Arrested for DUI in California at a Checkpoint?

Here are two important issues that an experienced criminal defense attorney will evaluate on a DUI checkpoint case:
1. Was the Checkpoint Legal?

In the landmark case of Ingersoll v. Palmer (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1321, the California Supreme Court identified some factors to be used to determine this issue:

(a) Supervisors, not field officers, implemented the checkpoint

First, the decision to establish a sobriety checkpoint, the selection of the site and the procedures for the checkpoint operation should be made and established by supervisory law enforcement personnel, and not by an officer in the field. (Id. at pp. 1341-1342.) This requirement is important to reduce the potential for arbitrary and capricious enforcement.

(b) Neutral selection criteria was used

Second, the discretion of field officers was limited by a neutral formula for which drivers were being stopped. For example, a neutral formula could include every driver or every third, fifth or tenth driver.

(c ) Maintenance of safety conditions

Primary consideration must be given to maintaining safety for motorists and officers. Proper lighting, warning signs and signals, and clearly identifiable official vehicles and personnel are necessary to minimize the risk of danger to motorists and police. (Id. at pp. 1342-43.)

(d). Reasonable location

The location of checkpoints should be determined by policy-making officials rather than by officers in the field. The sites chosen should be those which will be most effective in achieving the governmental interest; i.e., on roads having a high incidence of alcohol related accidents and/or arrests. (Ibid.)

(e) Time and duration of stop must be reasonable.

The time of day that a checkpoint is established and how long it lasts also bear on its intrusiveness as well as its effectiveness. The Supreme Court notes that a nighttime stop may be more hazardous and possibly more frightening to motorists, but it will also probably prove more effective. Thus, the court provides no hard and fast rules, but instead states that law enforcement officials will be expected to exercise good judgment in setting times and durations, with an eye to effectiveness of the operation, and with the safety of motorists a coordinate consideration. (Ibid.)


(f) Well lit signs must provide motorists with notice of the roadblock

The roadblock should be established with high visibility, including warning signs, flashing lights, adequate lighting, police vehicles and the presence of uniformed officers. Not only are such factors important for safety reasons, advance warning will reassure motorists that the stop is duly authorized. (Ibid.)

(g) Length and nature of detention must be minimized

The Supreme Court advises that each motorist stopped should be detained only long enough for the officer to question the driver briefly and to look for signs of intoxication, such as alcohol on the breath, slurred speech, and glassy or bloodshot eyes. If the driver does not display signs of impairment, he or she should be permitted to drive on without further delay. If the officer does observe symptoms of impairment, the driver may be directed to a separate area for a roadside sobriety test. At that point, the Supreme Court states that further investigation should be based on probable cause, and general principles of detention and arrest would apply. (Ibid.)
　

(h) The roadblock should be publicly advertised in advance.

Advance publicity is important to the maintenance of a constitutionally permissible sobriety checkpoint. Publicity both reduces the intrusiveness of the stop and increases the deterrent effect of the roadblock.
　

2. Was There Probable Cause to Believe the Motorist’s Driving Was Impaired?

Even if the DUI Checkpoint was valid, for an arrest at a DUI checkpoint to be valid, only drivers who are exhibiting signs of impairment may be detained at the secondary screening area. See Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz (1990) 496 U.S. 444 and Ingersol v. Palmer, supra, 43 Cal.3d 1321. Therefore, even if a driver acknowledges having had a drink or two, and his or her breath smells of an alcoholic beverage, but the officer does not detect any sign of impairment in the manner of driving or other physical manifestations, such as red and watery eyes, slurred speech, lack of motor control, then a court could find that the officer lacked probable cause to detain the motorist at the secondary screening area.
　

If you or your friend or relative was arrested in the Los Angeles metro area for DUI at a checkpoint, and would like me to recommend an experienced criminal defense attorney, you can contact me at esserlaw@gmail.com .

copyright © 2015 Christine Esser

The information contained here is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice or a substitute for legal counsel. Online readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Information on this blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship between you and Christine Esser. An attorney- client relationship is only established when a written retainer has been signed