The Evolution of DUI Sobriety Checkpoints and Roadblocks

Vehicle Code § 2814.2(a), (effective January 1, 2012), requires that a driver of a motor vehicle shall stop and submit to a sobriety checkpoint conducted by a law enforcement agency when signs and displays are posted requiring the stop. What the Legislature means by “submit” is unclear and subject to interpretation.

The Ingersoll case set forth the requirements of a DUI Checkpoint and/or roadblock if conducted in the State of California. Obviously, then, attacks on DUI Checkpoints and/or roadblocks arrests should be based on any failure to comply with any of the “certain limitations” that the Ingersoll opinion referenced. Each will be discussed in further detail throughout this series. It is important to note that nothing in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Michigan Dep’t of State Police v. Sitz (1990) 496 U.S. 444, criticized any of these guidelines or recommended any others.

The Ingersoll guidelines fall under the following general headings:

1. Decision Making at the Supervisory Level
2. Limits on Discretion of Field Officers
3. Maintenance of Safety Conditions
4. Reasonable Location
5. Time and Duration
6. Indicia of Official Nature of Roadblock
7. Length and Nature of Detention
8. Advance Publicity

In the case of People v. Alvarado (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th Supp. 13, the Alvardo Court analyzed the Ingersoll factors and determined that the prosecution failed to sustain its burden of proof to establish the operational legitimacy of a checkpoint. It made the following findings on sufficiency of five of the Ingersoll factors:

1. Role of Supervisory Personnel was insufficient because the evidence showed that a sergeant approved the procedures used in the checkpoint, and these procedures were different from those specified by the captain.
2. Use of a Neutral Formula was sufficient where police stopped five cars at a time, except when traffic was light. It’s okay to use a combination of systems so long as they all are neutral.
3. Rationale of Checkpoint Location requires evidence explaining the specific checkpoint site used and showing that the location was one that had a high incidence of alcohol-related accidents and/or arrests. A location such as a major roadway can’t be selected simply on a finding that there is a lot of drinking and driving on a holiday or Super Bowl Sunday because such a justification would justify infinite locations.
4. Findings on the Length and Nature of the Detentions require the prosecution to provide specific evidence from which the finder of fact can determine if the nature and duration of detentions were reasonable.
5. Lack of Advanced Publicity alone will not render an otherwise proper checkpoint unconstitutional under Banks, but, where other problems are found, the lack of advanced publicity may tip the scales toward a finding of unconstitutionality.

In Part II of this series, each of the factors will be considered singularly and updated on this webpage as new webpage links as they are updated.