Sobriety Checkpoints

They are skirting the law with these things.

A "DUI" checkpoing in the City of Sacramento Police doubles their stops as a DOT inspection checkpoint too. While they have you stopped, anything on your vehicle that is out of place will get you a ticket. So at the end of the night, their tally looks something like this:

119 - Traffic citations
12 - Impounds

and..


2 DUI's


What bothers me about this is why mask it as a DUI checkpoint? If they are going to shake you down, name it as such.

 

2 DUI's instead of "Drunk driver kills 6, including mother, 3 children, and 2 bystanders."

 

I don't think he was complaining that there is a sobriety checkpoint, just the fact that the use the sobriety checkpoint as an excuse to write 120 revenue tickets in one night.

 

Just don't give them ANY excuse these days either that and it's shake and tax time.

 

Legal Mugging

 

It's doubtful if it is legal, however it is done every day.

 

it makes me think of seatbelt tickets, and laws requiring you to wear eye protection while mowing. Sure, these are good ideas, but do you need to charge someone $25 for being stupid? Why not ticket people who throw cigarette butts on the highway instead.

 

Legality of Arrest

The DMV may only suspend a driver's license for driving under the influence if the person was placed under lawful arrest. (Veh. Code, § 13557, subd. (b)(2); Gikas v. Zolin (1993) 6 Cal.4th 841, 847.) Appellant argues that his arrest was unlawful because it was based on observations made during an unlawful detention. He claims he did nothing more than make a safe left turn in the vicinity of a sobriety checkpoint, an action which did not supply reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. We disagree.

The Fourth [*5] Amendment's proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures does not prevent the establishment of sobriety checkpoints where motorists are randomly stopped according to a neutral formula. (People v. Banks (1993) 6 Cal.4th 926, 936; Ingersoll v. Palmer (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1321, 1325-1350, 241 Cal. Rptr. 42, passim.) Reasonable suspicion is not required. (Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990) 496 U.S. 444, 451, 110 L. Ed. 2d 412; Ingersoll at pp. 1329-1335.) The trial court determined that appellant entered a sobriety checkpoint when he turned right from Haley Street onto Garden, a finding that was not disputed by appellant at trial and which is supported by substantial evidence. Once in the checkpoint area, the officers did not need reasonable suspicion to briefly contact appellant to ascertain whether he was under the influence of alcohol. (See generally Commonwealth v. Kendall (Penn. 2001) 2001 PA Super 42, 767 A.2d 1092.)

Appellant submits that Officer McChesney needed reasonable suspicion to contact him because he turned several feet before the spot where the first officer was stationed and had [*6] not entered the checkpoint. He argues that avoidance of a checkpoint does not, in and of itself, supply reasonable suspicion. Out-of-state authorities are split on this point, but most agree that police officers may stop a motorist who abruptly turns to avoid a checkpoint. (See Oughton v. Director of Revenue (Mo. 1996) 916 S.W.2d 462, 464, fn. 2, and cases cited therein.) Assuming for the sake of argument that appellant was not yet in the checkpoint, his abrupt turn less than 125 feet from Officer McChesney supplied reasonable suspicion to believe he was driving under the influence. "Even if the circumstances are as consistent with lawful activity as with criminal activity, the officer may still rightly 'inquire into such circumstances "in the proper discharge of the officer's duties."' [Citation.] 'The possibility of an innocent explanation does not deprive the officer of the capacity to entertain a reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct.'" (Kodani v. Snyder (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 471, 476-477.)

 

There was one of these checkpoints on the highway in front of my subdivision a while back. The way my subdivision is set up the main entrance was right before the checkpoint and there is a side entrance that goes out to another road. During the checkpoint there was a constant stream of cars speeding through to avoid the checkpoint. I think they had to shut it down early because of all the complaints from residents.

When they have them set up here there is usually always a way to avoid it if you look for it. I've never seen anyone get stopped by avoiding it.

