Law Offices of Lawrence TaylorDUI Roadblocks415-496-2034
A very common strategy for police to detect a drunk driver is using a DUI roadblock (or sobriety checkpoint). A police agency will create a roadblock at a certain location, and speak with every driver that passes. If the driver has slurred speech or smells of alcohol, they will be asked to exit the vehicle and perform a field sobriety test on the spot. This strategy is modeled after the success of license/registration inspections and roadside safety checks.
Previously, there was some controversy that these checkpoints were unconstitutional. In Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990), the court ruled that these checkpoints violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. However, the Court reversed the state supreme court decision that held DUI roadblocks unconstitutional.
The Court’s ruling was a 6-3 decision written by Chief Justice Rehnquest. In an interest to lower the numbers of alcohol-related fatalities, the Court was able to overlook some details. Issues with sobriety checkpoints and intrusion of human privacy rights were among these details. The decision also held that roadblocks do, in fact, constitute a “seizure”. However, Chief Justice concluded that this seizure is within bounds of the Fourth Amendment as the intrusion on individual liberties need to be weighed against the effectiveness and necessity of the roadblocks.
If a DUI lawyer is faced with a DUI case that involved a checkpoint/roadblock, he should research if the correct procedures were followed. Was this checkpoint administered in a constitutionally permissible way? In Sitz, a “Sobriety Checkpoint Advisory Committee” was appointed before a roadblock was created. This committee, comprised of representatives of the state police, prosecutors, local police, and the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, was meant to establish guidelines to be followed with all sobriety checkpoints. Even Chief Justice Rehnquist allowed that there should be a list of “guidelines” that cover such topics as publicity, roadblock operation, and location.
And so, what are these “guidelines”? Rehnquist’s ruling still leaves questions that one can only assume will be answered on a case-by-case basis. In Ingersoll v. Painer, 743 P.2d 1299 (Cal. 1987), one of the more significant cases before Sitz, the California Supreme Court made a list of what it thought to be procedural safe-guards for any DUI roadblock. These safe-guards had to be followed in order to comply with the Fourth Amendment requirements. In answering the case-by-case questions, counsel might also find some advice from the decisions of sister states.
