Police are increasingly using sobriety checkpoints to snare suspected DUI / DWI drivers.  Although it seems as if police should not be allowed to stop motorists without probable cause, the courts have ruled that sobriety checkpoints don’t violate drivers’ rights so long as certain criteria are met. However, there are many effective challenges available to drivers arrested at sobriety checkpoints. A Florida criminal defense attorney who focuses on drunk driving cases will analyze each case individually to determine a specialized defense strategy.

Many of the guidelines that govern sobriety checkpoints were established by the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Michigan Department of State Police vs. Sitz.  If those guidelines aren’t followed, it may be possible to have any evidence gathered at the roadblock excluded.

The guidelines laid out by the Supreme Court are designed to make sobriety checkpoints fair and safe for everyone involved. Police should use a random mathematical formula to select vehicles, such as every third or fifth car, to avoid giving officers discretion in deciding who to stop. Checkpoints should also have high visibility, and minimize the average amount of time each person is detained.

Police should detain each motorist only long enough to ask a few simple questions and to look for signs of intoxication, such as slurred speech, alcohol on the breath, and glassy or bloodshot eyes.  Motorists who show no signs of impairment should be allowed to drive away immediately.  If police do spot signs of intoxication, the driver can be directed to a separate area for a field sobriety test.  At that point, any investigation must be prompted by probable cause.

In order to meet the Supreme Court requirements, a sobriety checkpoint must be part of an ongoing safe-driving program, and the logistics must follow established departmental policy. A supervising judge and someone from the district attorney’s office should participate in planning the roadblock. The checkpoint’s supervising officers must be well-versed in safety and civil rights issues. The roadblock should be announced to the public in advance through the media.

The Supreme Court has ruled that a vehicle stopped at a roadblock constitutes a seizure under the Fourth Amendment.  A Fourth Amendment seizure occurs “when there is a governmental termination of freedom of movement through means intentionally applied.” 

However, because the primary purpose of a sobriety checkpoint is to promote public safety, not to discover evidence of crimes, the court has ruled that no warrants are required. 

The Fourth Amendment protects individuals only from unreasonable search and seizures. The key issue is reasonableness.  Courts apply a balancing test which weighs the government’s interests against the intrusiveness of the detention on the individual in order to determine whether a Fourth Amendment violation has occurred.