Sobriety Checkpoints
Police are increasingly using sobriety checkpoints to snare suspected drunk drivers and issue vehicle code citations. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that if certain protocol is followed, sobriety checkpoints don’t violate drivers’ rights. However, police don’t always follow those guidelines. A skilled DUI / DWI defense attorney from www.NotDrunk.com can determine whether evidence gathered during a drunk driving checkpoint is likely to be suppressed because police didn’t follow the Supreme Court protocol.
The landmark Supreme Court case Michigan Department of State Police vs. Sitz determined many of the requirements for sobriety checkpoints. The guidelines are designed to protect drivers’ rights and ensure the safety of the public and police.
Police are directed to use a neutral mathematical formula to determine which vehicles to stop. This is designed to take away police discretion in deciding whom to stop and to prevent officers from selecting drivers or vehicles based solely on appearance.
Police should make safety a paramount concern when planning and operating sobriety checkpoints. The checkpoint should have high visibility, adequate lighting, and the official nature of the roadblock should be apparent to all drivers..
Police must stop motorists just long enough to ask a few brief questions and to check for signs of inebriation, such as alcohol on the breath, slurred speech, and glassy, bloodshot eyes. Drivers who show no signs of intoxication should be allowed to drive away with no delay. If officers detect signs of impairment, they must direct the driver to a separate area for a field sobriety test. Any additional investigation can occur only if probable cause exists.
Sobriety checkpoint should be part of an ongoing safe-driving program and follow established departmental policy. A supervising judge and an official from the district attorney’s office should be involved in the planning. The checkpoint’s supervising officers must be well-versed in any safety or civil rights issues that might arise. The checkpoint should be announced to the public in advance by notifying the media.
The primary purpose of a sobriety check point is to protect public safety by preventing drunk driving, not to discover evidence of crimes or to make arrests, the Supreme Court has ruled. Therefore, sobriety checkpoints serve regulatory purposes and no warrants are required.
A vehicle stopped at a roadblock is considered a seizure under Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure. A Fourth Amendment seizure occurs “when there is a governmental termination of freedom of movement through means intentionally applied.”
However, not all roadblocks violate drivers’ Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizures. Reasonableness is the key issue. When deciding this issue, the courts use a balancing test which weighs the intrusiveness of the detention on the individual against the government’s interests to determine whether a Fourth Amendment violation has occurred.
In order to determine the appropriate challenges in a drunk driving case, an experienced DUI/DWI lawyer from www.NotDrunk.com will evaluate every aspect of a sobriety checkpoint to determine whether police followed the guidelines established by the Supreme Court. If the checkpoint wasn’t operated according to that protocol, a skilled will argue that any evidence gathered during the stop was improperly obtained, and should be excluded.