In California, a major law enforcement tactic to address
driving under the influence has become the use of
roadside sobriety checkpoints. The question thus constantly arises, "Are these roadside sobriety
checkpoints really legal?" The answer lies with an analysis of each
and every particular checkpoint.
Ingersol v. Palmer
Under the leading California Supreme Court case of
Ingersol v. Palmer, 43 Cal.3d 1321 (1987)., the touchstone for Fourth Amendment analysis
is reasonableness – balancing the public interest at stake, and
the degree to which that interest is advanced by the checkpoint, verses
the severity of interference to constitutionally protected individual
The court discussed a number of factors to be considered in determining
the constitutionality of roadside sobriety checkpoints in California,
“Standardless and unconstrained discretion on the part of government
officers is what the [U.S. Supreme] court sought to circumscribe in the
regulatory inspection and stop cases”; and that, “motorists
should not be subject to the unbridled discretion of the officer in the
field as to who is to be stopped. Instead, a neutral formula, such as
every driver or every third, fifth or tenth driver should be employed.”
How intrusive was the checkpoint? In
Ingersol, the Burlingame, California checkpoint – expected to serve as a
model for the State - was preceded by substantial publicity notifying
the public of its existence. The location for the checkpoint was selected
after consideration of arrest records, accident records, safety factors
and street layout.
Warning signs announcing the checkpoint were posted sufficiently in advance
of the checkpoint location to allow motorists to turn aside, and under
operational guidelines, the officers were directed that no motorist was
to be stopped merely for choosing to avoid the checkpoint. Under a predetermined
neutral formula, only every fifth car was stopped at the checkpoint. The
others were all waived through. And the average detention time for those
vehicles that were stopped was only 28 seconds.
The truth of the matter is that as of today, California DUI checkpoints
have in many cases become way more intrusive than that in the
Ingersol case. To analyze and determine whether a particular California DUI checkpoint
passes constitutional requirements, a number of very important factors
must be examined. A key factor however concerns the utilization of a predetermined,
specified, neutral formula in stopping vehicles. [E.g., every car, every
second car if traffic backs up for more than two minutes, etc.] Standardless
and unconstrained discretion on the part of police officers is what the
courts have struck down in a number of inspection and stop cases.
In today's world, the problem may be that in a given roadside sobriety
checkpoint case, there may be little, if any predetermined neutral criteria
communicated and/or implemented, for the stopping of vehicles. Moreover,
in looking at a number 2012 San Diego Police Department Press Releases,
it is appearing that on occasion, there is a huge disparity (in the hundreds
of vehicles) between the number of vehicles passing through a given sobriety
checkpoint, compared to the and number of motorists actually contacted
by officers at the checkpoint.
Thus, the key point is that this critical, "neutral formula"
(for the stopping of vehicles) requirement needs to be examined
in each and every individual DUI checkpoint case, (and there are a host of other important
issues that need to be looked at in each and every case as well).
Arrested at a DUI checkpoint?
Contact a San Diego DUI Attorney immediately if you have been arrested for driving under the influence
in California and need legal guidance.With more than 30 years of experience,
we fight for you.