Source: https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/people-v-banks-31551
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 19:05:37+00:00

Document:
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARY LOUISE BANKS, Defendant and Appellant.
Ronald Y. Butler, Public Defender, Carl C. Holmes, Chief Deputy Public Defender, Thomas Havlena and Alan J. Crivaro, Deputy Public Defenders, for Defendent and Appellant.
Amitai Schwartz, Paul L. Hoffman, Alan L. Schlosser, Ann Brick, Edward M. Chen, Matthew A. Coles and Margaret C. Crosby as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.
Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, George Williamson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Ronald A. Bass, Assistant Attorney General, Ronald E. Niver and Charles R. B. Kirk, Deputy Attorneys General, James K. Hahn, City Attorney (Los Angeles), Debbie Lew and Lisa S. Berger, Deputy City Attorneys, as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Respondent.
In this case we decide whether advance publicity is a prerequisite to the operation of a constitutionally permissible highway "sobriety checkpoint."
In Ingersoll v. Palmer (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1321 [241 Cal.Rptr. 42, 743 P.2d 1299] (hereafter Ingersoll), this court upheld the constitutionality of sobriety checkpoints conducted pursuant to various safeguards, observing, in the course of our analysis, that advance publicity is one such safeguard "important to the maintenance of a constitutionally permissible sobriety checkpoint." (Id. at p. 1346.) In the present case, the Court of Appeal interpreted Ingersoll to require advance publicity as a prerequisite to the constitutional validity of a sobriety checkpoint. As we shall explain, however, the United States Supreme Court's analysis of the constitutionality of sobriety checkpoints in Michigan State Police Dept. v. Sitz (1990) 496 U.S. 444 [110 L.Ed.2d 412, 110 S.Ct. 2481] (hereafter Sitz), decided three years after our Ingersoll decision, establishes that advance publicity is not a constitutional prerequisite to the operation of such a checkpoint. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
Defendant Mary Louise Banks was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol on November 18, 1990, after being stopped at a sobriety checkpoint located on Pacific Coast Highway at the intersection of First Street in the City of Seal Beach. The checkpoint was operated by law enforcement officials of the Seal Beach, Cypress, La Palma, and Los Alamitos police departments.
A complaint thereafter was filed in municipal court charging defendant with violations of Vehicle Code former section 23152, subdivisions (a) and [6 Cal.4th 932] (b), and other vehicular offenses. fn. 1 Defendant entered a plea of not guilty and moved, pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5, to suppress evidence (obtained at the sobriety checkpoint) establishing her alcohol-related impairment. Her motion, challenging the lawfulness of the sobriety checkpoint under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, maintained that the checkpoint did not conform to the guidelines set forth in Ingersoll.
At the hearing on the motion, the following evidence was adduced. The location of the sobriety checkpoint, on a heavily congested roadway, was chosen by supervisory law enforcement officials. The officers at the checkpoint were instructed to select the first four vehicles from every ten vehicles that approached the checkpoint between 10:10 p.m. and 12:15 a.m., and the first four vehicles from every six vehicles thereafter until 2:30 a.m., for the purpose of questioning the occupants. Prior to establishment of the checkpoint, the law enforcement officers operating it were briefed as to the manner in which the checkpoint was to be marked clearly and conspicuously. The officers used highway flares, cones, stop signs, overhead white lights, traffic barricades mounted with flashing lights, and a truck marked with arrows to identify the checkpoint and to divert motor vehicles safely away from the flow of traffic. Drivers approaching the checkpoint were confronted with a sign that read "Sobriety Checkpoint Ahead." Officers were instructed not to pursue motorists who turned their vehicles away before reaching the checkpoint. Numerous uniformed officers and marked police vehicles were visible at the checkpoint. Officers were instructed to detain approaching vehicles only for such time as was necessary to question the driver briefly and look for signs of intoxication. In the event such signs were found, the driver was asked to exit from his or her vehicle so that a law enforcement official could administer a field sobriety examination.
