Lathrop Police Department cracks down on reckless driving, DUI incidents
Police officers responded to a solo vehicle crash on the River Islands Bridge on Jan. 17. Officials said that the vehicle was blocking traffic causing delays for other drivers due to officers having to redirect them to allow them to investigate.
Gusty winds come to Northern California
After investigating, officers found that the driver's blood alcohol content (BAC) was over three times the legal limit. The suspect was arrested and booked into San Joaquin County Jail.
In another incident, Lathrop PD said that one of their officers saw GMC driving recklessly after leaving the Sonic chain parking lot, causing friction marks on the road. An 18-year-old male was cited for reckless driving.
Officers responded to another solo vehicle crash in the River Islands Community after receiving multiple 9-1-1 calls on Jan. 25. Officials said that the vehicle was 40 feet off the roadway.
Lathrop PD said that the driver, a 20-year-old male from Tracy, was driving at a high speed and was under the influence of alcohol. The suspect sustained injuries and was taken to a local hospital for treatment.
In a Facebook post, Lathrop PD reminds everyone of the importance of having a designated driver who is sober to avoid endangering any lives.
Lathrop PD encourages all residents to report reckless or dangerous driving.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
9 minutes ago
- CNN
Mississippi may require age verification, parental consent for social media, Supreme Court says
Supreme Court Social mediaFacebookTweetLink Follow The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed Mississippi to enforce a state law that requires the nation's largest social media companies to verify the age of their users and obtain parental consent for minors, an effort the state said is intended to protect children from online predators. There were no dissents and the court did not explain its reasoning, as is often the case on its emergency docket. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a member of the court's conservative wing, wrote a brief concurrence asserting that the Mississippi law is 'likely unconstitutional' but said that the internet companies who sued had not 'sufficiently demonstrated' that they would be harmed by a temporary order in favor of the state. A coalition of social media companies that includes Facebook, X and Instagram – and several outside groups – had urged the high court to block enforcement of the state law, arguing it infringed on users' First Amendment rights. Though the law at issue in the case affects only Mississippians, many other states – both blue and red – have enacted similar requirements in recent years amid growing concerns over privacy and the safety of young people online. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is supporting the social media companies in the case, said it is tracking laws in at least 10 other states requiring parental consent or age verification for online services. The group, along with several others that filed a brief in the case at the Supreme Court, described the Mississippi law as a 'well-intentioned but fundamentally flawed' effort to protect minors online. Mississippi officials said the state is responding to high-profile reports of 'sextortion' and other online crimes. In one case, a 16-year-old Mississippi boy committed suicide after an Instagram user posing as a female initiated a sexual encounter and then demanded a $1,000 payment under threat of exposing their exchanges on the internet. 'The act requires what any responsible covered platform would already do: make 'commercially reasonable' efforts to protect minors – not perfect or cost-prohibitive efforts, but efforts of reasonable care based on a platform's resources,' Mississippi told the Supreme Court in a brief urging the court to leave the law in place. But NetChoice, a trade group representing the social media giants, said the law infringes on the First Amendment rights of users. And several LGBTQ advocacy groups argued that the law would make it harder for gay and lesbian youth to find safe spaces online. 'Online platforms, including social media sites, offer safe spaces for individuals, including youth, to connect with others who share their identities, access information about LGBTQ+ issues and resources, and explore their gender identity and sexual orientation in a supportive environment,' the groups said. The law, which was enacted last year, imposes $10,000 in penalties per violation as well as possible criminal penalties. A federal district court temporarily blocked the law's implementation, but the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals halted that lower court order, allowing the law to take effect. The Supreme Court's decision is a temporary one, laying out what happens while lower courts weigh the law's constitutionality. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court let stand a separate law in Texas that requires age verification for pornographic websites in one of the most closely watched First Amendment cases to arrive at the high court in years. The adult entertainment industry had challenged the law as a violation of the Constitution because it restricted the ability of adults to access protected online speech. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the opinion for a 6-3 court, which divided along ideological grounds with the court's three liberals dissenting. 'The statute advances the state's important interest in shielding children from sexually explicit content,' Thomas wrote. 'And, it is appropriately tailored because it permits users to verify their ages through the established methods of providing government-issued identification and sharing transactional data.'
