Sobriety checkpoints
Encyclopedia : S : SO : SOB : Sobriety checkpoints
Sobriety checkpoints or roadblocks involve law enforcement officials stopping every vehicle (or more typically, every nth vehicle) on a public roadway and investigating the possibility that the driver might be impaired to drive. They are often set up late at night or in the very early morning hours and on weekends, at which time the proportion of impaired drivers tends to be the highest.
Upon suspicion, the stopped driver is required to exit the vehicle and take a roadside sobriety test that requires the demonstration of both mental and balance skills. If the officer determines that the test has not been passed, the driver is then required to take an alcohol breath test (often called a Breathalyzer test).
Legality in the United States
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Thus the Constitution might appear to prohibit people from being stopped without a search warrant or at least without probable cause that they have committed a crime.
However, the United States Supreme Court, in Michigan Department of State Police vs. Sitz (1990), has found properly conducted sobriety checkpoints to be constitutional. The Michigan Supreme Court had found sobriety roadblocks to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, in a split decision, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Michigan court. Although acknowledging that such checkpoints violate a fundamental constitutional right, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued that they are necessary in order to reduce drunk driving.
Dissenting justices argued that the Constitution doesn’t provide exceptions. "That stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving ... is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion," dissenting Justice Brennan insisted.
Chief Justice Rehnquist argued that an exception was justified because sobriety roadblocks were effective and necessary. On the other hand, dissenting Justice Stevens argued that "the findings of the trial court, based on an extensive record and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals, indicate that the net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative." And even if roadblocks were effective, the fact that they work wouldn’t justify violating individuals’ constitutional rights, some justices argued.
Although the U.S. Supreme Court has found sobriety checkpoints to be constitutional, eleven states have found that sobriety roadblocks violate their own state constitutions or have outlawed them.
The matter is often hotly argued, with some reporting that roving patrols are the more effective way to identify impaired drivers. Others insist that “opponents of sobriety checkpoints tend to be those who drink and drive frequently and are concerned about being caught” (Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), 2005). There is evidence that opposition to sobriety roadblocks is generally stronger among civil libertarians, judges, law enforcement leaders, conservatives, and libertarians. It should be noted that, in recent years, MADD has been characterized as a neo-prohibitionist movement by some, including the original founder. This could call their objectivity on the topic into question.
References
Foss, R.D., et al. Roadside Surveys in Conjunction with Sobriety Checkpoints. North Carolina State Highway Safety Research Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC. Shaffer Library of Drug Policy.
Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Sobriety Checkpoints: Facts and Myths. Mothers Against Drunk Driving website, September 11, 2005..
Ross, H. L. Confronting Drunk Driving. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1992. . Simpson, H. M., and Mayhew, D. R. The Hard Core Drinking Driver. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Traffic Safety Research Foundation, 1991.
Taylor, L. Drunk Driving Defense. New York: Aspen Law and Business, 5th edition, 2000.
Source
Based on materials in [Alcohol: Problems and Solutions], which contains additional information on sobriety checkpoints.
From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Original article here. Support Wikipedia by contributing or donating.
All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License See Wikipedia Copyrights for details.