Although one of the police officers testified that he previously had participated in the operation of sobriety checkpoints, and that the establishment of these prior checkpoints had been preceded by publicity, the prosecution did not adduce any evidence specifically demonstrating that the establishment of this particular sobriety checkpoint was preceded by advance publicity.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the municipal court denied defendant's motion to suppress evidence, ruling that advance publicity was not a prerequisite to the constitutional validity of a sobriety checkpoint and that the checkpoint otherwise complied with the standards set forth in Ingersoll.
Following the municipal court's denial of her motion to suppress, defendant pled guilty, received a suspended sentence, and was placed on informal probation pending disposition of the present appeal.
In the appellate department of the superior court, defendant reiterated her contention that advance publicity was required in order to establish a constitutionally permissible sobriety checkpoint. Rather than decide the issue, the appellate department certified defendant's case to the Court of Appeal, which ordered transfer of the case. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 62(a), 63(a).) fn. 2 The Court of Appeal thereafter reversed the judgment of the municipal court, resting its decision on twin premises: (1) that under our decision in Ingersoll, advance publicity is a "requirement" of a constitutionally permissible sobriety checkpoint, and (2) because the United States Supreme Court, in Sitz, supra, 496 U.S. 444, upheld a sobriety checkpoint program that provided for advance publicity (and that otherwise was similar to the program discussed in Ingersoll), precheckpoint publicity is necessary if a checkpoint is to pass constitutional muster.
 Pursuant to article I, section 28, of the California Constitution, a trial court may exclude evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5 only if exclusion is mandated by the federal Constitution. (In re Lance W. (1985) 37 Cal.3d 873, 896 [210 Cal.Rptr. 631, 694 P.2d 744].) Thus, exclusion of the evidence obtained at the sobriety checkpoint, supporting the charge that defendant was under the influence of alcohol while driving her vehicle, was proper only if that evidence was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
That amendment provides, in pertinent part: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated ...." (U.S. Const., Amend. IV.)  State and local law enforcement officials are subject to the requirements of the Fourth Amendment based upon the operation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. (Mapp v. Ohio (1961) 367 U.S. 643 [6 L.Ed.2d 1081, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 84 A.L.R.2d 933]; Wolf v. Colorado (1949) 338 U.S. 25, 27-28 [93 L.Ed. 1782, 1785-1786, 69 S.Ct. 1359].) [3a] The detention incident to the operation of sobriety "checkpoints" (which, for purposes of our analysis, we consider indistinguishable from sobriety "roadblocks") constitutes a "seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. (Sitz, supra, 496 U.S. 444, 450 [110 L.Ed.2d 412, 420].)  The purpose of the Fourth Amendment prohibition is to "safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions by governmental officials." (Camara v. Municipal Court (1967) 387 U.S. 523, 528 [18 L.Ed.2d 930, 935, 87 S.Ct. 1727]; see also Delaware v. Prouse (1979) 440 U.S. 648, 653-654 [59 L.Ed.2d 660, 667-668, 99 S.Ct. 1391].) Thus, the narrow question presented in the present case is whether the detention involved in a sobriety checkpoint, established without advance publicity, constitutes a "reasonable" seizure and thus complies with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment.
[5a] The People contend this court's decision in Ingersoll does not require advance publicity, which we identified as one of eight factors to be examined in determining whether a sobriety checkpoint satisfies the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment. In the People's view, [6 Cal.4th 935] Ingersoll contemplates a balancing of all relevant factors in determining the constitutionality of a sobriety checkpoint. The People further contend that, because the United States Supreme Court's decision in Sitz relied upon a balancing test identical to that employed in Ingersoll, Sitz is corroborative of Ingersoll's analysis and therefore lends no support to defendant's argument. Finally, the People argue that because Sitz, in evaluating the intrusiveness of a sobriety checkpoint, focused solely upon the nature of the detention, that decision implicitly rejects the notion that advance publicity is necessary if the constitutionality of a sobriety checkpoint is to be upheld.
