Police in California sometimes use sobriety checkpoints – temporary roadblocks on public streets or roadways designed to snare drunk drivers. Over the years, courts have established strict protocol to govern the operation of sobriety checkpoints – guidelines that police don’t always follow. The experienced DUI / DWI defense lawyers at The Kavinoky Law Firm are well-versed in the requirements of sobriety checkpoints and can determine whether a drunk driving arrest made at a Sobriety Checkpoint was valid.
Many of the requirements governing sobriety checkpoints were created by the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case of Michigan Department of State Police vs. Sitz. The Court’s ruling attempts to balance the rights of drivers against the interests of society in keeping impaired drivers off the road.
Police must select vehicles using a neutral mathematical formula, and the checkpoints must be maintained safely for both police and motorists, have high visibility, and minimize the average time each motorist is detained.
Each driver should be stopped only long enough for an officer to ask a few brief questions and to look for signs of intoxication, such as alcohol on the breath, slurred speech, and glassy or bloodshot eyes. If the driver shows no signs of impairment, he or she should be permitted to drive away without delay. If the officer does spot signs of intoxication, the driver can be sent 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.
The sobriety roadblock should be part of an ongoing safe-driving program, and must conform to an established departmental policy. A supervising judge and a representative of the district attorney’s office should participate in the planning. The checkpoint’s supervising officers must be well-versed in the safety and civil rights issues surrounding such an operation. The roadblock should be announced to the public in advance through the media.
The Supreme Court deemed that the main purpose of a sobriety checkpoint is not to discover evidence, crimes or to arrest drunk drivers, but to promote public safety by deterring drunk drivers from endangering the public. Thus, a sobriety checkpoint roadblock serves a regulatory purpose and is not considered a criminal investigation roadblock, and no warrant is required.
The Supreme Court has held that stopping a vehicle at a sobriety checkpoint constitutes a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. A Fourth Amendment seizure occurs “when there is a governmental termination of freedom of movement through means intentionally applied.”
The key question when considering a Fourth Amendment seizure is reasonableness. The courts have ruled that not all roadblocks violate a motorist’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizures. In order to determine whether there has been a Fourth Amendment violation, courts apply a balancing test which weighs the government’s interests against the intrusiveness of the detention on the individual.
An experienced California DUI / DWI lawyer will evaluate every aspect of the checkpoint to determine whether it meets the guidelines established by the U.S. Supreme Court. If the checkpoint was not operated according to that protocol, a skilled attorney such as those at The Kavinoky Law Firm will argue that any evidence gathered during the stop was improperly obtained, and should be suppressed.
