The Law Pertaining to License Checkpoints
The legal framework for license checkpoints derives from a body of jurisprudence applying the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. While the Fourth Amendment generally prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, the Supreme Court has held that a variety of "administrative" searches and seizures are not subject to the usual requirements of individualized probable cause and warrants. E.g., Skinner v. Ry. Labor Execs.’ Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602 (1989) (upholding warrantless search of employees by their employer pursuant to an authorized program of drug and alcohol testing); U.S. v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1977) (upholding warrantless searches of motorists at permanent roving Border Patrol checkpoints on highway in southwest). The Supreme Court has so far applied this doctrine to warrantless vehicle and driver searches at the U.S. border, U.S.-Mexico border, and interstate highway, as well as to warrantless searches of commercial aircraft, drug and alcohol testing of employees, fire inspections of businesses, and warrantless sobriety checkpoints.
Although the Supreme Court has not directly extended the applicability of the "administrative" search and seizure jurisprudence beyond those contexts listed above , lower courts have applied it to a variety of more indirect searches, including sobriety checkpoints, vehicle safety checkpoints, and license checkpoints. E.g., U.S. v. Moore, 669 F.2d 368, 372 (4th Cir. 1982) (applying the "administrative" search & seizure jurisprudence to a sobriety checkpoint); U.S. v. Hines, 456 F.3d 555 (4th Cir. 2006) (contrasting Moore with cases upholding license and safety checkpoints); U.S. v. Martinez-Fuerte (applying the "administrative" search & seizure jurisprudence to warrantless searches of motorists at permanent roving Border Patrol checkpoints on highway in southwest); People v. Lieng, 33 Misc.3d 1084, 917 N.Y.S.2d 863 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. 2011) (upholding license checkpoint based on Martinez-Fuerte); but see People v. Abdallah, 83 A.D.3d 1197, 922 N.Y.S.2d 722 (2011) (reversing conviction obtained following arrest during license checkpoint). Thus, depending on the particular set of circumstances (e.g., relator geographic area, type of checkpoint, reason for conducting checkpoint, etc.) a license checkpoint may or may not be supported by the applicable law.
Supreme Court Decisions on License Checkpoints
For decades, the Supreme Court has ruled on the constitutionality of license checkpoints. Most of those rulings have supported sober checkpoints, allowing police departments discretion in who they arrest as long as they adhere to certain best practices. A notable exception is Illinois v. Lidster (2004) where the Court ruled that a sobriety checkpoint would require an individualized, specific level of suspicion over the course of checkpoints, similar to DUI checkpoints. While some states have discriminatory laws regarding DWI checkpoints, most states have laws that govern impaired driving checkpoints.
By comparing your case to recent rulings, it is possible to determine if a checkpoint was lawful. For example, in Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz (1990), the Supreme Court approved of sobriety checkpoints provided the police department strictly adhered to the above requirements. In Sitz the Court ruled that police checkpoints are legal so long as departments don’t wheel and deal with motorists or pull them over without cause, thereby requiring a consistent level of individual suspicion throughout the checkpoint.
In Sitz, Police departments which have been doing checkpoints for years in Michigan were denied the capacity to sue for damages due to their arrest being ruled unlawful. However, all subsequent rulings have made it clear that sobriety checkpoints are governed by the Fourth Amendment. And with each new decision, more limitations have been placed on police departments regarding sobriety checkpoints.
The most recent ruling is Rodriguez v. United States (2015) that ruled a sobriety checkpoint strayed into a traffic stop when an officer decided to arrest an innocent motorist over a minor infraction. In Rodriquez v. United States the U.S. Supreme Court decided that police checkpoints are only lawful when they rigorously adhere to strict criteria for when and how they can be applied.
Differences in License Checkpoint Statutes Among the States
License checkpoint laws vary between states with some states imposing relatively few restrictions on their use while other states place significant restrictions or even prohibit the use of checkpoints for license and registration checks.
As mentioned above, some states freely deploy license checkpoints as tools of law enforcement. Georgia and Florida have traditionally used checkpoints with much success. The state of Michigan holds a somewhat conflicted view that has recently led to a clarification in its law. Michigan’s Supreme Court is currently developing a pro-legal standard. Two judges on the Supreme Court have previously written of their personal belief that license checkpoint are unreasonable searches. The third and deciding vote, however, has quite differently determined that license checkpoints are reasonable without further analysis.
