California DUI Laws and Sobriety Checkpoints

Short after a 1984 California Attorney General's Opinion set out what were intended to be strict guidelines for the legality of drunk driving roadblocks, police began using them to apprehend drunk drivers.

Roadblocks carried out pursuant to those strict guidelines* have been approved by the California Supreme Court (Ingersoll v Palmer (1987) 43 C3d 1321, 241, CR42). In this 4-3 decision the court stated, "We conclude that within certain limitations a sobriety checkpoint may be operated in a manner consistent with the federal and state Constitutions." The decision stressed a theme of "balancing the need to search against the need to search entrails".

In 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court also gave general approval to the use of roadblocks to enforce drunk driving laws (Michigan State Police Dept. v Sitz (1990) 496 U.S. 444, 110 S.Ct.2481, 110 L.Ed.2d 412, 47 CrL (BNA) 2155).

The court's decision in Ingersoll was based upon this reason. The court stated that the primary purpose of a roadblock is to deter drunk driving, rather than to arrest offenders, And that therefore Fourth Amendment considerations are not involved.

On the lack of any evidence showing that roadblocks will serve the stated purpose of deterrence, the court stated, at p. 1339:

It would be presumptuous in the extreme for this court to prohibit the use of an otherwise permissible and potentially effective procedure merely because its effectiveness is at the present time largely untested.

Statistics for 1990 C.H.P. roadblocks were published in 1992 in California Master Plan to Reduce Alcohol and Drug Abuse: 1992 (Sacramento, CA; Department of Alcohol and Drug Program, Jan. 1992) p B-88. According to this report, the C.H.P. conducted 84 roadblocks during 1990, with only 599 arrests for drunk driving. The cost was nearly $250,000. That's about 7 arrests per roadblock, at a cost of over $400. for each arrest, for the roadblock alone.

*Ingersoll guidelines fall under these general headings:

1. Decision Making at the Supervisory Level
2. Limits of 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

The Ingersoll court also strongly hinted that Vehicle Code section 21, vesting authority for traffic control with the state, would prevent the establishment of any permanent roadblock location.

Other References:
Curbing the Drunk Driver Under the Fourth amendment: The Constitutionality of Roadblock Seizures (1983) 71 Georgetown L.J. 1457-1486.
Sobriety Checkpoint Roadblocks: Constitutional in Light of Delaware v Prouse? (1984) 28 St Louis U.L.J. 813.
Tarantino, J., "The .10 Percent Solution - Warrantless Sobriety Checkpoints" the Champion, XII No. 1, Jan./Feb 1988 (Washington, D.C.: N.A.C.D.L.)39.

Are you in need of a California DUI Lawyer?