A History of Court Decisions on the Constitutionality of DUI Checkpoints

In 1987, the California Supreme Court addressed the question of whether DWI sobriety checkpoints were permissible under federal and state constitutions. (Ingersoll v. Palmer (1987) 43 Ca1.3d 1321, 1325.) "Federal constitutional principles require a showing of either the officer's reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred or is occurring or, as an alternative; that the seizure is 'carried out pursuant to a plan embodying explicit, neutral limitations on the conduct of individual officers.' (Brown v. Texas (1979) 443 U.S. 47, 51, citing Delaware v. Prouse (1979) 440 U.S. 648, 663 and United States v. Martinez-Fuerte (1976) 428 U.S. 543,558-562.) As part of its analysis, the California Supreme Court in Ingersoll applied the federal test that was enunciated in Brown v. Texas, supra, 443 U.S. 47. 51 for determining whether the detention of the driver was reasonable.  The Brown test was a balancing test weighing the gravity of the governmental interest or public concern served and the degree to which the program advances that concern against the intrusiveness of the interference with individual liberty. 

The California Supreme Court "determined that (1) '[d]eterring drunk driving and identifying and removing drunk drivers from the roadways undeniably serves a highly important governmental interest,' and (2) sobriety checkpoints advance this interest. (Ingersoll. supra, 43 Cal.3d atpp. 1338-1341.) In examining the third prong of the Brown balancing test, which [it] rephrased as 'the intrusiveness on inclividua1liberties engendered by the sobriety checkpoints: [it] identified eight 'factors important in assessing intrusiveness,' noting that such factors 'provide functional guidelines for minimizing the intrusiveness of the DUI checkpoint stop." (People v. Banks (1993) 6 Cal. 4th 926,936.) It found these eight factors were important in assessing intrusiveness, noting that these eight factors "provide functional guidelines for minimizing the intrusiveness of the sobriety checkpoint stop."  These eight factors are:

(1) Whether the decision to establish a sobriety checkpoint, the selection of the site, and the procedures for the operation of the checkpoint are made and established by supervisory law enforcement personnel;
(2) Whether drivers are stopped according to a neutral formula, such as every third, fifth or tenth driver;
(3) Whether adequate safety precautions are taken, such as proper lighting, warning sign,and signals, and whether clearly identifiable official vehicles and personnel are used;
(4) Whether the location of the checkpoint was determined by a policymaking official, and was reasonable, i.e., on a road having a high incidence of alcohol-related accidents or arrests;
(5) Whether the time the checkpoint was conducted and its duration reflect "good judgment" on the part of law enforcement officials;
(6) Whether the checkpoint exhibits sufficient indicia of its official nature (to reassure motorists of the authorized nature of the stop);
(7) Whether the average length and nature of the detention is minimized;and
(8) Whether the checkpoint is preceded by publicity.

Three years after Ingersoll, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Michigan State Police Dept. v. Sitz (1990) 496 U.S. 444. In Sitz, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether sobriety checkpoints violated the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution.  It found that the balancing test used in Brown v. Texas and United States v. Martinez-Fuerte (1976) 428 U.S. 543 [approved fixed immigration checkpoints to investigate the transport of illegal aliens] was the appropriate test. In applying the balancing test, the court held that a state's interest in preventing drunken driving, the extent to which this system can reasonably be said to advance that interest, and the degree of intrusion upon individual motorists who are briefly stopped, weighed in favor of a state sobriety checkpoint and was consistent with the Fourth Amendment. Three years after Sitz, the California Supreme Court decided People v. Banks (1993) 6 Ca1.4th 926.)  In Banks, the court considered whether advance publicity, one of the eight Ingersoll factors, was a constitutional prerequisite for a sobriety checkpoint. The Justices held that in light of Sitz and other authority, a DUI checkpoint that lacked advance publicity but otherwise conformed to the Ingersoll guidelines was not a unreasonable seizure.

The evolution of the Drunk Driver checkpoint is nearly 40 years in the making.  Most Attorneys understand that a challenge on fourth amendment grounds will be met with much opposition.  But, checkpoints can be fought if the person understands the cases and the requirements

Why are DUI Checkpoints Constitutional?