Other states, however, have placed restrictions on license checkpoints. Some simply require the officer to yield an articulation for their decision to use the checkpoint. Others, require the officer to offer a probable cause determination that is later evaluated by a judge. Some states, such as California, even require the legislative body to yield justification for the use of license checkpoints. In California, legislation was passed explicitly limiting the use of sobriety checkpoints but leaving intact the original provision authorizing ‘roadblocks’ for various reasons, including license checks.
Constitutional Rights and Information Privacy
The constitutionality of license checkpoints, and the legality of sobriety checkpoints more generally, is a topic of ongoing debate. Opponents of sobriety checkpoints argue that they violate Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. Proponents counter that sobriety checkpoints are reasonable incursions on Fourth Amendment protections when they serve a significant government interest, like public safety.
This tension between individual rights and public safety is at the center of many criticisms of license checkpoints. Some legal scholars have even suggested that such checkpoints amount to involuntary servitude , in that the act of stopping motorists for a license check constitutes a seizure of goods (a license) and persons (the motorists subject to force if they drive away). The Fourth Amendment provides that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
When the Supreme Court has considered the legality of license checkpoints, they have upheld the practice by balancing the intrusion the checkpoint poses to the individual motorist against the state’s interest in conducting checkpoints. These arguments are ones a DUI attorney may make or counter in defending clients accused of DUI charges stemming from a sobriety checkpoint stop.
Efficiency and Controversy over License Checkpoints
Proponents of license checkpoints argue that they significantly reduce the incidence of unlicensed or uninsured drivers, thus making the roads safer for all travelers. They point to a 2014 study by the Virginia Transportation Research Council that "found that in Virginia, the two-year crash rates for drivers who were stopped at a checkpoint were about 30 percent lower than the rates for a random sample of drivers who were stopped outside of a checkpoint." The data can also be seen in the context of broader efforts to reduce drunk driving, which have succeeded in part because of initiatives like sobriety checkpoints. However, some question whether statistics about drunk driving deterrence can be applied to unlicensed driver deterrence.
On the other side, opponents argue that there are more effective ways to draw out unlicensed drivers or weed out drunk drivers and that there are various social costs associated with checkpoints. Among other arguments, opponents say that frequently stationary checkpoints can contribute to falling property values and an overall reduction in quality of life in areas where the checkpoints are common. Beyond the general complaints of residents in neighborhoods where checkpoints are frequently mounted, critics also maintain that the potential for profiling and harassment – based on perceived race, ethnicity, etc. – should also be considered when evaluating the efficacy of checkpoints. A 2007 Washington State analysis found that "Washington’s traffic stops revealed that at least 50% of the stops in rural areas through out the state were due to probable cause, while in urban areas the number jumps to 75%" and stop length was also longer in urban districts.
Rights and Duties at License Checkpoints
The police must also notify all drivers of the checkpoint ahead. The actual stop must then be brief, or "momentary" so that the police may ask questions of each driver. Questioning is not limited to "where are you going," or essentially the usual questioning process. If an officer believes that a violation or crime has occurred due to evasive behavior, a separate interaction may begin, but the second encounter must be an entirely new, functionally separate encounter. The first encounter involving the brief and momentary stop must last only a few moments.
If everything prior to the stop is lawful, the police officer performing the checkpoint will wave down the motorist. Once waved down, the driver’s first responsibility is to safely pull over to the side of the road. Do not continue driving past your designated spot, just as you should not speed up in the lane where a traffic light has turned red at the last moment. Simply follow all the normal rules of safety. This means looking in your rear view and side mirrors at all times . Use your blinkers to safely change lanes. Once you safely arrive at the designated stopping point, leave the vehicle in gear and roll down your window. Stay calm. Do not get out of the car. Wait for the officer to initiate contact. You should then do what the officer asks, following any reasonable requests. Police officers, particularly at license checkpoints, are generally trained like other business people in customer service. Officers stationed at checkpoints typically want to be personable. They are not often the hard-nosed type who is just waiting to hand out a ticket because he or she is in a van mood. That is extreme and rare. Typically, the officers conducting the checkpoint will be friendly and helpful. But, the officer does not have to be your best friend. The system and officers at the checkpoint will be most helpful if you are polite and cooperative. What this boils down to is that you should be courteous and respectful, but neutral. You should not be overly friendly, but you should not be rude either.