As we shall explain, we reject defendant's argument that such publicity is necessary to the operation of a constitutionally permissible sobriety checkpoint. Although our decision in Ingersoll did not determine explicitly whether each of the safeguards discussed in that opinion was essential to the constitutional validity of a sobriety checkpoint, the United States Supreme Court's subsequent decision in Sitz demonstrates that advance publicity is not a constitutionally required prerequisite.
"Advance publicity is important to the maintenance of a constitutionally permissible sobriety checkpoint. Publicity [without disclosure of the precise location of the checkpoint] both reduces the intrusiveness of the stop and increases the deterrent effect of the roadblock.
Because the sobriety checkpoint program discussed in Ingersoll encompassed all eight factors, we had no occasion in that decision to examine the narrower question presented in this case-whether the absence of evidence relating to the factor of advance publicity is fatal to the constitutional validity of a sobriety checkpoint. As previously noted, that question was addressed by the appellate department of the superior court in People v. Morgan, supra, 221 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1.
Three months after the Morgan decision (and three years after Ingersoll), the United States Supreme Court rendered its decision in Sitz, addressing for the first time the constitutionality of sobriety checkpoints. [3b] In analyzing the issue of the validity of the initial detention of a motor vehicle at such a checkpoint, the court in Sitz acknowledged at the outset "that a Fourth Amendment 'seizure' occurs when a vehicle is stopped at a checkpoint" (496 U.S. at p. 450 [110 L.Ed.2d at p. 420]), recognizing that "[t]he question thus becomes whether such seizures are 'reasonable' under the Fourth Amendment." (Ibid.) Sitz mirrored the opinion in Ingersoll in determining that the balancing analysis of Brown v. Texas (1979) 443 U.S. 47 [61 L.Ed.2d 357, 99 S.Ct. 2637] provided the governing framework for ascertaining the reasonableness of such a sobriety-checkpoint seizure.
[5b] Relying upon Sitz, the People contend that the United States Supreme Court has determined that, under the federal Constitution, advance [6 Cal.4th 942] publicity is not an essential element of a valid sobriety checkpoint. Arguing to the contrary, defendant urges that Sitz is not controlling authority for the narrow question posed in the present case, and that instead we should adopt the reasoning of People v. Morgan, supra, 221 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1, to conclude that a sobriety checkpoint is constitutionally invalid in the absence of advance publicity. We are persuaded by the People's argument.
As noted above, in discussing the advance-publicity guideline in Ingersoll, we suggested that such publicity was significant in two respects-in reducing the intrusiveness of the sobriety checkpoint stop, and in increasing the deterrent value of the checkpoint itself. The reasoning of the Sitz majority makes it clear, however, that advance publicity is not a constitutional prerequisite to a valid sobriety checkpoint in either respect.
In analyzing the question of intrusiveness, the high court in Sitz considered both the "objective intrusion" of a checkpoint stop upon motorists, and the "subjective intrusion" involved. (Sitz, supra, 496 U.S. at p. 452 [110 L.Ed.2d at p. 421].) With respect to the objective-intrusion criterion, that is, "the duration of the seizure and the intensity of the investigation," the court in Sitz found that the objective intrusion occasioned by a sobriety checkpoint is no different from the intrusion involved in a border-control checkpoint, which the court previously had upheld. (496 U.S. at pp. 451-452 [110 L.Ed.2d at pp. 420-421] [citing United States v. Martinez-Fuerte (1976) 428 U.S. 543, 558 (49 L.Ed.2d 1116, 1128, 96 S.Ct. 3074)].) The presence or absence of advance publicity would appear to be irrelevant to the objective intrusion occasioned by a sobriety checkpoint, and defendant does not contend otherwise.
