Legal Challenges to Sobriety Checkpoints

The courts have ruled that sobriety checkpoints don't violate a motorist's Fourth Amendment rights if they are conducted within certain criteria. California drunk driving sobriety checkpoints must follow specific guidelines set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in order to be constitutional. However, police don't always follow that protocol. If they don't, any evidence gathered as a result of an arrest at a sobriety checkpoint may be suppressed at trial.

The skilled DUI / DWI defense attorneys of The Kavinoky Law Firm are extremely knowledgeable about the requirements of California drunk driving Sobriety Checkpoints and can determine whether an arrest was valid. They will request the following information during pre-trial discovery to help determine whether police followed the established guidelines:

• The identity of all involved law enforcement personnel, both sworn and civilian
• The identity of each person arrested at the roadblock. This information is necessary to determine whether proper procedures were actually followed, if defense counsel opts to interview them
• Where field sobriety tests were performed, and who conducted them
• Where chemical tests were given, and who conducted them
• All communication, diagrams, and reports used in designing the roadblock
• How long each driver was stopped at the checkpoint
• Whether a neutral formula was employed in stopping motorists, or whether officers used their own discretion
• Whether the roadblock had an official appearance, including warning signs, lights, and uniformed personnel
• How the location of the roadblock was determined
• How the timing and duration of the roadblock was determined
• Whether the public received advance notice of the checkpoint
• Whether the safety of drivers was of primary concern
• Whether motorists were allowed the opportunity to turn away from the roadblock without being detained

An experienced California defense lawyer will analyze this information to determine whether there were discrepancies between the protocol set by the courts and the operation of the checkpoint. If police did not follow all of the necessary guidelines, and there was no probable cause for a stop, a DUI / DWI defense attorney will move to have all of the evidence that stemmed from the arrest excluded.

If police don't follow the established guidelines when operating a sobriety checkpoint, probable cause is needed to make an arrest if there is no warrant. Probable cause exists when the facts known to the officer would lead a person of ordinary care and prudence to believe that the person is guilty of a crime. The officer must be able to articulate why the driver was stopped and ordered to exit the vehicle.

Probable cause must exist during each stage of the encounter, including the performance of the field sobriety tests, chemical testing, and the arrest itself. If there was no probable cause, and the search and seizure took place without a warrant, there is a strong likelihood that the court will grant the motion to suppress, thus excluding the evidence gathered during the sobriety checkpoint.

This type of challenge can result in the exclusion of evidence that includes field sobriety tests, statements made by the defendant, and the results of any chemical tests. Roadblock sobriety testing is considered a search under the Fourth Amendment, and chemical tests of breath, blood, or urine are firmly established to be a seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes.

An experienced DUI / DWI defense attorney will argue that without a warrant or probable cause, all of this evidence must be suppressed. The prosecutor then bears the burden of proving that the search of the defendant and the seizure of the sample were the product of a lawful arrest.

Even though sobriety checkpoints have been sanctioned by the courts, not all drunk driving checkpoints are conducted according to established guidelines. Ultimately, evidence obtained at an improperly conducted sobriety checkpoint can be challenged. The first step is to consult with a California lawyer who concentrates on drunk driving defense.