The Sobriety Checkpoint Debate
- Tree of Knowledge Research
- May 28, 2015
- 3 min read
During Memorial Day weekend, a state police stepped up their use of checkpoints to screen for drunk drivers; but, are these checkpoints constitutional? Sobriety checkpoints are controversial for a plethora of reasons. On one end of the spectrum, civil liberty activists and lawyers view sobriety checkpoints as an infringement of constitutional rights. On the other end, sobriety checkpoints are believed to be effective deterrents against intoxicated drivers.
Sobriety checkpoints are locations on the roadway where officers check drivers for signs of intoxication. Currently, a disagreement exists among states about the legality of conducting checkpoints. A large number of states require advance notice of a checkpoint to the public, and a handful of states require police studies to show why a particular checkpoint location is selected.
According to the Governors Highway Safety Association, thirty-eight states, Washington DC, the Northern Mariana Islands and the Virgin Islands conduct sobriety checkpoints. The judicial branch in a majority of states ruled on sobriety checkpoints based on interpretations of both state's constitutitons and the federal Constitution.
Twelve states have banned sobriety checkpoints, including Michigan and Texas. The Michigan Supreme Court ruled that sobriety checkpoints are not effective at catching drunk drivers. The National Traffic Safety Administration asserts that sobriety checkpoints “are not permissible in Texas under the federal constitution only because Texas has no statutory scheme authorizing them.” Texas also banned these checkpoints because they raise Fourth Amendment concerns. The Fourth Amendment protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures and many argue a checkpoint subjects a person to a seizure without any reasonable suspicion that an offense occurred. When determining whether a DWI roadblock constitutes a seizure, courts typically consider three main factors:
The State’s interest in preventing accidents caused by drivers under the influence;
How effective the checkpoints are in preventing DWI accidents; and,
The level of intrusion the sobriety checkpoint has on an individual’s right to privacy
In State v. Holt, 887 S.W. 2d 16 (Tex. Cr. App. 1994), the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas held that because a governing body in Texas has not authorized a statewide procedure for DWI roadblocks, such roadblocks are unreasonable and unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment unless and until a politically accountable governing body sees fit to enact constitutional guidelines. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld DUI checkpoints in Michigan v. Sitz claiming the danger posed by drunk drivers that is prevented by these checkpoints outweighs the Fourth Amendment violations of randomly stopping motorists to see if they’re intoxicated. See Michigan v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990). The Supreme Court struck down checkpoints for other reasons, including to check for narcotics, expired licenses, and other crimes and violations.
Still, as long as the primary stated reason for the checkpoint is to intercept drunk driving, the police can issue other citations, should they discover any. The Wall Street Journal along with many other news outlets report that police departments using these checkpoints to generate revenue from traffic offenses, even though they're claiming the checkpoints "primary purpose" is for catching drunk drivers. The Supreme Court held that police departments cannot use these checkpoints to generate revenue; however, as the Wall Street Journal mentioned, "unless the ACLU files a class action, no driver written up for an expired license has the time, money, or interset in filing a lawsuit."
Other states are currently facing subtle challenges to sobriety checkpoints from attorneys, law enforcement, and citizens. In Florida, attorney Warren Redlich created a simple, yet popular method for drivers to legally navigate a sobriety checkpoint. Redlich’s recipe includes a plastic bag that contains a driver’s license, insurance, registration, and a piece of paper that is known as the “fair DUI flier.” The flier states “I remain silent. No searches. I want my lawyer.” A YouTube video that has over three million views accounts the use of Redlich’s flier by a driver at a New Year’s Eve checkpoint, where the driver was allowed to pass through without resistance from law enforcement.
The Boca Raton criminal defense attorney asserts that his method protects sober motorists from being falsely arrested, claiming that DUI checkpoints are unconstitutional. Still, Redlich’s method has not come without criticism from law enforcement. Some County Sheriffs asserted that they will arrest motorists on site if they employ the DUI flier. Some legal experts are not sure whether Redlich’s flier will hold up in court. While these types of roadblocks are illegal in Texas, any action taken to avoid a police stop will most likely raise suspicion to the cops, sometimes leading to a legal stop, giving officers the ability to investigate any sign of intoxication. For that reason, being aware of your rights regarding any type of sobriety checkpoint no matter what state you are in is very important.
