Are sobriety checkpoints unconstitutional?

Question

From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Searches_and_seizures_without_warrants

The Supreme Court has also held that individuals in automobiles have a reduced expectation of privacy, because vehicles generally do not serve as residences or repositories of personal effects. Vehicles may not be randomly stopped and searched; there must be probable cause or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Items in "plain view" may be seized; areas that could potentially hide weapons may also be searched. With probable cause, police officers may search any area in the vehicle. They may not, however, extend the search to the vehicle's passengers without probable cause to search those passengers.

Answer 1

Sobriety checkpoints have been deemed not a violation of the 4th amendment through the US Supreme Court case "Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz".

Checkpoints are held as a deterrent against drunk driving. As an officer who has participated in them, including their set-up, I can tell you that only a very small percentage of people who come through are driving drunk. (You can imagine what type of drunk gets caught in a checkpoint)

In the operation of a DUI check-point, you first advertise in the paper or TV news the date and time it will be conducted. Next, when actually setting up the cone patterns, nearby roads and driveways to businesses are not blocked off so as to allow access to them. (You are not required to go through a checkpoint.)

When we conduct the checkpoint, we have to keep a paper tally of how many cars come through and which vehicles we stop. We choose a random number, such as every 10th car, to stop. This paperwork is filed for review after the checkpoint is over.

For a idea on what DUI's cause, in 2004 in California alone, there were 1,462 people killed and 31,538 people injured by drunk drivers. In California alone, there were 35,431 people killed between 1995 and 2004 by drunk drivers.

Here is the court case I cited if you want to check it out:

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0496_0444_ZS.html

Answer 2

As a former police officer, I can tell you that they are not illegal. First off, driving is a priviledge and not a right.

However, by law if there is going to be a check point it must be posted in the news paper, on the radio etc, the area the checkpoint will be conducted in and the date and time. Also, there must to be a road on either side of the checkpoint where a driver can turn off to avoid the checkpoint if they do not want to go through it. Checkpoints are done for various reasons, such as the most common DUI but they are also conducted for driver's license inspections, registration, seatbelts, insurance, etc.

Answer 3

Sobriety checkpoints are constitutional. First of all they do not search your car in sobriety tests unless they can tell that you've been drinking, in which case they have probable cause. You actually get out of the car to perform the sobriety test.

Also the police have the responsibility to protect everyone on the road PER THE CONSTITUTION. (All citizens have the right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.) If you are drunk and driving then you are endangering the lives of others, and the police have the duty to prevent that as much as possible.

Thirdly automobile accidents are the leading cause of death in persons 18-30, and alcohol is involved in nearly 1/2 of these deaths. 17,000 people a year die due to alcohol related automobile accidents. (This is nearly double of ALL the homicides and murders in the country each year).

In my opinion, the law is not nearly tough enough on drunk drivers, over 1/3 of drunk drivers are repeat offenders. So if you do the math 1/3 of 17,000 = 5650 people a year are killed by drunk drivers, who we already knew were in danger of killing someone, based on past history.

So the answer is no, sobriety checkpoints are not un-constitutional.

Answer 4

No, sobriety checkpoints are constitutional, the theory being that it is a public safety issue, and everyone going through the checkpoint is checked, regardless of circumstances. Its the same theory that allows checks at border crossings (which, by the way, can take place at any place reasonably close to the border). It is a specific exception to the constitutional right of no unreasonable searches (they term it so it is no longer considered "unreasonable")

Answer 5

I sure think its un Constitutional. To me, a presumption of innocence means exactly that--unless there is actual evidence to the contrary, you are to be considered innocent and that means you are to be treated as innocent and that means left to go about your business unimpeded, uninvestigated, unhindered. Its interesting seeing how a police state is sold to the public in terms of "safety". You can sure see how Hitler and Stalin got where they did--the public loves it!

The news recently had a story about tests that showed that stone sober drivers talking on cell phones were actually worse, more dangerous drivers than drunk drivers. Is anything being done about this? A little, but not much. If the real aim were driver safety, talking on cell phones in moving cars would be just as heavy a penalty as drunk driving. The fact that it isn't shows driver safety is no goal at all. Extension of police state power is the aim of checkpoints. Welcome to East Germany.

Answer 6

Unconstitutional?... how about just a good idea and a drunk driving deterent! Are we in this country more hung up on the law or what's legal than in doing a good and right thing? If a checkpoint saves me or my daughters from maiming and possible death at the hands of an irresponsible drunk...thats a good thing!

Answer 7

Yes,any type of check point is against the constitution & bill of rights.
Police do not have the right to perform searches of your vehicle or to stop you for no reason.Even though they have "reasonable suspicion" which was granted to them by communist courts,it is still illegal.

Answer 8

Spartacus is wrong. If it were entrapment, you would not be arrested. When the police do a check point, it is usually in the paper or the news several days beforehand. After that; if you are dumb enough to go drinking, get in your car and travel that route, you are probably too stupid to be driving a car anyway..........

Answer 9

They're legal as long as they're performed randomly and conform to federal guidelines. It wouldn't constitute entrapment because you're not being enticed to do anything.

Answer 10

Being that there are FAR more sobriety related accidents..including one's involving fatalities...why is it not illegal to drive sober??? It's just a legal way for agencies to create revenue..that's all it is.