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of sobriety checkpoints in 1990. If conducted properly, DWI checkpoints do not constitute illegal search and seizure in most states. The U.S. Supreme Court decision held that the interest in reducing alcohol-impaired driving was sufficient to justify the brief intrusion of a properly conducted sobriety checkpoint.

Most states, including California,  allow DUI checkpoints. Many states have set up and established their own guidelines to supplement the federal rules.  For instance, most jurisdictions require advance notice of the checkpoint to the public. A few states require the production of police studies showing why a checkpoint location is selected. One state requires police to obtain a Superior Court order before the checkpoint may be conducted. the laws in most states will dictate to what extent the police can go in stopping motorists to determine their sobriety .

According to one Torrance DUI Attorney, if a checkpoint complies with the federal requirements, it does not violate the United States Constitution.  Most states have decided the issue under their own constitutions as well.  In states where sobriety checkpoints are prohibited, the reasons vary as to why they aren’t allowed. Eleven states currently prohibit any type of sobriety checkpoint. California decided back in the 90's to allow the police to stop vehicles following the Federal law standards, put another way, the law in this state is that the cops can stop and search people as long as the stop complies with the U.S. Constitution, not the state Constitution.

So why is a DUI checkpoint legal?  One perspective is that, as citizens, most of us support the police to protect us from theft, burglary and assault. Yet, many otherwise law-biding citizens continue to view impaired driving merely as a traffic offense. Don’t be fooled. Impaired driving is no accident nor is it a victimless crime. s a serious crime that kills more than 16,000 people and injures nearly 305,000 others every year. Every 32 minutes, someone in America dies in an impaired driving crash. Every two minutes, someone is killed or injured by a DUI driver Law enforcement agencies in every State and locality are serving on the front lines in the fight against this deadly threat to this country's communities. Traffic crashes are not only a danger to our citizens but are also the leading cause of death for law enforcement officers on the road. More cities are also beginning to understand the economic cost of this criminal activity. Impaired driving (DWI) cost the public more than $110 billion a year. DUI related car crashes are deadlier and more serious than other accidents and they hurt everyone - annually people other than the drinking driver pay 50 plus billion of the costs of DUI drivers.

Is a Felony DUI Defendant Eligible For Realignment?

California lawmakers initiated a program in California some time ago allowing for certain offenders to spend time in local county jails versus being sent to state prison.  A Felony DUI carries a sentence of state prison, however, can a convicted offender do that time in county?  The Coorts say no, according to a recent appeals case.  Appellant pled no contest to a section 23152, subdivision (b) violation, admitted a prior conviction under section 23550.5, and was sentenced to a two-year term in state prison. On appeal, he argued he was entitled to be sentenced to local custody because, absent disqualifying factors not present here, Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (h) provides that where the term for the offense is not specified, the underlying offense shall be punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for 16 months, two years or three years. Vehicle Code section 42000 provides unless a different penalty is expressly provided by this code, every person convicted of a felony for a violation of a provision of this code shall be punished pursuant to Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (h). Under appellant's reasoning, since section 23550.5 provides for, "imprisonment in the state prison," but does not provide for a specific term, he was eligible for local custody. The appeals court upheld the sentence. Section 23550, subdivision (a), but not section 23550.5 provides for sentencing pursuant to section 1170, subdivision (h). By failing to include language in section 23550.5 authorizing local custody, the Legislature intentionally excluded those convicted under this statute from serving the term in local custody.   So, no county jail time for felony DUI crimes in California.

New DUI Laws. What's Ahead For California?

Mandatory jail for first offenders?  Lifetime revocation of you license for any second DUI offense?  10 year mandatory IID for all convicted drunk divers?  These are all being considered by the current lawmakers in the great state of California.  While these draconian measures may seem far fetched, they are on the wish list for many groups advocating for stiffer sentences and punishments for all drunk drivers in this part of the country where drinking and driving is still not regarded as a serious crime.

Currently, the state senate has many bills brought and written by MADD that all mandate that any DUI remain on the driver's DMV record for life.  This means that insurance companies will see the conviction and punish the defendant for all his life.  The bills are winding their way through the legislative process with few groups opposing them with the exception of California DUI Attorneys and some civil liberty groups.  In 2014 we will certainly see some change, it remains to be seen how far the state will go.

