DUI Checkpoints in the Santa Clarita Valley
Legal and Constitutional Issues Regarding Checkpoints

Roadblocks and checkpoints are used to make temporary stops. Municipal, county and state law enforcement
divisions set up roadblocks and checkpoints for a variety of reasons: checking the validity of driver’s license and
registration; determining if the vehicle meets safety inspection minimums; deciding if the car has the necessary
municipal parking permit; etc. Used with increasing frequency are checkpoints employed to apprehend intoxicated
drivers.

What is at issue in these scenarios? Checkpoints involve a constitutional detention, a seizure of a person, without
any level of particular, individualized doubt, i.e., reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Since there is no focused
suspicion on an individual, rather than assessing the existence or absence of probable cause or reasonable
suspicion, when the use of a roadblock is challenged, courts will examine police conduct and the circumstances of
the stop and determine if the checkpoint is a reasonable intrusion, and therefore justifiable, under the Fourth
Amendment. In the context of sobriety checkpoints, this reasonableness determination involves an analysis of
three factors: (i) the magnitude of a state’s interest in preventing accidents caused by intoxicated drivers; (ii) the
extent to which the checkpoint advances that goal; and (iii) the measure of intrusion on an individual’s privacy, both
objectively, as perceived by the reviewing court, and subjectively, as the motorist may perceive the intrusion.

The U.S. Supreme Court applied these factors to determine the constitutionality of a sobriety checkpoint in
Michigan Dep’t of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990). Here, Michigan implemented a program where
checkpoints would be set up at predetermined sites along state roads. All drivers passing through would be
stopped and checked for obvious signs of intoxication. If such indications were detected, the motorist would be
taken out of the flow of traffic and an officer would check his or her license and registration. If warranted, the officer
would conduct field sobriety tests. All other motorists would continue unimpeded after the initial screening. The
check lasted 75 minutes, during which 126 vehicles passed through. The average delay was 25 seconds. Three
motorists were detained on suspicion of intoxication, and two were arrested. The Court held that this checkpoint
passed constitutional muster. Citing the aforementioned factors, the Court found that:

(i) Michigan had a substantial interest in eliminating drunken driving, noting that “no one can seriously dispute the
magnitude of the drunken driving problem [or the] State’s interest in eradicating it.”
(ii) This checkpoint advanced the State’s interest in curbing the drunk driving problem, noting that the use of a
permissible checkpoint is but one of many reasonable alternatives to remedying the problem, and “the choice
among such reasonable alternatives remains with the governmental officials who have a unique understanding” of
the problem and the resources available to combat it.
(iii) The intrusion, both objective and subjective, was slight, pointing out the brevity (25 seconds) of the average
encounter. The Court also noted that any subjective intrusion, such as making a motorist fearful or annoyed, was
diminished by the fact that motorists could plainly see all vehicles were being stopped.
See also U.S. v. Hawkins, 249 F.3d 867 (9th Cir. 2001), listing five factors courts should consider in determining
the reasonableness of a checkpoint or roadblock: (i) the checkpoint’s primary purpose; (ii) whether all vehicles are
stopped; (iii) whether officers exercise discretion over the checkpoint’s operation; (iv) whether the checkpoint is
well identified; and (v) whether stops made involve a minimal intrusion.

However, in City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000), the U.S. Supreme Court found that roadblocks and
checkpoints conducted for the “primary purpose” of “uncover[ing] evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing” violate
the Fourth Amendment. Roadblocks should be directed toward administrative purposes, such as ensuring highway
safety (for example, by removing the “immediate, vehicle-bound threat” caused by drunk drivers) or, where
appropriate, policing the Nation’s borders (by checking for illegal immigrants in areas reasonably close to the
border); they must not be motivated by “the general interest in crime control.” Thus, so-called “drug checkpoints,”
staffed with drug-sniffing dogs and conducted for the primary purpose of discovering and interdicting illegal
narcotics, were unconstitutional. The Court did note that if exigent circumstances were present, an appropriately
tailored roadblock whose primary purpose was crime-control would almost certainly be permitted (for example, to
thwart an imminent terrorist attack or to catch a dangerous criminal likely to flee by a particular route). Of course, if
police uncover evidence of criminal wrongdoing at a valid roadblock, they may seize the evidence and arrest its
possessor.

Legal Citations Provided by Lexis-Nexis

If you have been arrested at a DUI or drivers license checkpoint Contact the local Santa Clarita
Valley Criminal Defense Team for  information and options available to you at   (661) 327-7833
DUI sobriety checkpoint