An Analysis of Driving Under the Influence (DUI) Checkpoints
In light of the recent surge in the amount of DUI Checkpoints, and DUI Roving and DUI Saturation Patrols in Orange County and the entire State of California, an explanation of the legal requirements for a constitutionally permissible DUI Checkpoint is being posted for visitors to our informational database.
DUI Checkpoints began subsequent to a 1984 California Attorney General’s Opinion that set out what were intended to be strict guidelines for the legality of drunk driving roadblocks. As a result of the Attorney General’s Opinion, many police departments and the California Highway Patrol (CHP) began using them to apprehend drunk drivers. Roadblocks carried out pursuant to those strict guidelines have been approved by the California Supreme Court in Ingersoll v. Palmer (1987). In this 4-3 decision the court stated, “We conclude that within certain limitations, a sobriety checkpoint may be operated in a manner consistent with the Federal and state Constitutions.” The decision stressed a theme of “balancing the need to search against the need the search entails.”
In 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court gave general approval to the use of roadblocks to enforce drunk driving laws in Michigan Dep’t of State Police v. Sitz (1990). Nothing in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Michigan Dep’t of State Police v. Sitz criticized the guidelines approved by the Ingersoll Court, nor did it recommend any others.
The Ingersoll guidelines fall under the following general headings:
1. Decision Making at the Supervisory Level
2. Limits on Discretion of Field Officers
3. Maintenance of Safety Conditions
4. Reasonable Location
5. Time and Duration
6. Indicia of Official Nature of Roadblock
7. Length and Nature of Detention
8. Advance Publicity
Subsequent to the Ingersoll decision, the Courts of Appeal came to conflicting decisions about the role of advanced publicity in constitutionally valid checkpoints. The California Supreme Court took up the issue, though, in People v. Banks in 1993. In Banks, the California Supreme Court held that advanced publicity is not an essential element of a constitutionally valid DUI roadblock. The Court held that although advance publicity remains a factor to consider, the lack of advanced publicity alone will not render a roadblock unconstitutional. Thus, the issue of whether there was adequate advanced publicity is still subject to judgment on a case-by-case basis.
A common challenge to DUI Checkpoints or roadblocks is the lack of uniformity in the operation of the DUI checkpoint. Regarding the issue concerning the limits on discretion by field officers the California Supreme Court in Ingersoll v. Palmer noted the following:
A related concern is that motorist should not be subject to the unbridled discretion of the officer in the field as to who is to be stopped. Instead, a neutral formula such as every driver or every third, fifth or tenth driver, should be employed. To permit an officer to determine to stop any particular driver or car when there is no legitimate basis for the determination would be to sanction the kind of unconstrained and standardless discretion which the United States Supreme Court sought to circumcise in its decision in Prouse, supra, [citations omitted]. In all the checkpoint programs at issue here, neutral mathematical selection criteria were used.
Id., at 1342 (emphasis added).
Every car, every third car, or every fifth car is neutral. A change in patterns to adjust for traffic flow is also neutral, so long as there is still a neutral mathematical formula for the change. What is prohibited is an unjustified deviation from the pattern which negates the neutral mathematical formula. If the pattern suddenly changes randomly, an inference of non-neutrality arises.
Decision making at the supervisory level and limits on discretion of field officers are key points in all checkpoint-type cases. As the California Supreme Court noted in Ingersoll: “In all checkpoint programs at issue here, neutral mathematical selection criteria were used.”
Regarding the citizen’s right to avoid the stop, the Ingersoll Court stated:
Checkpoint personnel were specifically instructed that drivers were not to be stopped merely for avoiding the checkpoint. The road sign announcing the checkpoint was placed sufficiently in advance of the checkpoint that motorists could choose to avoid the checkpoint.
A footnote added:
5. Cars avoiding the checkpoint would be stopped, however, if in avoiding the checkpoint the driver did anything unlawful… (Emphasis added.)
Ingersoll, at 1336 (emphasis added).
Statistics for 1990 CHP roadblocks were published in 1992 in California Master Plan to Reduce Alcohol and Drug Abuse: 1992 (Sacramento, CA: Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs, Jan. 1992) p. B-88. According to this report, the CHP conducted 84 roadblocks during 1990 with only 599 arrests for drunk driving. The cost was nearly $250,000.00. That’s about 7 arrests per roadblock, at a cost of over $400.00 for each arrest, for the roadblock alone.
If you or anyone you know was recently stopped at a DUI Checkpoint, and was arrested and charged with driving under the influence (DUI), please contact the Law Office of Barry T. Simons by telephone at: 949-497-1729. You may also send a confidential contact form via email to: info@simonslaw.com. The form can be found on our website: www.duilawyerorangecounty.com. Anyone who has been subjected to a DUI Checkpoint is encouraged to contact the Law Office of Barry T. Simons as soon as possible for a free legal consultation. The call could make the difference between a person being convicted of a DUI or being acquitted of it. It only takes one simple contact.
For general information on California Drunk Driving Laws, California DUI Laws, and representation for driving under the influence, generally, please contact our office or our website at: www.duilawyerorangecounty.com.
For a copy of the NHTSA How-to-Guide on Saturation Patrols & Sobriety Checkpoints, please visit:
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/alcohol/saturation_patrols/index.html