The Legality Of Dui Checkpoints

By Author: Michael Dye
Total Articles: 4
Comment this article

DUI Checkpoints are a controversial approach to enforcing DUI laws. While many individuals consider these random warrantless stops offensive, most consider DUI checkpoints to be a legal approach to enforcing the law. What people i've talked to don't understand is that DUI checkpoints must meet an extensive amount of criteria to be able to be considered constitutional. If a checkpoint isn't conducted in a constitutional manner, all evidence from the DUI checkpoint may be suppressed. The following is a short description of the issues which can be present in checkpoint cases. It is simple to see that this is an extremely complicated area of law, but a knowledgeable DUI defense attorney with experience litigating checkpoint issues can get some great results.Pursuant to the United States Constitution, a search or seizure is unreasonable in the absence of individualized suspicion of wrongdoing subject to certain limited and well defined exceptions. A police checkpoint for the purposes of a license and registration check and/or perhaps a sobriety checkpoint can be constitutional dependent upon the manner in which the checkpoint ...
... is setup and conducted. When considering a challenge to a checkpoint, the reviewing court must undertake a two-part inquiry to determine whether the checkpoint meets constitutional requirements: (1) court must first determine the primary programmatic purpose of the checkpoint program; and (2) once a legitimate primary programmatic purpose is determined, the court must also analyze whether the checkpoint was reasonable by weighing the public's interest in the checkpoint against the intrusion on the defendant's Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments privacy interests. The Court must examine all available evidence to determine the primary purpose of a checkpoint. The United States Supreme Court has stated that a trial court may not simply accept the State's invocation of a proper purpose, but must perform an in depth review of the scheme at issue. See Ferguson v. City of Charleston, 532 U.S. 67, 81, 121 S.Ct. 1281, 1290, 149 L.Ed.2d 205, 218(2001).The Court's inquiry doesn't end with the finding of a permissible purpose. If a proper programmatic purpose is found, the Court must determine the checkpoint was conducted in a reasonable manner. The checkpoint has to be judged on the basis of the individual circumstances. See Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419, 427, 124 S.Ct. 885, 890, 157 L.Ed.2d 843, 852(2004). There is a three part test to see the reasonableness of a checkpoint. See Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 50, 99 S.Ct. 2637, 2640, 61 L.Ed.2d 357, 361(1979). The court must look to "(1) the gravity of the public concerns served by the seizure, (2) the degree to which the seizure advances the public interest, and (3) the severity of the interference with individual liberty." Lidster, 540 U.S. at 427, 124 S.Ct. at 890, 157 L.Ed