San Diego DUI Lawyers Blog

checkpoint sign.jpg The California Supreme Court set forth criteria for DUI checkpoints to ensure they are in compliance with the Federal and California’s State Constitution and to minimalize the intrusiveness of the stop in Ingersoll v. Palmer. The following is the last four of the ambiguous guidelines.

5. Time and duration. The time of day and how long the DUI checkpoint lasts bears on the intrusiveness to the motorist. Law enforcement is expected to use good judgment in setting the times and duration, considering effectiveness and safety.

6. Indicia of official nature of roadblock. The roadblock should be highly visible with warning signs, flashing lights, adequate lighting, and official police vehicles and officers in uniform.

7. Length and nature of detention. Motorists should be detained for a minimum amount of time. This brief encounter should allow the officer to question the driver to look for signs of intoxication. If there are signs of impairment, the driver can be asked to move to another area for sobriety tests. This has to be based on probable cause and principles of detention and arrest would apply.

8. Advance publicity. This was a requirement, but as of People v. Banks advanced publicity is just another factor to be considered.

The foregoing criteria are just guidelines. If law enforcement fails in one or more of these areas, the checkpoint is not automatically deemed illegal or unconstitutional. A skilled attorney may argue to the court such failure rises to the level of a constitutional violation. If this motion is won, your DUI case may be reduced or even dismissed.

Part I was posted on November 1st, 2010.

checkpoint sign.jpg Sobriety checkpoints or roadblocks were found to not violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures in Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz (1990).

The California Supreme Court set forth criteria for checkpoints to ensure they are in compliance with the Federal and California’s State Constitution in Ingersoll v. Palmer (1987). However, the court did not require all the factors be present for the checkpoint to be deemed constitutional.

The California Court decided driving under the influence (DUI) checkpoints should function as a deterrence and not solely to increase the number of DUI arrests. In this opinion, the Court explained the ambiguous guidelines law enforcement must use to minimalize the intrusiveness of the stop.

1. Decisionmaking at the supervisory level. The decision to conduct the DUI checkpoint, the location of the site, and the operation procedures are to be established by supervisory law enforcement not field officers.

2. Limits on discretion of field officers. There must be a neutral formula to determine which cars are to be stopped. This is not to be left in the discretion of the field officers.

3. Maintenance of safety conditions. This is done by employing proper lighting, signs and signals, and having clearly identifiable official vehicles and personnel.

4. Reasonable location. The location should be determined by policy-making officials not field officers. The site should be one that has a high rate of alcohol related accidents and arrests. Safety should also be considered when choosing the location.

The last four criteria will be discussed in another future posting, “California’s Sobriety Checkpoint/Roadblock Criteria (Part II).”