Police conducting sobriety checkpoints must follow strict criteria laid out by the California Supreme Court in the landmark case Ingersoll vs. Palmer. If police do not follow the protocol described in Ingersoll, the checkpoint is not lawful, and any evidence gathered during a drunk driving arrest may not be admissible in court. A California DUI defense lawyer can determine whether a sobriety checkpoint was conducted lawfully.
The Supreme Court identified eight factors that minimize the intrusiveness on the individual, while balancing the needs of society to keep drunk drivers off the road.
What Makes a DUI Checkpoint Legal
According to the Ingersoll decision, the establishment and location of sobriety checkpoints must be decided by supervisory police officers, not officers in the field. This requirement is important to reduce the potential for arbitrary and random enforcement.
The Supreme Court’s ruling also placed limits on the discretion of police to stop drivers at checkpoints. Police must use a neutral mathematical formula, such as every driver, or every third, fifth, or tenth driver to determine who to stop. This requirement takes away the discretion of the individual officer to choose to stop individual drivers without any legitimate basis.
Police also must give primary consideration to maintaining safety for motorists and officers. In order to minimize the risk of danger to motorists and police, proper lighting, warning signs and signals, and clearly identifiable official vehicles and personnel are required. The checkpoint should only be operated when the traffic volume allows the operation to be conducted safely.
The locations of roadblocks also are regulated. A supervisory officer must choose a location that will be most effective in actually stopping drunk drivers, such as roads which have a high incidence of alcohol-related accidents and arrests.
The time and duration of sobriety checkpoints also are of key importance. Police are expected to exercise good judgment in setting times and durations, with an eye to effectiveness of the operation, and with the safety of motorists in mind. As long as these considerations are in effect, there are no hard and fast rules as to the timing or duration of the roadblock.
Sobriety checkpoints also must be established with high visibility so that drivers can easily see the nature of the roadblock. The features that promote high visibility include flashing warning lights, adequate lighting, police vehicles, and the presence of uniformed officers. Not only are such factors important for safety reasons, but advance warning will reassure motorists that the stop is duly authorized.
Detaining Drivers at DUI Checkpoints
Police operating sobriety roadblocks should detain each motorist only long enough for the officer to question the driver briefly and to look for signs of intoxication, such as alcohol on the breath, slurred speech, and glassy or bloodshot eyes. If the driver does not display signs of impairment, he or she should be permitted to drive on without further delay. If the officer does observe signs of impairment, the driver may be directed to a separate area for a field sobriety test. At that point, further investigation must be based on probable cause, and general principles of detention and arrest would apply.
Police conducting a lawful sobriety checkpoint must provide advance notice of the roadblock to the public, although they are not required to disclose its specific location. Publicity both reduces the intrusiveness of the stop and increases the deterrent effect of the roadblock. The thought is that advance notice limits intrusion upon the individual’s personal dignity and security because those stopped would anticipate and understand what was happening. Further, advance publicity serves to establish the legitimacy of roadblocks in the minds of motorists.
Legally Avoiding a Sobriety Checkpoint
The Supreme Court also stated that motorists who seek to avoid a roadblock may not be stopped and detained merely because they attempted to avoid the roadblock. However, if the motorist commits a vehicle code violation or displays obvious signs of intoxication, there is adequate probable cause to pull over the motorist, after which point general principles of detention and arrest apply.
Although the Supreme Courts Ingersoll decision legitimized sobriety checkpoints, it also established strict guidelines under which the roadblocks must be operated. If law enforcement does not follow the factors set out by the Supreme Court, the evidence gained as a result of the roadblock may be suppressed as a violation of the Fourth Amendment rights of the motorist. A DUI lawyer who is well-versed in the requirements of sobriety checkpoints can determine whether a roadblock was lawfully executed, and whether any evidence gathered is likely to be suppressed.
