This Cary/Durham/Raleigh DUI/DWI lawyer would like to say a few words on the constitutionality of sobriety checkpoints. If you have ever been stopped at a sobriety checkpoint in the Raleigh/Durham/Cary area, you may have wondered whether law enforcement officers can legally make such a stop — doesn’t the Constitution require the police to have some sort of reason for stopping you in the first place?
The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the Fourth Amendment to mean that the police cannot pull over a motorist without “reasonable suspicion” that a crime may have been or is being committed (it can be as trivial as a broken headlight, of course). The constitutionality of sobriety checkpoints were first considered by the U.S. Supreme Court in Michigan v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990). In that case, the Court determined sobriety checkpoints to be constitutional, reasoning that such a “…minimal intrusion on individual liberties (having to stop at a a sobriety checkpoints) was outweighed by the damage to person and property caused by drunk drivers each year on America’s roadways.” The U.S. Supreme Court noted in Michigan v. Sitz, however that (i) officers administering the sobriety checkpoint only made very brief verbal conversations with motorists to determine whether or not they might be intoxicated; and the average delay to each motorist was only about 25 seconds.
Based on these guidelines, many area sobriety checkpoints may very well violate the standards articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Michigan v. Sitz. For example, if an officer administering the sobriety checkpint asks to see a motorist’s license, registration, and proof of insurance — such an intrusion might very well exceed the “minimal intrusion” allowed by the U.S. Supreme Court. In addition, any considerable delay experienced by motorists at a sobriety checkpoint may also be problematic.
And what happens if a sobriety checkpoint is found to be unconstitutional under any of these principles? Yep, any evidence gathered after making the traffic stop is excluded in evidence. Put another way: case dismissed.
