Police Sobriety Checkpoints

One of the most controversial actions on the part of law enforcement is the use of DUI roadblocks or police sobriety checkpoints. These checkpoints are used by law enforcement officers to check on the driver’s license and perform registration inspections. Police sobriety checkpoints are usually conducted late at night or early morning since studies have shown that it is during these times that the percentage of drunk drivers is greater.

By having these temporary installations, law enforcers follow a procedure in stopping vehicles in the highway. This means that law enforcers may stop every vehicle or use a specific pattern in stopping cards on public roads in order to inspect if the drivers are impaired. And if a certain driver’s speech sounds slurred or his breath smells of alcohol, he will be asked to leave the car and perform a field sobriety tests at the scene.

The law enforcers will often conduct a search on the car for possible concealed weapons. However, the driver may refuse such search.

In the case of Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990), the United States Supreme Court reversed a State Supreme Court decision and held that the checkpoints operation did not violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.

With the vote of 6-3, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the roadblocks which constitute seizure are within the bounds of the Fourth Amendment. The Chief Justice gave his opinion that the intrusion on individual liberties must be weighed against the need and effectiveness of the roadblocks. In the end, the general interest in reducing alcohol- related fatalities overrule the intrusion of human privacy rights and the Sobriety checkpoints were deemed constitutional.

An experienced DUI lawyer is confronted with such roadblocks and checkpoints frequently and is skilled at presenting challenges to procedures employed by law enforcers. A DUI lawyer must investigate if the constitutionally-mandated manner was employed during the roadblock. Many times law enforcement officers step over the line while conducting roadblock testing’s. A skilled lawyer searches for common law officer mistakes in order to vanquish the prosecution’s case against the accused.

The Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court even acknowledged that there must be guidelines concerning the location, publicity and roadblock operation. Thus, it required the creation of the Sobriety Committee which was mandated to establish the said guidelines.

In the case of Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990), the roadblock was set up only after a "Sobriety Checkpoint Advisory Committee was established.

However, despite the creation of the Sobriety Checkpoint Advisory Committee, the requisites or guidelines that have been set remained unclear. Counsel handling the said cases may find some guidance in the decisions of sister states. They can look at the case of Ingersoll v. Palmer, 743 P.2d 1299 (Cal. 1987), which was decided before the Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz case. In the said case of Palmer, the California Supreme Court provided what they think would be the procedural safe-guards required for a DUI roadblock to comply with the Constitution. One of the first tasks that a skilled Orange County DUI lawyer will complete is to gather evidence to 4th amendment violations at the roadblock. If it can be shown that the 4th amendment was violated at the check point, then the subsequent arrest will be nullified.

If you or a loved one has been arrested at an Orange County DUI roadblock (also called a police sobriety checkpoint), call the law offices of Coffey & Coffey at (800) 706-7888.