Some consider sobriety checkpoints an infringement on motorists’ right to privacy, while others consider them a vital tool in the war against drunk driving. Sobriety checkpoints spark heated debate among opponents and proponents, however, the Supreme Court has ruled that they are here to stay. Recently the Supreme Court heard arguments on whether the role of the checkpoint should be expanded and is expected to hand down a decision by Spring 2004.
Recently the high court has said that officers are permitted to stop cars randomly to search for drivers who appear to be driving under the influence of alcohol and/or controlled substances, and near borders to search for illegal immigrants. Courts have allowed roadblocks for emergencies such as the D.C. area sniper shooting. The Supreme Court however ruled that roadblocks set up to search random automobiles for drugs were an unreasonable invasion of privacy under the Constitution. The Court distinguished roadblocks that randomly search for drunken drivers from ones that search for drugs by stating that drunk drivers pose an imminent threat to public safety while roadblocks to search for drugs was general crime control.
Now the question before the Court is whether officers are permitted to conduct an informational checkpoint organized to investigate a prior offense. In the case currently before the Supreme Court, Illinois police set up a checkpoint at the scene of an accident that occurred a week earlier. The police stopped cars and asked the occupants if they witnessed the accident or had any information. Police claim that one of the stopped cars almost hit an officer, so the driver was asked to step out of his car and was determined to be driving under the influence and charged. The driver was convicted but appealed to the Illinois appeals courts. The appeals courts held that the checkpoint was an excessive invasion of privacy.
Roadblock proponents argue that without the checkpoints police will be prevented from initiating legitimate contact with citizens who happen to be in automobiles. They contend that the need for open channels of communication between police and the public, and the need for officers to feel they can take action reasonably calculated to advance a pending investigation possess enhanced significance in a post 9-11 era where the nation seeks to protect itself against the traditional threat of conventional crime, but against international terrorism as well. Roadblock proponents point to concerns about nuclear facilities, power plants, and vehicle access to such things as a reason why roadblocks should be part of a plan to address national security issues.
Opponents, however, pose a different question. In light of terrorist attacks, should there be more guidance to make sure the police do not go too far. Those opposed to roadblocks suggest that such indiscriminate seizures for traditional investigative purposes are unconstitutional. Opponents worry that roadblocks used as routine investigative tools by police will simply be a pretense to stop motorists based on the generalized and ever-present possibility that interrogation and inspection may reveal that any given motorist has committed some crime.
Police are more likely to use roadblocks during the holiday seasons than at other times of year. Presently in Pennsylvania, roadblocks should only be used to check drivers randomly to see if they are under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs; any use of a roadblock other than that may be unconstitutional. For more information about the proper use of roadblocks contact our office. Have a safe New Year.
— J.K. Butera