We also have insurance checkpoints and inspection sticker checkpoints from time to time.

 

This is one reason I have thought why don't the police offer a taxi service or something similar on heavy drinking nights (New Years) as opposed to driving around hoping to catch someone?

 

Cutting across driveway to make turn is illegal(at least in Texas). That's the reason to stop him.
a) An operator may not
cross a sidewalk or drive through a driveway, parking lot, or
business or residential entrance without stopping the vehicle.
(b) An operator may not cross or drive in or on a sidewalk,
driveway, parking lot, or business or residential entrance at an
intersection to turn right or left from one highway to another
highway.

I don't mind checkpoints so long as they're serving their purpose and not fishing for tickets. I've seen a few VERY successful stops, but have also been through some that just seem like a long friggin' line and interrogation. Everything on my car is legit, so I don't worry too much about the misc. tickets. My motorcycle on the other hand would probably earn me something, lol.

 

There is no substitute for patrolling. We have already discussed the constitutionality of sobriety checkpoints. I have previously opined that they are an actual 4th Amendment violation of freedom of movement. Nonetheless, the situation you describe is non-sequitur simply because a checkpoint looks at only one road while proper patrolling looks at many roads. It is very plausible that while the police are stopping perfectly sober people on one road, a very intoxicated driver can kill six on a nearby road.

 

There are two programs that address this that I have heard of;

1) Designated Driver

2) Taxi service!!!!

At least one is avalible ALL OVER THE WORLD.

 

A friend of mine the other day was telling me about a service offered in Baton Rouge. Basically you call up the "designated driver" service and a guy comes to you and your car on a small motor-scooter. The scooter guy then folds up the small scooter and places it in your trunk. You get in the passenger seat and he drives you home! As soon as you are home the guy simply unloads his folding scooter and reports back to base!

Pretty great idea if you ask me because I think a lot of people decide to drink and drive when they shouldn't simply because they do not want to leave their vehicles far from home when taking a cab.

 

Not sure how it is in all states, but in CA the agency/agencies setting up the checkpoint have to report it to the media before hand. You have plenty of opportunities to miss it. Most local papers will put it in the police blotter and report it on TV as well.

 

I am 15 (not really), why can't I drive legally? Its a violation of my 4th Amendment right of freedom of movement, correct?

 

We have that here in Louisville, it is called "City Scoot." I have never used it though. Staying in a near by hotel works as well.

Matt

 

Since you state that you are 30 years of age you are afforded the privilege of driving an automobile if you fulfill all the requirements. In some States that privilege is also afforded to 15 year olds. The 4th Amendment guarantees your right to move about the country (by legal means) without restriction and without having to "show papers." A policeman may stop you in an auto with probable cause which could be erratic driving, a malfunctioning auto, an expired registration or inspection sticker, excessive pollution or any number of violations of your driving privileges. He/she may not stop you simply to ask where you are going or stop everyone on a whim. Sobriety checkpoints are a whim since there is no probable cause to believe someone in that line of traffic is intoxicated at any given time. The "statistics show" argument is not probable cause and is mere conjecture. BTW. I have never driven an automobile after consuming alcohol and never intend to do so. Unlike many of our posters, I have never operated a watercraft in that condition either. IMHO.

 

Was just playing devils advocate. Thats all.

I think case law will side with the police.

 

As well you might. No problem at all. That is a great way to learn and form opinion. I applaud you! One more thing. I am coming from a US Constitutional History position. Intent, as written. Case law often flies in the face of intent and suits the litigants. It often times reflects the political bent of judges. Having said that, there will always be conflict between US Constitutional historians like myself and Constitutional Lawyers. That is fine. It keeps all of us honest. Think that you and I are free to debate. That we can do so without fear of incarceration or worse. That, as time progresses, we can continue to freely express our ideas, ask each other important questions and demand honest answers without recrimination. And, sir, we can be friends! Cheers!!