Your Rights At A DUI Checkpoint In Tennessee

rob@robmckinneylaw.com (Rob McKinney) — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 22:12:42 GMT

Here is a video blog on your rights at a DUI checkpoint under Tennessee law. Look for the use of DUI checkpoints or roadblocks around any major holiday.

Pittsburgh Police Plan Weekend DUI Patrols

info@gbmlawpittsburgh.com (Gerald B. McNamara) — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 17:59:35 GMT

Pittsburgh Police have anounced plans to conduct sobriety checkpoints and roving DUI patrols over this weekend, July 29-31. The patrols will be concentrated in the West End and South Hills areas of the city.

As always, the best ways to avoid a sobriety checkpoint or a roving DUI patrol are: (1) Do not drink and drive; (2) Use a designated driver if you plan on drinking; (3) Call a cab, friend or relative to come pick you up. These are all much better options than being arrested for DUI and facing fines, mandatory license suspensions, mandatory jail time, increased insurance rates, etc.

If you need to go back to the South Side, the Strip District, Oakland, or wherever, to get your car the following morning, it is better to do that without the DUI arrest hanging over your head. You're probably going to have a hangover no matter what, but your hangover is going to be a lot worse if you also got arrested for DUI the night before.

Text Alerts for Sobriety Checkpoints

info@gbmlawpittsburgh.com (Gerald B. McNamara) — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 04:34:36 GMT

A company is offering text alerts for sobriety checkpoints in the northestern counties of Pennsylvania. PennDOT and local police are supportive of the service because public awareness is one of the goals of sobriety checkpoints. More than 8,000 people signed up for the text alerts over the Labor Day weekend.

There are many such companies offering a similar service springing up all over the country. Most of these companies state on their website that their reason for texting the location of sobriety checkpoints is for the purpose of deterring people who have been drinking from getting in their cars and driving while under the influence. While this is an admirable goal, you cannot help but think that some people are going to use the information to try to avoid checkpoints.

I have also heard local radio broadcasts on weekend evenings in which motorists call in and advise the DJ about the location of checkpoints. If you have signed up for these text messages, or if you hear about a checkpoint on your radio and your goal is to avoid the checkpoint, you probably better hope it is the real checkpoint and not a "Phantom sobriety checkpoint." Phantom sobriety checkpoints are just that; they are made to look like police are setting up a sobriety checkpoint, and they come complete with flashing lights and police officers. However, in reality, it is not the true location of the checkpoint. So, if the information that you have causes you to avoid the phantom checkpoint, you may then take a route which takes you to the location of the actual checkpoint.

As I say on my website, the best way to avoid checkpoints and DUI arrests altogether is not to drive when you have had too much to drink. Calling a cab or a friend are always better options.

Sobriety Checkpoints in Wisconsin

Thu, 14 Jan 2010 18:47:56 GMT

What is a 'sobriety checkpoint'?

A sobriety checkpoint is a police barricade set-up to snag drunk drivers.

Are sobriety checkpoints legal?

Under Wisconsin law, unless a sobriety checkpoint is completely voluntary, it is illegal per se. Even if voluntary, they raise red flags for violating a person’s rights under both Wisconsin law and the Constitution; consequently, more arrests based upon checkpoints will result in invalid arrests than not.

Are arrests at sobriety checkpoints legal?

An arrest subsequent to a stop at a sobriety checkpoint could very well result in a costly lawsuit and constitutional challenge. The alleged defendant would probably win the case due to the illegal stop. Consequently, sobriety checkpoints result in an enormous waste of taxpayer’s dollars that don’t actually result in valid arrests.

What if the arrested person is drunk?

Even if the person is intoxicated, evidence obtained after an illegal arrest cannot (or should not) be used to prosecute the person for the alleged act. I say “should not” because there are many District Attorneys who will proceed to trial in an attempt to get a conviction based on illegal evidence, and some DA’s will obtain that conviction. Those convictions obtained on evidence gathered at a sobriety checkpoint will almost always be overturned upon appeal as a result of an experienced appeals attorney arguing that the arrest was illegal.

What would happen if a person was convicted because of a sobriety checkpoint?

Because of the manner in which sobriety checkpoints are conducted, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals would likely reverse convictions based on checkpoints to protect people’s Constitutional rights. The axiom, “It is better that one guilty person go free than one innocent person be convicted” and defense attorneys stand to protect people’s rights.

Does the District Attorney's support of sobriety checkpoints matter?

A District Attorney’s support of sobriety checkpoints does not make them legal. DA’s do not make law; they prosecute people who’ve been arrested for allegedly breaking the law (i.e. committing a crime or wrong against the public). That also does not mean that they only seek to prosecute people who have been legally arrested; many people who have been arrested and prosecuted by numerous District Attorneys have their cases dismissed prior to trial, at trial or upon appeal to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals due to the fact that the arrest was illegal.

A Hypothetical Arrest On Evidence From A Sobriety Checkpoint

For example, if the Neenah Police Department were to establish a sobriety checkpoint, and subsequently arrest a person as a result of that checkpoint, the matter would be referred to the Winnebago District Attorney’s office. Regardless of how much the Winnebago DA might support the sobriety checkpoint, the matter should end there if the stop was illegal. If the Winnebago District Attorney proceeds to prosecute the alleged drunken driver, the matter would be set for trial and the wise alleged defendant would hire a very experienced DUI defense attorney who would then argue to the DA that the case will be lost at trial due to the illegal stop.