Although publicizing in advance the location of a sobriety checkpoint may serve to minimize the surprise or inconvenience experienced by motorists alerted by the publicity, Sitz's analysis of the subjective intrusion engendered by a sobriety checkpoint makes clear that advance publicity is not a constitutional prerequisite to ensuring that the subjective intrusion involved is confined to a reasonable level.
[5c] Thus, Sitz establishes that a sobriety checkpoint may not be held violative of the federal Constitution simply because a court may believe that the law enforcement interests sought to be served by the checkpoint would more effectively be served by a level of advance publicity greater than that believed appropriate by politically accountable officials. The nature and degree of publicity sought or provided by law enforcement officials prior to [6 Cal.4th 944] the operation of sobriety checkpoints inevitably involve policy judgments reflecting not only the fiscal resources available to the agencies in question, but also a determination as to whether to attempt to achieve greater deterrence during a specified time period (e.g., a holiday weekend) or at a particular location (e.g., near a professional sports stadium), or whether, instead, to seek the more generalized deterrence arguably obtainable when motorists learn-through personal experience or by word of mouth-that sobriety checkpoints may be established without advance publicity. fn. 7 Sitz establishes that the constitutionality of a sobriety checkpoint should not hinge upon a court's evaluation of the wisdom of policy decisions made by accountable law enforcement officials.
 Nonetheless, courts have recognized that the absence of advance publicity does not so lessen the deterrent effect of a sobriety checkpoint as to tip the scales in favor of the detained motorist who subsequently challenges the checkpoint. A sobriety checkpoint conducted without advance publicity is unlikely to be totally without deterrent effect, at least among those motorists who pass through, or by, the checkpoint. (See People v. Rister (Colo. 1990) 803 P.2d 483, 489 ["[T]he announcement and establishment of a sobriety checkpoint undoubtedly had some effect on advancing the state's interest in preventing drunken driving." (Italics added.)].) If, in accordance with the Ingersoll guidelines, the checkpoint is established on a roadway "having a high incidence of alcohol related accidents and/or arrests," the deterrent effect may be considerable. (Ingersoll, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 1343.) Also, if law enforcement agencies choose to publicize the number of arrests made at sobriety checkpoints, an additional deterrent effect may be realized. Thus, even in the absence of advance publicity, a sobriety checkpoint has the potential of substantially furthering the state's vital interest in deterring motorists from driving "under the influence."
 In arguing that Sitz must be read to establish advance publicity as a prerequisite to a constitutionally valid sobriety checkpoint program, defendant relies upon the circumstance that the statement of facts in Sitz indicates [6 Cal.4th 945] the sobriety checkpoint at issue in that case was established under guidelines providing for some form of unspecified publicity. (See Sitz, supra, 496 U.S. at p. 447 [110 L.Ed.2d at p. 418].) Defendant maintains that, because the sobriety checkpoint program in Sitz contained advance publicity, the decision in that case cannot be relied upon as authority for the proposition that advance publicity is not constitutionally required.
Although the United States Supreme Court's reasoning in Sitz demonstrates the untenable nature of defendant's position, it also is instructive to examine court decisions from other jurisdictions that have addressed the question whether advance publicity is necessary to the operation of a constitutionally permissible checkpoint. Although nearly all of these decisions predate Sitz, we briefly review them to demonstrate that, even prior to Sitz, [6 Cal.4th 946] defendant's position was rejected overwhelmingly by the state courts that have considered the issue now before us.
We commence our survey of sister state courts with an examination of those decisions that address the precise issue that confronts us in the present case-whether advance publicity is necessary to the operation of a constitutionally permissible checkpoint.
