The government routinely conducts DUI checkpoints around all major holidays and randomly throughout the year. Many innocent motorists are swept up into the general law enforcement scheme known as the DUI checkpoint stop. The DUI checkpoint allows officers to check not only for drivers under the influence of alcohol, but for individuals driving without a license, driving on a suspended or restricted license, or anybody with any contraband in the vehicle whatsoever. Of course, the officers are not supposed to conduct a full blown search, but that is in fact what often happens.

In Ingersoll v. Palmer, 43 Cal. 3d 1321 , the California Supreme Court considered the issue of whether or not DUI checkpoints violate a defendant?s 4th Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. In a decision that defies reason for accountability, the Supreme Court set forth a convoluted set of factors that law enforcement is required to follow in order to safeguard the civil liberties of the citizens that were being pulled over, searched and seized, without any suspicion of wrongdoing whatsoever. Despite the flaws of the decision, it is the law of the land and all motorists should be wary of the great power that the Supreme Court has bestowed upon the police.

Searches or stops conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme in furtherance of an administrative purpose, rather than as part of a criminal investigation to secure evidence of a crime, are permissible under U.S. Const. amend. IV without a showing of probable cause provided the search or stop was reasonable. In determining whether an administrative search was reasonable, the need for the inspection had to be weighed in terms of the reasonable goals of code enforcement. The reasonableness of the checkpoint stops turned on factors such as the location and method of operation of the checkpoints. In Ingersoll, the court determined that the checkpoints were not unreasonably intrusive and therefore not unconstitutional because the operation of the checkpoints was done pursuant to specified neutral criteria. Further, there was an overriding important governmental interest in operating the checkpoints.

The factors identified in Ingersoll are:

(1) Whether the decision to establish a sobriety checkpoint, the selection of the site, and the procedures for the operation of the checkpoint are made and established by supervisory law enforcement personnel;

(2) Whether motorists are stopped according to a neutral formula, such as every third, fifth or tenth driver;

(3) Whether adequate safety precautions are taken, such as proper lighting, warning signs, and signals, and whether clearly identifiable official vehicles and personnel are used; {Page 6 Cal.4th 937}

(4) Whether the location of the checkpoint was determined by a policymaking official, and was reasonable, i.e., on a road having a high incidence of alcohol-related accidents or arrests;

(5) Whether the time the checkpoint was conducted and its duration reflect "good judgment" on the part of law enforcement officials;

(6) Whether the checkpoint exhibits sufficient indicia of its official nature (to reassure motorists of the authorized nature of the stop);

(7) Whether the average length and nature of the detention is minimized; and

(8) Whether the checkpoint is preceded by publicity. (Ingersoll, supra, 43 Cal.3d at pp. 1341-1347.)

If you have been accused of a DUI as a result of a DUI checkpoint stop, contact the Orange County, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino and San Diego DUI defense firm of The Law Office of Keith J. Bruno. We offer a free face-to-face consultation and can work out a payment plan in most situations.

The Santa Ana, Orange County, California, Law Office of Keith J. Bruno represents Californians who have been accused, charged, or arrested for DUI and other criminal offenses in Orange County, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino and San Diego.