Sobriety Checkpoints: Stopping Drivers Without Probable Cause
Many a driver arrested on suspicion of DUI / DWI at a sobriety checkpoint asks “How could the police stop me without probable cause?” It’s a fair question, but the courts have given a certain amount of leeway to conduct sobriety checkpoints, as long as certain criteria are followed. An experienced California drunk driving attorney can determine whether police followed established protocol while conducting a sobriety checkpoint.
Roadblocks are considered seizures under the Fourth Amendment, which states that a person should be free from unreasonable searches and seizures of their person and their belongings. The key issue in Fourth Amendment issues is reasonableness. The officer must have reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred, or the seizure must be carried out under a plan containing explicit, neutral limitations on the conduct of individual officers.
California constitutional principles are based on the same considerations. The government’s interests must be weighed against the intrusiveness of the detention. In California, in order to justify an investigative stop or detention without a warrant, there must be probable cause. Probable cause means the officer must be aware of specific facts that some crime has or will take place, and the person stopped is somehow involved in that activity. Reasonableness requires that anyone in the police officer’s position would have come to the same conclusion.
However, not all searches and seizures require a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Searches conducted to pursue an administrative purpose, rather than as part of a criminal investigation to secure evidence of a crime, may be permissible under the Fourth Amendment, even without probable cause. The reasonableness of an administrative screening is determined by balancing the public interest against the intrusion on the individual. It is under this philosophy that some types of roadblocks, such as sobriety checkpoints, are legal, while other types of roadblocks are not.
Sobriety Checkpoints: Promoting Public Safety
DUI checkpoints have been determined to be part of a regulatory scheme in furtherance of an administrative purpose, and not traditional criminal investigative stops. The primary purpose of a sobriety roadblock is to promote public safety by keeping intoxicated drivers off of public streets and highways.
Therefore, if the appropriate guidelines have been followed, DUI checkpoints are legal. These guidelines were outlined in a landmark court case, Ingersoll vs. Palmer. Essentially, there must be a neutral or random screening process which limits the discretion of the officers in deciding who to stop. The intrusiveness on individual motorists must be limited. The detention of motorists is brief, encompassing only a few questions which allow the officer to observe objective signs of intoxication. In addition, officers will shine their flashlights into the vehicle in order to observe any alcoholic beverages. The Supreme Court has ruled that this intrusion on the individual is slight in comparison to the value to society in keeping drunk drivers off the road.
Sometimes drivers are stopped at other types of roadblocks unrelated to sobriety checkpoints, and subsequently arrested on suspicion of DUI / DWI. Some of these roadblocks have been deemed lawful, and some have not.
DUI Checkpoints: Not For Drugs
The Supreme Court has ruled that roadblocks whose primary purpose is to detect evidence of ordinary criminal activity are unconstitutional, and therefore illegal. One example is roadblocks devised to detect illegal drugs. Even though many drugs are illegal, there isn’t the same vehicle-related threat to life and limb that exists with drunk driving. If law enforcement agencies were allowed to detain citizens based on any of the crimes facing society, then the constitutional protections we enjoy today would disappear. Therefore, because the primary purpose of a drug roadblock is to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing, it is unconstitutional.
However, the Supreme Court has deemed roadblocks designed to seek information, where police briefly detain motorists to pass out flyers and ask if they witnessed a crime, are constitutional. Illinois v Lidster held that an Illinois roadblock did not violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures.
The checkpoint was deemed reasonable because it advanced a grave public interest and only minimally interfered with the liberties afforded by the Fourth Amendment. The police officers in this case were investigating a crime that resulted in a human death by stopping motorists on the same stretch of road, at the same time that the accident occurred, asking motorists briefly whether they had witnessed the crime or had any information, and passed out fliers. Because the crime they officers were investigating was motorist-related, and the stop itself was brief, it is constitutional.
Whether a suspected DUI / DWI driver was stopped at a sobriety checkpoint or at another type of roadblock unrelated to drinking and driving, a lawyer who specializes in defending drunk driving cases can determine whether the roadblock was properly conducted. If the roadblock wasn’t conducted lawfully, any evidence collected likely will be suppressed in court.