Those state courts that, prior to Sitz, invalidated sobriety checkpoints did so for reasons unrelated to the question whether advance publicity is constitutionally mandated. These decisions can be divided into two groups: those that invalidated sobriety checkpoints as per se unconstitutional under the federal Constitution, or, more commonly, the respective state constitution [6 Cal.4th 948] (see Pimental v. Department of Transportation (R.I. 1989) 561 A.2d 1348; State v. Church (La. 1989) 538 So.2d 993; Higbie v. State (Tex.Crim.App. 1989) 780 S.W.2d 228; State v. Henderson (1988) 114 Idaho 293 [756 P.2d 1057; City of Seattle v. Mesiani (1988) 110 Wn.2d 454 [755 P.2d 775]; Nelson v. Lane County (1987) 304 Ore. 97 [743 P.2d 692]; State v. Koppel (N.H. 1985) 499 A.2d 977; State v. Smith (Okla.Crim.App. 1984) 674 P.2d 562; State v. Olgaard (S.D. 1976) 248 N.W.2d 392, 394-395), and those decisions that invalidated sobriety checkpoints on the ground they were operationally defective, because they were not operated pursuant to neutral criteria, or because they allowed field officers to exercise unbridled discretion in operating the checkpoint (see State v. Parms (La. 1988) 523 So.2d 1293; Webb v. State (Tex.Crim.App. 1987) 739 S.W.2d 802; State v. Jones (Fla. 1986) 483 So.2d 433; Commonwealth v. Amaral (1986) 398 Mass. 98 [495 N.E.2d 276]; State v. Crom (1986) 222 Neb. 273 [383 N.W.2d 461]; Commonwealth v. Leninsky, supra, 519 A.2d 984; State v. Kirk (1985) 202 N.J. Super. 28 [493 A.2d 1271]; State v. Muzik (Minn.Ct.App. 1985) 379 N.W.2d 599; State ex rel. Ekstrom v. Justice Ct. of State (1983) 136 Ariz. 1 [663 P.2d 992]; Commonwealth v. McGeoghegan (1983) 389 Mass. 137 [449 N.E.2d 349, 37 A.L.R.4th 1]; see also Commonwealth v. Tarbert (1987) 517 Pa. 277 [535 A.2d 1035] [roadblocks exceeded statutory parameters]).
As is disclosed by our survey of the foregoing decisions from other jurisdictions, the weight of judicial authority has viewed advance publicity as insignificant or (consistent with our own decision in Ingersoll) has considered such publicity as a factor, but not a prerequisite, in assessing the constitutionality of sobriety checkpoints. Those decisions that have disapproved sobriety checkpoints, with the exception of the appellate department opinion in the California case of People v. Morgan, supra, 221 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1, and the Court of Appeal's opinion in this case, reached their conclusions based upon issues unrelated to the question whether advance publicity is essential to the operation of a constitutionally permissible sobriety checkpoint.
[5d] In light of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Michigan State Police Dept. v. Sitz, supra, 496 U.S. 444, and consistent with the weight [6 Cal.4th 949] of authority examined above, we conclude that the operation of a sobriety checkpoint conducted in the absence of advance publicity, but otherwise in conformance with the guidelines we established in Ingersoll v. Palmer, supra, 43 Cal.3d 1321, does not result in an unreasonable seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. fn. 10 Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal and direct that court to affirm the judgment of conviction of driving under the influence of alcohol rendered by the municipal court.
Lucas, C. J., Kennard, J., Arabian, J., and Baxter, J., concurred.
If this is the correct interpretation of the majority opinion, then it is still possible as a matter of logic that the lack of advance publicity in a particular case will be decisive in holding unconstitutional a checkpoint that does not score high on the other seven Ingersoll factors.
In my view the majority wants it both ways. Clearly it does not wish to encourage law enforcement officials to announce sobriety checkpoints in [6 Cal.4th 951] advance, but it also does not want to hold that advance publicity is irrelevant.
