous and can result in a ticket for “speed unsafe for conditions” or “reckless driving.” These infractions carry much larger fines, plus points against your driving record. If you are injured in an accident on the road caused by the negligence and recklessness of another driver in LA, you may wish to seek legal assistance with a potential claim from the Wilshire Law Firm.

Please be safe Ventura. Focus on the road.

by Venturans for Responsible and Efficient Government (VREG)

In the next 12 months, Ventura Water will ask the City Council to increase water rates for 30 wastewater projects and 28 water projects by 2024. These costly projects will benefit some property owners. Other projects will help the community at large.

As of June 30, 2018, Ventura Water accumulated $115,000,000 to use for those projects from 2012-2018. Still, they need $449,586,000 more before 2024.

These new rate increases will come on top of the increases imposed over the last six years. In 2012, Ventura Water wanted to increase rates to replace aging pipelines and facilities, building projects to improve water quality and constructing new groundwater wells.

In 2012 the average homeowner and family of 4, received a bi-monthly bill of $145.72. That same family is paying $209.67 today. This is a 43% increase over the 2012 rates.

So how can Ventura Water impose such large fees against its citizens without the traditional right to vote on such matters? The answer lies in how Ventura implements Proposition 218. Approved by the voters in 1996, Proposition 218 allows Ventura to raise money in one of three ways. General taxes. Those taxes used for general governmental purposes, Special Taxes. A Special Tax requires a 2/3 (66.67%) majority vote or Special Assessments, Fees and Charges. Fees or charges means an assessment imposed as an incident of owning property which receives a unique benefit.

Ventura wants to use Special Assessments, Fees and Charges to impose higher water rates. This is where Ventura water turns a non-vote into a yes vote.

Ventura Water sends a water bill. Somewhere in the body of that bill, it tells you why the rate increase is necessary. To dispute the rate increase, you must download a protest form, complete and mail it or take it to City Hall by a specific date. If 51% of the ratepayers have not voted ‘NO,’ that is the end of the matter. There are 32,000 ratepayers. Sixteen thousand one must vote NO to defeat an increase.

The procedure followed by Ventura is consistent with Prop 218 language, but a California Supreme Court challenge goes further.

The California Supreme Court in Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency v. Verjil (2006)39 Cal.4th 205, at page 205, interpreted Prop 218’s language to mean a city “may raise other fees or impose new fees without prior voter approval.” The Court’s decision was specific.

However, that decision by the Supreme Court only involved the issue of water delivery through a pipeline and whether voters could use an initiative process to require prior voter approval for the costs of that delivery. It did not involve a question of whether fees imposed to deal with a $500 million projects together with environmental costs, expert studies, attorneys fees and a plethora of expenses arising out of a Consent Decree decided by a City Council in 2012, and in which the voters had no voice.

What if the costs are not exclusively operational costs? What if the expenditures benefit the entire community, not just ratepayers? Does Proposition 218 apply in those circumstances? Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency v. Verjil does not address when the costs other than operational costs.

If the City is considering rate increase of this magnitude without prior voter approval, they should be mindful of the language in Prop 218. It provides that “in any legal action contesting the validity of an assessment, the burden is on the agency (Ventura Water) to demonstrate that the …properties in question receive a special benefit over the benefits conferred on the public at large…” This needs to go before the voters for approval.