Posted by duijim in on August 30, 2023
DUI checkpoints remain highly controversial but are nonetheless utilized by police forces across most states. Indeed, many law enforcement leaders argue that even when no DUI arrests are made at these roadblocks, their use often results in many other arrests for drug offenses or outstanding warrants – justifying its continued usage.
However, the Supreme Court has upheld DUI checkpoints as constitutional provided they adhere to certain guidelines; such as making them widely publicized.
Origins
Michigan State Police introduced DUI checkpoints as an effective law enforcement measure in 1986, placing highly visible checkpoints along roads with high rates of drunk driving. Their program proved an instantaneous success, leading to reduced numbers of impaired drivers and accidents related to alcohol consumption. Since then, sobriety checkpoints have become an indispensable law enforcement tool across many states.
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court upheld DUI checkpoints as constitutional as long as they meet specific criteria. These requirements include providing public notice and using clear guidelines for officers manning roadblocks. Furthermore, officers cannot stop cars based on race or any factor irrelevant to safety – any discriminatory treatment of drivers would violate their Fourth Amendment rights and require immediate removal from service.
Another requirement of checkpoints is their reasonable location and staffing, to ensure there are enough officers available to question every car passing by, while not exceeding what would be required to achieve its goals. According to New Haven DUI attorneys, police officers conducting these checkpoints must also receive training in proper procedures as well as access a database with previous DUI cases as a resource when making their decisions.
DUI checkpoints exist not to make arrests but to dissuade drivers from drinking and driving by reminding them that they could be stopped and given a breath test at any time.
Purpose
There is evidence to show that highly publicized DUI checkpoints reduce fatal crashes caused by drunk driving. While these results have been widely celebrated, their use has caused considerable debate – civil liberties activists contend they violate drivers’ privacy rights and lead to unnecessary searches.
Some states prohibit DUI checkpoints for legal reasons; however, most state laws support them and some require police officers to publicize its location ahead of time and follow certain protocols when conducting one.
Checkpoints must be situated in areas with high DUI arrests or crashes. Furthermore, police should make it clear they will only target impaired driving and no other offenses.
At checkpoints, drivers are expected to lower their windows and allow police officers to examine for the scent of alcohol or drugs and signs of impairment such as slurred speech or bloodshot eyes. If police detect such indicators of impairment, they may request the driver take part in either a field sobriety test or portable breath test.
In the 1990s, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that sobriety checkpoints were constitutional as long as they followed certain rules. These included being “systematic”, so police do not pick and choose which cars they stop, as well as permitting drivers to turn around and bypass it altogether if desired; this ensured the choice wasn’t subjective or biased due to race or gender considerations.
Legality
DUI checkpoints have long been met with suspicion and legal challenges, especially from drivers claiming that such roadblocks violate their Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Supreme Court eventually found in 1990 that DUI roadblocks were constitutional if certain guidelines are adhered to.
Supervisors must determine in advance and adhere to a standard protocol when creating DUI checkpoints, giving drivers notice to avoid this area if necessary. Police officers should follow certain guidelines and treat all drivers equally regardless of race or ethnicity; any detention must also be short as any longer can constitute unreasonable search and seizure claims from drivers.
Even though the Supreme Court has upheld sobriety checkpoints as legal, New York courts have yet to reach a unanimous verdict. While most have agreed with this position of the Supreme Court, this doesn’t guarantee all DUI checkpoint detentions will be legal; for example if officers stop you for too long without proper justification or fail to read or record your license properly then court may find these searches and detentions unlawful.
Controversy
Some civil liberties advocates contend that DUI checkpoints violate the Fourth Amendment because they represent an unreasonable intrusion and search and seizure, are ineffective at catching drunk drivers, and disproportionately target minority neighborhoods. However, the Supreme Court has upheld DUI checkpoints as legal provided certain guidelines are observed.
Police departments that intend to implement DUI checkpoints must first have an approved plan and publicize it so drivers have an opportunity to avoid it if possible. Officers should adhere to strict guidelines when determining who gets stopped and for how long, in order to prevent arbitrary enforcement or “stopping on whim”, which violates the Fourth Amendment. Moreover, administrative officers rather than field officers must make the call as stopping drivers may increase chances for discriminatory practices such as racial profiling.
Drivers should remain polite and relaxed if pulled over at a DUI checkpoint. Reacting negatively could escalate matters further and make an officer suspicious that there may be wrongdoing taking place.