In summary, the majority invites law enforcement officials to dispense with advance publicity while reassuring those who fear for the vitality of the Fourth Amendment that all of the Ingersoll factors, including advance publicity, are still in effect. In view of this ambiguous message, the only prudent course of action is for law enforcement officials and courts to continue to determine in each case whether the lack of advance publicity has made each particular checkpoint too intrusive to satisfy the Fourth Amendment. Only then can we be confident that the Fourth Amendment is still alive and well.
­FN *. Pursuant to California Constitution, article VI, section 21.
­FN 1. Vehicle Code former section 23152 provided in pertinent part: "(a) It is unlawful for any person who is under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or any drug, or under the combined influence of an alcoholic beverage and any drug, to drive a vehicle.
"(b) It is unlawful for any person who has 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood to drive a vehicle." The current version of the cited statutory language is virtually identical to that quoted here.
­FN 2. California Rules of Court, rule 62(a), provides in pertinent part: "A Court of Appeal may order a case transferred to it for hearing and decision when the superior court certifies or the Court of Appeal on its own motion determines ... that such transfer appears necessary to secure uniformity of decision or to settle important questions of law."
Rule 63(a) provides in pertinent part: "The superior court on application of a party or on its own motion may certify that the transfer of a case to the Court of Appeal appears necessary to secure uniformity of decision or to settle important questions of law...."
­FN 3. The municipal court found that, but for the absence of advance publicity, the sobriety checkpoint in this case complied with the standards set forth in Ingersoll. The narrow question certified to, and addressed by, the Court of Appeal was whether advance publicity is a prerequisite to a constitutionally operated sobriety checkpoint. Accordingly, in this decision we limit our discussion to that issue and do not revisit the broader questions addressed in Ingersoll and Sitz pertaining to the constitutionality of sobriety checkpoints generally, and to the conflicting empirical evidence as to their effectiveness. (See, e.g., 4 LaFave, Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment (2d ed. 1987 & 1993 supp.) Vehicle Use Regulation, § 10.8(d), pp. 69-85 [examining sobriety checkpoints generally].) Furthermore, because the question presented in this case is limited to whether advance publicity is a prerequisite to a constitutionally valid sobriety checkpoint, nothing in our decision should be construed to suggest that any of the eight guidelines set forth in Ingersoll, including advance publicity (43 Cal.3d at pp. 1341-1347), are not relevant to a consideration of the intrusiveness of a sobriety checkpoint stop.
­FN 4. People v. Morgan, supra, 221 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1, appears to be the only published decision in the nation (other than the Court of Appeal's decision in this case) that has invalidated a sobriety checkpoint exclusively upon the basis of a lack of adequate advance publicity.
­FN 10. To the extent People v. Morgan, supra, 221 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1, is inconsistent with the views expressed herein, it is disapproved.
Petition for review after the Court of Appeal, on a certified appeal, reversed a judgment of conviction of a criminal offense. The case concerns whether advance publicity is essential to the constitutional validity of sobriety checkpoints.
Votes: Lucas C.J., Panelli, Kennard, Arabian, Baxter & George JJ.
From Los Angeles City Attorney's Office in support of Respondent.
From Counsel for ACLU of So Cal and ACLU of no Cal in support of Applt.
Of ACLU Of So. Cal. and ACLU Of No. Cal. in support Of Appellant. answer Due 8/26/93.
By Counsel for the ACLU of Southern California and the ACLU of Northern California in support of Appellant.
Monday, 12/6/93, 9 A.M. - S.F.
D.A.'s Notice of intent to rely on Additional Authorities.
with directions. Majority Opinion by George, J. -- joined by Lucas C.J., Kennard, Arabian & Baxter JJ. Dissenting Opiion by Panelli, J. -- joined by Mosk, J.
Receipt for Remittitur Signed by Mary Urena, Deputy Clerk, Ca4/3.
SCOCAL, People v. Banks , 6 Cal.4th 926 available at: (https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/people-v-banks-31551) (last visited Sunday April 21, 2019).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 10
 v. 
 v. 
 v.