Indianapolis Star
2 hours ago
- Indianapolis Star
Breeze Airways flight diverts after 'unruly' passenger breaks restraints twice
A Breeze Airways flight heading to Los Angeles from Virginia was diverted after a passenger with a skateboard became "unruly" and started waving the sports equipment around at flight attendants, according to local police and federal authorities. Officers with Grand Junction police in Grand Junction, Colorado, about 244 miles west of Denver, responded to an incident at the Grand Junction Airport around 11 a.m. on Wednesday, Aug. 13, the department said in a Facebook post. Upon arrival, officers found that an intoxicated 46-year-old passenger from Los Angeles, "became agitated" and yelled "racist slurs at airline staff" while aboard Breeze Airways Flight 704, which had left Norfolk, Virginia, around 9 a.m. on Aug. 13, according to information from local police and the FBI. As flight attendants attempted to restrain the man while in the air, he managed to break free of the restraints twice, prompting an emergency landing at the airport, police said. The passenger did not physically assault anyone on the aircraft, and no injuries were reported, according to police. Neither the police department nor the FBI provided information about possible charges the man may face, but confirmed that the U.S. Attorney's Office would release further details regarding charges. According to the Federal Aviation Administration, passengers who engage in unruly behavior can be sentenced to prison, fined up to $37,000 or be put on a no-fly list. In 2025, there have been over 1,000 cases of unruly passengers on board commercial planes, according to the FAA. Following the incident, the passenger was taken into custody by the Grand Junction Police Department and transported to the Mesa County Detention Facility. An investigation into the incident remains ongoing. USA TODAY has emailed Breeze Airways for comment on Thursday, Aug. 14, but has not received a response. Breeze Airways is a low-cost airline headquartered in Cottonwood Heights, Utah, and provides nonstop service between underserved routes at affordable rates, according to its website. The airline began operating commercially in 2021.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Taxi driver fined over £1,000 after advertising uninsured airport transfers
A private taxi driver has been fined for promoting uninsured airport taxi transfers on Facebook. Samuel Szymczyk advertised these unlicensed airport transfers without possessing a private hire operator's licence. Although the driver was licensed, the vehicle was not authorised for private hire and was uninsured. This illegal activity led to Mr Szymczyk being ordered to pay a total of £1,418, which includes penalties, a victim surcharge, and prosecution costs. The issue came to light in September 2024 when Reading Borough Council licensing officers spotted a Facebook post by Mr Szymczyk. The post advertised 'easy airport transfers from Reading', offering chauffeur-driven rides to all major London airports. These ads were posted across multiple local Facebook groups. An investigation ensued as suspicions were raised due to the absence of any record of Mr Szymczyk being licensed by the council to operate a private hire business. In January 2025, an officer, posing as a member of the public, booked a journey with Mr Szymczyk for a pre-agreed price of £75. This journey was to take place on January 14, from The Penta Hotel in Reading to Gatwick Airport. On the day of the booking, the driver arranged by Mr Szymczyk arrived at the pick-up point. While the driver held a private hire driver's licence, the vehicle was not licensed for private hire work and lacked the necessary insurance. At Reading Magistrates' court on August 8, Mr Szymczyk admitted to operating a private hire vehicle without an operator's licence and causing the use of an uninsured motor vehicle. Magistrates fined him £400 for operating a private hire vehicle without a licence and an additional £120 for causing a vehicle to be driven without insurance, along with six penalty points on his driving licence. A victim surcharge of £208 and prosecution costs of £690 were also imposed, bringing the total to £1,418. Mr Szymczyk pleaded guilty to causing another to use a motor vehicle without insurance, contrary to Section 143(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, and operating a private hire vehicle without a private hire operator's licence, contrary to Section 46(1)(e) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. Councillor John Ennis, lead councillor for climate strategy and transport, said: "This result secured by our licensing service sends a clear message: the serious risks posed by unlicensed transport services and the deliberate deception used to promote them will not be tolerated in Reading. "Unscrupulous traders are taking advantage of the busy summer travel season, when more people are trying to get to the airport cheaply. "However, if you inadvertently choose an unlicensed driver, there is no way of knowing their driving record, whether they are insured, and, if something were to go wrong, your holiday could be ruined before it's even started. "Unlicensed drivers are also able to undercut legitimate businesses, which work hard and within the rules, which are there to give residents peace of mind that their driver has been vetted and they have all the correct insurance and documents. "The promotion of an unlicensed and therefore uninsured service online, such as this, misleads the public and puts passengers at serious risk. "We're committed to ensuring that all private hire operators in Reading meet the legal standards designed to protect customers, and we will continue to take firm action against those who choose to disregard the rules."