If the Winnebago DA proceeds, the DUI defense attorney would file a motion with the Winnebago County Circuit Court to dismiss the case based upon the illegal stop. The court would likely dismiss the case at that point, but all of the costs associated with the arrest (the costs of establishing the checkpoint, the costs of arresting the person, the costs of obtaining blood results, the costs of filing the case, the costs of the district attorney’s time, the costs of hiring the defense attorney, etc.) would be for naught.

If the Winnebago Circuit Court proceeded with the case, and found the alleged defendant guilty of operating while under the influence of an intoxicant (OWI), two outcomes would likely occur. The accused would proceed with an appeal to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, and then file a lawsuit against Winnebago County and City of Neenah.

The result of our hypothetical sobriety checkpoint in Winnebago County that resulted in an illegal arrest of a person for an OWI would be a very costly attempted prosecution; taxpayers would pay those costs.

Helpful Information:
Wisconsin Drunk Driving Laws
Wisconsin Criminal Appeals
Illegal Search & Seizure
Illegal Per Se
Arrested? Free Initial Consultation

End DUI checkpoints says group

d.jaffe@duiattorney.com (Dan Jaffe) — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 16:21:28 GMT

It's holiday season, and across the nation DUI checkpoints are in full swing. The roadblocks and brief officer contacts that many drivers will endure this Thanksgiving through New Years are legal in...

This is a summary only. To read the whole story, please visit http://www.duiattorney.com/news

Sobriety Checkpoints Challenged

office@dunhamlaw.com (Paul Dunham) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:10:44 GMT

As a DWI criminal defense attorney in Austin, I have watched the debate over sobriety checkpoints with extra interest. In recent years the state legislature has considered allowing sobriety checkpoints in Texas, with one such measure failing to come out of committee just this past Spring. The legality of checkpoints is questionable and their implementation in Texas could violate existing state laws. One of the more vocal arguments against checkpoints, however, is their effectiveness in relation to cost, a point well made in the following article.

The American Beverage Institute recently released statistics showing that of the one million motorists stopped at sobriety checkpoints in California during 2008, the percentage of people arrested for suspicion of drunk driving was minor:

For example, in 2008, over a million vehicles went through 1,469 California checkpoints. Police arrested just one-third of 1 percent of those motorists for drunk driving.

A similar analysis in Arizona found that over a two year span, sobriety checkpoints caught less than one percent of 46,000 drivers stopped. On top of that incredibly low arrest rate, the program cost taxpayers over $140,000.

That low percentage points out the relative ineffectiveness of checkpoints. The number of defendants is even lower when factoring in those who were found to not be legally defined as under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and had their cases reduced or dismissed.

The effort to fight drunk driving is not the issue, and drunk driving is never condoned. Rather it is the methods employed in an effort to achieve road safety that are questioned.

Checkpoints are costly due to the manpower required to staff them and the overtime pay associated. In addition, conducting a single location drunk driving crackdown that by law must be advertised is generally ineffective.

Sobriety checkpoints became legal following a 1990 ruling by the US Supreme Court. Then Chief Justice William Rehnquist agreed that such checkpoints violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments protecting citizens from unreasonable searches and guaranteeing due process of law. Despite that position, in what has now been considered an example of judicial activism, he still granted broader government power by saying that a state’s interests in reducing drunk driving, however ineffective, outweigh basic constitutional rights.

Alternatives to checkpoints include saturation patrols in areas known for high incidents of driving while intoxicated and roving patrols with officers specially trained to observe behavior indicative of intoxication. Not only do such activities uphold constitutional rights, they are based on probable cause when initiating a traffic stop.

Sobriety checkpoint planned in Merriam

jhart@kcstar.com (James Hart) — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 15:00:37 GMT

This just in: Merriam police, with help from Johnson County Sheriff's deputies, will conduct a sobriety checkpoint starting late Friday evening and extending into early Saturday morning. The exact location of the checkpoint is not disclosed in advance. Drivers suspected...

Georgia DUI roadblocks: A map to GA DWI law

d.jaffe@duiattorney.com (Dan Jaffe) — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 13:20:42 GMT

On January 8, 2009, the Georgia Court of Appeals issued an opinion in a Georgia DUI roadblock case that does a good job of describing how GA law treats roadblocks. The case is Holowiak v. State.

There were two major issues in this appeal. The first was the Intoxilyzer 5000 source code. The court found that the defendant didn't jump through the right hoops for them to seriously consider compelling the testimony of the manufacturer of the Intoxilyzer line of breath test machines.

I am posting this case because of the last paragraph of the opinion, which is quoted below:

Here, the State established that all drivers were stopped at a specific location for a minimal amount of time; the roadblock was well identified as a police checkpoint; and the screening officer was sufficiently qualified. Further, the supervisory officer who initiated the roadblock testified that its primary purpose was traffic enforcement, "to enhance safe travel for citizens through the county to identify any drivers who were violating state laws and specifically looking for unlicensed or licensed violations and impaired drivers and remove those drivers from the roadway." The supervisor's memorandum regarding the roadblock confirms that the primary purpose during the New Year's Eve holiday was to "identify and charge accordingly those drivers who are operating motor vehicles in violation of State Laws" and especially to "identify those who are driving impaired or unlicensed and remove them from the roadways." "[A] roadblock that serves as a highway safety checkpoint is valid in its primary purpose, even if the safety violations for which the officers are looking are several." Kellogg v. State, 288 Ga.App. 265, 268(1)(a) (653 S.E.2d 841) (2007). The trial court did not err in denying Holowiak's motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of the roadblock.

My thoughts of GA DUI roadblocks: A highway safety roadblock is a valid purpose in Georgia. I get that. What I want to know is what other reasons they might choose to do a roadblock?

Recent Articles tagged sobriety checkpoints from LexMonitor