Opinion ID: 1060997
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: sobriety roadblocks state jurisdictions

Text: A majority of state courts have followed the balancing analysis and have concluded that roadblocks may survive constitutional scrutiny if they are operated under guidelines which minimize intrusiveness and limit officers' discretion. [6] A minority of jurisdictions, however, including Michigan after the United States Supreme Court's remand in Michigan v. Sitz, supra , have invalidated roadblocks under state constitutional provisions. Sitz v. Dept. of State Police, 443 Mich. 744, 506 N.W.2d 209 (1993). These courts, while stopping short of holding that all roadblocks are per se unconstitutional, have compared the effectiveness of roadblocks with less intrusive law enforcement methods and have concluded that the state's interest in detecting drunken driving does not outweigh the intrusion on individual liberty or justify departure from traditional stops requiring individual suspicion. See State v. Henderson, 114 Idaho 293, 756 P.2d 1057 (1988); State v. Church, 538 So.2d 993 (La. 1989); Ascher v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 519 N.W.2d 183 (Minn. 1994); State v. Koppel, 127 N.H. 286, 499 A.2d 977 (1985); State v. Blackburn, 63 Ohio Misc.2d 211, 620 N.E.2d 319 (1993); City of Seattle v. Mesiani, 110 Wash.2d 454, 755 P.2d 775 (1988). One state court has held that roadblocks are per se unconstitutional under its state constitution. Pimental v. Dept. of Transportation, 561 A.2d 1348 (R.I. 1989). Whether upholding or invalidating a sobriety roadblock, nearly every court has used the balancing analysis discussed in Brown v. Texas, supra . Moreover, the courts universally recognize the state's significant interest in attempting to alleviate the often tragic consequences of drunk driving. All courts have recognized that there is a very strong societal interest in dealing effectively with the problem of drunk driving. Courts disagree, however, over whether the state interest is effectively served by the use of roadblocks. In this regard, courts upholding roadblocks generally refrain from analyzing whether roadblocks are more effective in advancing the state's interest in eradicating drunk driving than less intrusive means. [7] Instead, these courts recognize that roadblocks are effective tools for use in detecting impaired drivers. Those views are expressed by Professor LaFave: [I]t is certainly arguable that mere patrol and stoppings based upon the Terry standard do not produce what the Camara Court referred to as `acceptable results.' For one thing, even if a patrolling officer is fortunate enough to be in the vicinity where a drunk driver is operating his vehicle, it does not necessarily follow that the driver will at that particular time drive his car in such a fashion as to create a reasonable suspicion justifying a stop. And the chances of such observation in the first place are rather slight, given the substantial number of intoxicated drivers on the road. 4 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment, (3rd ed. 1995), at 692. Moreover, courts have stressed that roadblocks further the state's interest not only by detecting drunk drivers but also by deterring such behavior, particularly when the roadblock is accompanied by advance publicity. In State ex rel. Ekstrom v. Justice Court, 136 Ariz. 1, 663 P.2d 992, 1001 (1983), the Court noted: The efficacy of a deterrent roadblock is heightened by publicity in the media... . Such publicity would warn those using the highways that they might expect to find roadblocks designed to check for sobriety; the warning ... should certainly have a considerable deterring effect by either dissuading people from taking `one more for the road,' persuading them to drink at home, or inducing them to take taxicabs. Any one of these goals, if achieved would have the salutary effect of interfering with the lethal combination of alcohol and gasoline. Advance notice would limit intrusion upon personal dignity and security because those being stopped would anticipate and understand what was happening. (Feldman, J., concurring). Accordingly, the effectiveness of roadblocks to detect and to deter drunk driving has led the majority of courts to favor their use. Finally, with regard to the intrusiveness of the roadblock, the majority of courts have stressed that roadblocks must be set up in accordance with neutral, objective criteria and operated in a manner that minimizes intrusiveness and the discretion afforded to individual officers. In Michigan v. Sitz, supra , for example, the United States Supreme Court placed emphasis on the fact that the roadblock was operated under written guidelines setting forth procedures governing checkpoint operation, site selection, and publicity that left virtually no discretion to individual officers at the scene, and in Brown v. Texas, supra , the court required a plan embodying explicit, neutral limitations on the conduct of individual officers. As suggested by one commentator, a police procedure is less threatening to [constitutional] values when the discretionary authority of the police (and thus the risk of arbitrary action) is kept at an absolute minimum. Moreover, a police procedure constitutes less of an imposition on [constitutional] interests if that procedure has an appearance of regularity to it and is undertaken with sufficient advance notice not only to the public but also to the approaching motorist. LaFave, supra, at 696, 702-704. Several state courts have developed guidelines that govern the questions of minimizing intrusiveness and limiting discretion. Among them are Iowa, California, and Kansas. See State v. Loyd, 530 N.W.2d 708 (Iowa 1995); Ingersoll v. Palmer, 43 Cal.3d 1321, 241 Cal. Rptr. 42, 743 P.2d 1299 (1987); State v. Deskins, 234 Kan. 529, 673 P.2d 1174 (1983). The guidelines include supervisory authority which carefully targets the time and location of roadblocks and establishes neutral procedures for their operation. They also include adequate warnings, advance publicity, minimizing length and nature of detention, adequate safety precautions, and the availability of less intrusive methods for combating the problem. A list of relevant factors, obviously, can take any length or form. Not every factor must weigh in favor of the state to uphold a given roadblock, nor is any single one dispositive of the issue. Instead, the overriding question is whether the roadblock was established and operated in a constitutionally reasonable manner that minimized the intrusion on individuals and limited the discretion afforded to officers at the scene.