DUI Checkpoints in California

In California, Driving Under the Influence (DUI) checkpoints have increasingly become more common. Eventually, these DUI checkpoints have largely been upheld as legal. However, those detained at a DUI sobriety checkpoint may be entitled to contest their detention on the basis of the constitution. While police/field officers are not required to have a valid reason for stopping a vehicle at a checkpoint, the checkpoint itself must adhere to the laws of both California and the United States. In the case ofIngersoll v. Palmer (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1321, the Supreme Court established the requirements of a valid checkpoint, which are as follows:

1. 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.
2. A neutral formula should be employed by field officers in determining who should be stopped.
3. Primary consideration must be given to maintaining safety for motorists and officers.
4. The checkpoints should have a reasonable location.
5. The time and duration of checkpoints should also be considered in light of their intrusiveness and effectiveness.
6. The checkpoints should be established with reasonable indicia of their official nature.
7. Motorists detained should be made in a minimal amount of time
8. There should be advanced publicity of checkpoints.

Failure of field officers to comply with any of the foregoing requirements can be used by a motorist arrested in defending himself for any DUI charges..

In United States, as well as in the State of California, DUI checkpoints have been repeatedly held as constitutional [Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990) 496 U.S. 444, 110 S.Ct. 2481]. In the case ofIngersoll v. Palmer (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1321, the Supreme Court referred to DUI checkpoints as “administrative search” serving the primary and regulatory purpose of promoting public policy; the primary purpose of which is to “to prevent and deter conduct injurious to persons and property.”

The field officer at a DUI checkpoint will effect an arrest if he finds that the driver is manifesting apparent signs of impairment. In such cases, the officer will be led to conduct a drunk driving investigation. Signs of impairment come in various forms such as fumbling while reaching for a license and registration, smelling like alcohol, and having trouble communicating with officers.

DUI Charges

If the field officer determines that DUI investigation is proper, the driver will be subjected to DUI. He will undergo a mouth swab test to ascertain if controlled substances/drugs are present in his system and perform DUI Field Sobriety Tests, and Preliminary Alcohol Screening Tests. These tests are meant to determine if the driver is in fact driving under the influence. The driver’s poor performance in any of those tests could produce probable cause for the field officer to make an arrest and eventually charge the driver with DUI. Possible charges for DUI may be as follows:

1. Violation of Vehicle Code 23152(a), driving under the influence of alcohol;

2. Violation of Vehicle Code 23152(b), driving with a blood alcohol concentration level of 0.08% or higher; and

3. Violation of Vehicle Code 23152(f), driving under the influence of drugs.

Functional Guidelines Established in Ingersoll v. Palmer Explained

Ingersoll v. Palmer (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1321 is deemed as the landmark case in the matter of sobriety checkpoints. The core issue discussed is whether sobriety checkpoints are permissible under the federal and state Constitutions. Of course, in this case, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of sobriety checkpoints. This is true even today. However, the validity of these sobriety checkpoints is subject to a number of “functional guidelines” to ensure that there is a balance between the interest of the state in preventing drunk driving and halting excessive intrusion toward motorists.

1. Establishment of Sobriety Checkpoints should be made by supervisory law enforcement personnel.

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. The Supreme Court explained that the purpose of this requirement is to “reduce the potential for arbitrary and capricious enforcement.”

2. A neutral formula should be employed by field officers in determining who should be stopped.

This requirement is established in order to prevent field officers from subjecting motorists to unbridled discretion as to who should be stopped.

3. Primary consideration must be given to maintaining safety for motorists and officers.

In order to maintain safe conditions for motorists, checkpoints should be set up with proper lighting, warning signs, and signals in order to reduce the risk of danger.

4. The checkpoints should have a reasonable location.

Reasonableness of location is determined by the most effective manner in achieving governmental interest.

5. The time and duration of checkpoints should also be considered in light of their intrusiveness and effectiveness.

There are no hard and fast rules as to the timing or duration of checkpoints. Checkpoints done in the evening and early morning are found to be permitted. While discretions as to time and duration are left to the law enforcement officials, they are, nevertheless, expected to exercise good judgment in setting the same.

6. The checkpoints should be established with reasonable indicia of their official nature.

Given the intrusive nature of sobriety checkpoints, it is mandatory that roadblocks are established with sufficient evidence of its official nature. This can be achieved by maintaining high visibility, warning signs, adequate lighting, and presence of uniformed officers.

7. Motorists detained should be made in a minimal amount of time

The purpose with which sobriety checkpoints are established should be borne in mind when determining the duration of detaining motorists. As such, it should only be 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 shows no sign of impairment, he should immediately be permitted to drive without delay.

8. There should be advanced publicity of checkpoints.

The Supreme Court explained this requirement in this wise: “Publicity both reduces the intrusiveness of the stop and increases the deterrent effect of the roadblock.”

Cooperation of Drivers with Sobriety Checkpoints Mandatory

All motorists are required to pull over and submit to sobriety checkpoints in California by Vehicle Code §2814.2(a).

Therefore, once at a checkpoint, a driver may not object to what the officer asks of them. Otherwise, California infraction will probably be brought against him/her.

However, this does not imply that a driver must consent to field sobriety testing, breathalyzer tests prior to an arrest, or cheek swabs. These tests are optional, and drivers are free to decline them without consequence (though doing so may result in the driver being arrested for DUI).

On the other hand, denying a post-arrest DUI breath test or DUI blood test is regarded as a chemical test rejection if the driver was properly detained in the first place. There are repercussions for refusing a post-arrest test which include an obligatory one-year suspension of driver’s license.

Driving without a License at DUI Checkpoints

There are two possible scenarios in driving without a license at DUI checkpoints, such as: (1) the driver has a license but he does not have it with him at that time; or (2) the driver does not have a valid license at all.

In the first case, he can be charged with violation of Vehicle Code §12951, failure to display a driver’s license. This violation is merely an infraction and the consequence is payment of a fine.

In the second case, a more serious charge can be pressed against a driver, which could be violation of Vehicle Code §12500, driving without a valid license; or violation of Vehicle Code §14601, driving with a suspended license.

Speak with a DUI attorney today by calling (626) 827-7222!