Facing Mandatory Jail for a DUI? Consider Pay To Stay

It is an unfortunate fact of life in California, if you are convicted of a DUI as a second or third offense you a looking at the real prospect of a stint in the county jail.  With this in mind, it may be wise to consider the various "pay to stay" programs offered in Los Angeles and Orange County.  These programs offer a defendant the opportunity to avoid going to county jail.  Why is this such a big fear?  Maany believe that the county jails are much more dangerous that the alternatives, particularly in metropolitan L.A. where gang violence is rampant and racial tensions are high.

Before starting the process there are many considerations.  First, can you afford the paid city jail options?  The cost of most facilities is at least $100 a day with some charging as much as 200 or more.  Second, you must submit to a TB test and have good general physical health.   Once you have been approved and paid the requisite fees you can start your time.  You will likely be given your own cell away from the general population.  You will be doing light work, such as washing police cars or cleaning the building,  and have much more freedom of movement than the other incarcerated persons.  Most jailers will give you additional privileges such as unlimited use of a phone, computer, internet and television. 

It would be great if everyone could afford private jail but they can't.  In the coming editions we will provide a list of the cities that offer this jail alternative.  In addition to DUI cases, the programs allow the private option where the case is non-violent and you have no extensive criminal record.

Facing A License Suspension Following an APS Hearing? What You Can Do To Drive To Work

For many, the thought of a license supension in California can be terrifying.  The DMV is completely heartless and unsympathetic to your plight as it relates to your job, your family, keeping your home, etc.   There are immediate steps you can take to keep a provisional license after an unfavorable DMV APS hearing. 

The law does allow for a restricted license if you meet the following conditions:  1.  You are a first offender and have no past suspensions for any DUI related administrative sanctions,  2.  You must have taken a test and not refused.  3.  You must be over 21 and not on any form of DUI probation from any Court.   As long as you comply with the restriction conditions you can keep your license after a short 30 day period.

In addition to the foregoing, you must also get an SR-22 proof of insurance, get enrolled in the AB541 first offender alcohol program and pay all applicable re-issue fees, usually $120.

Impossible to Get a Search Warrant in California For a Blood Draw? Not So Says A Long Beach DUI Attorney

Recently, in a United States Supreme Court case, the government argued that obtaining a search warrant for a blood draw of a DUI suspect was difficult to do withing the context of a drunk driving arrest.  However, in California a system is alreadfy in place to get a telephonic search warrant.  As an alternative to written affidavits California Penal Code 1526(b)(1) permits sworn oral statements that are subsequently transcribed. For example, the affiant may phone the magistrate, state probable cause, and obtain the magistrate’s verbal authorization to sign the latter’s name to the warrant under the Penal Code in the state. The resulting warrant is the so-called telephonic (or, more accurately, telephonically authorized) search warrant. The expression “telephonic search warrant” can give rise to the erroneous impression that the warrant itself is oral. All search warrants must be in writing. The only thing different about a telephonic warrant is that the affiant signs the magistrate’s name to a duplicate original search warrant.  This makes sense and allows for adequate protections in the remote context.

According to one Long Beach DUI Attorney, the CA Judges Benchguide offers detailed instructions to Judges on duty after hours and on weekends when the Courts are closed.  The statutes do not mention statements by the affiant over the telephone, but have been interpreted to permit them. The procedure is constitutional. No special circumstances need be shown for issuing a telephonic warrant.  Indeed, in Los Angeles County all telephonic search warrants are obtained through a District Attorney Command Post. Under this process, if the deputy DA believes the case is appropriate for a telephonic search warrant after talking with the affiant, the command post investigator sets up a conference call between the affiant, deputy DA, judge, and investigator (who runs the recording equipment). Courts may have different procedures. The following is an example adapted from various counties.  The affiant’s statement must be recorded. The judge should be sure to record the conversation, check that the equipment is switched on and operating. If the affiant is recording the conversation, the judge should ask whether the recording equipment is turned on.  These procedures ensue an adequate record on review.  There can be no doubt that the implementation of the current procedures can be re-tooled to allow for blood draw search warrants for DUI suspects on the roadside or at the police station after arrest.