DUI Roadblocks

When a vehicle is stopped due to a roadblock that has as its main purpose the detection of drunk drivers and/or a license and safety check, there is a split of authority as to whether the stop violates the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. The protection, which includes protecting citizens from being stopped without a search warrant, requires that a police officer have a reasonable suspicion or probable cause to briefly detain a citizen to investigate his or her suspicion that the individual is involved in some illegal conduct.

The United States Supreme Court held that a roadblock that was established in accordance with guidelines governing checkpoint operations, site selection, and publicity and that required the stopping of each motorist for preliminary questioning and observation at an average delay of 25 seconds was valid. The court balanced the state's interest in eliminating drunk driving, the degree of the intrusion, and the effectiveness of the program. However, although the U.S. Supreme Court found the roadblock valid, on remand the Michigan Supreme Court found that the use of highway sobriety checkpoints by the state police violated the Michigan constitutional provision covering search and seizure.

The decisions of other state court concerning the constitutionality of roadblocks have gone both ways. Many of the decisions on the constitutionality of roadblocks are based on the amount of discretion assumed by the officers. It appears that where the officers have little to no discretion in setting up the roadblocks, the roadblocks are more likely to be found to be constitutional. For a roadblock to be constitutional, the vehicle selected for inspection cannot be randomly selected. To avoid random selection, the agency in charge of the checkpoint must pre-determine which, when, and where vehicles will be stopped. For example, many roadblocks will chose to select every fifth vehicle. If the roadblock is found to be unconstitutional, any evidence obtained as a result of the roadblock will not be admissible in court.

Police officers occasionally attempt to stop a motorist who attempts to avoid a roadblock by turning away or making a U-turn when approaching the roadblock. Such a stop was successfully challenged in Nebraska where the court held that the stop was not based on a reasonable suspicion. The court concluded that a motorist who seeks to avoid a checkpoint by legally turning before entering the roadblock must be allowed to do so unless a traffic violation is observed. Therefore, avoidance of a roadblock does not represent a valid reason for stopping a vehicle.

Copyright 2010 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc.