Remember those movies where the ‘bad guy’ would take a driver hostage and, “Whoa! Where did that random roadblock come from?!” After some pleasantries from a naive officer, the car would be waved through and the action would continue.
I’m not sure if those were old James Cagney movies or a more contemporary Cheech & Chong flick. But I do know that the holidays are coming and that many towns and cities will be orchestrating random roadblocks to ferret out the intoxicated and the illegal.
My question to the B&B is, “When, if ever, should there be random roadblocks applied towards the driving public?”
Notice that I have no qualms with tracing down escaped convicts like the ones played by James Cagney. Or the annual ‘Where’s O.J.?’ contest. News networks do need their ratings after all.
But what about those random roadblocks where raising revenue seems to be a hidden priority? Or the ones done on busy roads in the middle of the day that severely restrict the ebb and flow of traffic?
The line should be drawn somewhere. So where should that line be?
I like the “Mr. Lube” over the cops head. Somehow it seems to fit.
The public is expected to bend over and take it.
That looks like St. John’s street in Port Moody, BC. Not too far from where I get my oil changed.
And where I get my sushi. Howdy neighbour!
In NJ, the local police like to set up money raising road blocks to catch drivers with expired inspection stickers. This causes backups on some of the local roads. They also looks for other “seroius” voilations such as having a too large license plate cover that covers a millimeter of the license plate’s perimeter.
But, hey it’s OK with me since everyone needs to make a living.
Random roadblocks have an odd place in the scheme of the 4th Amendment. They are referred to administrative stops, which, obviously do not have, nor do they require probable cause or reasonable suspicion to stop and detain the drivers. What does need to exist though, is a reasonable basis for conducting the administrative stop. There must be a demonstrable need for the enforcement of DUI laws in the area, else anyone stopped will have their 4th Amendment rights violated (and all potential convictions flowing from the stop being thrown out)
As a result, if I were to represent someone in a case that was stopped at a random road block, I sure as hell would investigate if the police motive was profit based and not public safety based. If it could be shown to be the former, I hope a reasonable judge would agree that such stops were illegal under the 4th Amendment.
Good luck with that. In this country your constitutional rights often don’t extend to enforcement of traffic laws. And, after all, why should they, since for the vast majority of people, their only experience with the US legal system is in traffic court (that’s sarcasm, in case anyone doesn’t recognize it)?
The court ruled on it years ago. Their decision upheld the practice as being constitutional as long as “everyone” got pulled over and there was no random aspect to it. Frankly, I think it should never happen.
I agree, by that logic it would be ok to randomly search homes, as long as you searched everyone’s home.
The police should not be allowed to set up random roadblocks, ever. This is not the USSR. I have never seen or been held up in a roadblock but the entire concept of that occuring in the US amazes me. It’s one thing if it is truly for public safety (damaged road, escaped convict) but not for the purpose of checking papers and catching DUI’s.
You are right, we shouldn’t catch someone who is drunk driving in a nice slow roadblock. Let’s let them get in an accident and kill someone, and then we can catch them.
I see no issue with roadblocks set up later at night (11-3AM, somewhere in those hours) for the specific purpose of cracking down on people driving under the influence. Especially on a night like New Year’s Eve or Thanksgiving Eve. Better to stop those idiots before they hurt someone. And this is coming from someone who has been stopped at numerous checkpoints.
Police should increase patrols during those hours and stop anyone driving erratically. Is there any evidence that random roadblocks have any impact on DUI fatalities? I don’t need to live in a police state to feel safer.
+1 JCraig. Not treating citizens like livestock is one of the things my country used to stand for. I miss that country. Even if BlueEr doesn’t.
Never
Never X 1000.
I hate to say it, but here goes:
Would we get upset if they did this on a sidewalk, and checked every pedestrian’s “papers” to see if they forgot to renew a passport or dog license? Is it any less objectionable if they wear black clothing and enter every home on a certain street to ensure that everyone has paid their taxes?
Sorry, but no probable cause, in my examples or in this article. Clear violation of the 4th amendment.
What would be the excuse if I turned around (legally) to avoid the roadblock?
I see where you’re going with this, and tend to agree. I hate to defend these random searches, but I think the situation is slightly different. You do not have an absolute right to drive on a public highway. If you did, the state could not require you to obtain a driver’s license. You do have the right to equal access to a driver’s license and, in general, equal access to highways once you have a license. But the state must first give you a license to be there. I think this allows the police and courts to rationalize things like random checks of drivers but not of pedestrians.
“Person and effects” doesn’t matter if I am driving, walking, or riding a horse.
“What would be the excuse if I turned around (legally) to avoid the roadblock?”
Haha, that would be a guaranteed search. I used to drive through a common choke point/roadblock on my commute a few years ago. People would try this once in a while and there was always another cruiser up the road ready to swoop down on them. As for excuses, I’ve never seen a curious officer hesitate to search, probable cause or not. Then again, I live in NY, where no cause pedestrian pat downs are actual police policy.
I live in NY, where no cause pedestrian pat downs are actual police policy.
Such stops don’t require “probable cause”, but only a lower standard of “reasonable suspicion.” (These are called “Terry stops”, after the applicable case.)
But in practice, reasonable suspicion is a low bar that isn’t hard to hurdle. In the real world, the Terry stop allows them to briefly stop, question and pat us down with just a minimum of justification.
In Virginia, there’s always one office in an idling cruiser pointed in each direction of entrance to the roadblock. His job is to immediately go after anyone doing a U-turn, turn-off into a side street, parking lot (and immediately coming back out in the opposite direct) and haul them down. Probable cause? Attempting to avoid a roadblock.
Actually, not true. The police frequently will stop you if you try to evade a checkpoint but you can win that one in court. The Virginia Supreme Court has ruled that as long as you haven’t committed a traffic violation in doing so (illegal U turn, etc.)then there is no reasonable suspicion to initiate a stop. I’ve won a couple of DUI cases on that set of facts.
A long time ago in when I lived in New Mexico I did that. I can’t even remember where I was going or where I was coming from. But I was in a not a super populated area, and it was at nighttime.
Anyhow, I’m driving down the road, see some red and blue lights probably 400 feet up the street, and a few cars stopped. I get to the next street where I can make a right turn, and turned around. They came after me. Checked my papers, and was on my way.
What’s interesting though is, if I just would have turned right instead of turning around, would they have still come after me? Because I easily could have turned right down that street and gotten to where ever I was heading minus the roadblock. Unless they had another roadblock set up somewhere else..
Sorry, but no probable cause, in my examples or in this article. Clear violation of the 4th amendment.
It isn’t. The Supreme Court has ruled such stops to be constitutional. The “automobile exception” has existed for decades. I don’t like the DUI checkpoints myself, but they are perfectly legal.
Sorry, but sobriety checkpoints only were ruled constitutional. Outside of the DUI exception, the rule of probable cause still exists.
In “Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990)”, the United States Supreme Court found properly conducted sobriety checkpoints to be constitutional. While acknowledging that such checkpoints infringed on a constitutional right, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued the state interest in reducing drunk driving outweighed this minor infringement.
Note that the exception is ONLY for DUI checkpoints, not for random checkpoints.
Outside of the DUI exception, the rule of probable cause still exists.
Sorry, but you are incorrect. Probable cause is required for searches and arrests, but the standard for stops is lower. Research these for your dining and dancing pleasure for just a few examples:
-“Automobile exception” to the Fourth Amendment
-Terry v. Ohio
-Specific to checkpoints, Illinois vs. Lidster (which allowed random stops for non-DUI purposes) and US vs. Brignoni-Ponce (which defined a ban against racial profiling, but allowed immigration stops based upon reasonable suspicion outside of the border)
None of those cited is a SCOTUS case about random checks. Lidster was about a crime investigation. Again, only DUI checkpoints have been ruled permissible by the Supreme Court, NOT random ones.
Refer to “City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000)”, which ruled that police checkpoints set up for the purpose of “general crime control” were unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment
None of those cited is a SCOTUS case about random checks.
You don’t get the point.
You previously claimed that probable cause is required for stops. That is incorrect.
Reasonable suspicion is enough to justify a stop. Reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than probable cause.
And checkpoints are permitted for purposes other than DUI. Not all checkpoints are permitted, but DUI is not the only exception. Your claim that DUIs are the only permitted exemption is incorrect.
The automobile exception of the Fourth Amendment has existed for decades. The courts have determined that an individual in a car does not receive the protections that he has in a house. You may not like it, but that’s the legal reality as of today.
Practically speaking, though, it’s very likely the persons being stopped are local.
You make noise at the local level with the greedheads squeezing traffic for revenue, the next time you get dinged for doing 4MPH over the limit, it ain’t gonna get reduced. So you’ve no choice but to pay it. In my case, the local DA denied me due process, but what was my option? Too late to see the judge, of course, or I could file a complaint with the bar association (he would have lost, my ticket needed dismissal) and then what? Next time I’m pulled over, I’ll need to hire a lawyer because the DA wants payback… $6 a minute is painful enough on a divorce. From time to time, it’s clear that the legal system in this country is a cosmic joke.
They set up random DUI checkpoints in South Dakota, but they let the public know when they’re going to do it, and they’ll even send you a text message to let you know what location they’re setting up the DUI checkpoint.
I don’t drink and drive, so I guess I don’t really care a whole lot, but man oh man, do they ever manage to pull a lot of drunk drivers off the road with this system.
Steven,
Random checkpoints are legal in 41 of the 50 states. Fortunately, they are not allowed in Michigan.
I just did a piece on the topic of sobriety checkpoints and how they are a racket that does almost nothing for traffic safety but creates millions (maybe billions nationally) in revenue for jurisdictions, more millions in the pockets of cops getting paid overtime for staffing those checkpoints and appearing in court, plus yet even more millions in fees for impounded vehicles.
In 2009, an average checkpoint in California arrested two people for DUI, usually in the .08 to .10 % BAC level. The whole purpose of sobriety checkpoints is to catch people whose driving isn’t impaired enough to catch attention from cops doing normal traffic enforcement. So they catch a couple of buzzed drivers. At the same time they give out scores of tickets for equipment violations and other revenue enhancers. Meanwhile, with all that manpower devoted to checkpoints, it can’t be devoted to actually making traffic safer.
Like I said, a racket that has everything to do with money and nothing to do with safety.
Details here:
http://www.carsindepth.com/?p=5498
……I’m sure even Michigan is eyeing all those additional revenue streams with interest. Public safety vs.individual freedoms is a never ending tug of war, but crafty politicians favoring roadblocks are quick to focus on the latest heart breaking local DWI tragedy, and eagerly quote safety numbers from “enlightened” regimes like Sweden to prove their case. As you know, statistics are easily manipulated, and terms like “alcohol related”, in reference to injuries or deaths, can have wildly varying explanations from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The problem any opposing politician faces is almost insurmountable…once the issue is on the table, nobody wants to be seen as the guy standing up for the drunks, and reshaping those statistics becomes a fool’s errand.
Enjoy that checkpoint free holiday season while you can, and here’s to Michigan!
I’ve only been through fundraising checkpoints, never a dragnet type (I’ve been pulled over for having a matching description vehicle though). DUI checks,inspection checks, equipment violation checks, seatbelt checks and hunting license checks of all things, in all cases the officers were there to fill up the local court docket with relatively minor fee generators.
In my opinion roadblocks should be reserved for emergency situations (children missing, fugitives etc…) and in those cases officers should make a point of only looking for the crime they are actually investigating. The ideal police department writes as few tickets as possible for the lowest crime rate acheivable (at least from my perspective).
The picture is from Canuckistan, land of the not free. These randon checkstops are the norm here 365 days a year. Your papers are not in order….
…….Canadians rolled over and played dead on this issue years ago. Police breathalyzer spot-checks are routine year round, and reach epidemic levels during Christmas and holiday blitzes. Does it work? Police (they love the overtime), the press (easy feel good stories), and closet prohibitionists (Mothers Against Drunk Driving), all think so. Tourism and hospitality industry stakeholders quietly demur, fearing charges of obvious self-interest. Anybody looking to have a fun night out in a suburban or rural area has got major headwinds, as penalties are increasingly draconian.
Is it right?……definitely not! Most police will privately admit they can easily duplicate the number of alcohol related arrests by old fashioned methods….suspicious or erratic driving, tailights out, expired tags, neighborhoods, etc……..but that would amount to profiling, wouldn’t it?
a friendly officer once told me, when I asked if they made a lot of arrests: “if we feel like doing the paperwork.”
his feeling was that it was a waste of time, though he liked the overtime, and that most of the violations were val-tag or insurance paper related..
Random road blocks should only be used to deal with an immediate threat to public safety with law enforcement limited to that immediate threat. It is appropriate to search cars for a kidnap victim, for example. It’s bad law enforcement to stop all cars to write tickets for expired inspection, etc. and other revenue collection when there are more serious crimes to deal with.
This is a case where the financial incentives invite corruption. My solution would be to allow motorists to donate traffic fines to a charity chosen my the motorist.
I get that Mr. Lang is throwing out comment bait here, but 30 seconds on Wikipedia would have answered the question, which is pretty much a settled matter of law.
The relevant Supreme Court cases are:
Michigan v. Sitz (1990) (6-3 decision)
Illinois v. Lidster (2004)(6-3 decision)
Delaware v. Prouse (1979) (8-1 decision)
Ironic that you cited Mich v Sitz since the state courts have ruled that checkpoints violate the Michigan constitution so we have no sobriety or other random checkpoints in Michigan.
After SCOTUS ruled in favor of Michigan’s State police regarding their roadblock program, the case was remanded back to the Michigan Supreme Court for further review. The Michigan Supreme Court felt so strongly about the issue, they ruled that regardless of the federal Supreme Court’s ruling, the State Constitution still made such roadblock programs illegal within Michigan’s boundaries.
As for it being a settled matter of law, that’s only the case at the federal level. Yes, they don’t violate the US Constitution per those cases you cited, but the matter is unsettled enough that more than one out of five states (11 of 50) don’t allow them.
What question did you read? I didn’t see anything about whether it was legal. I saw one about whether they should be used.
Here’s some real irony…….
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/drunk-driver-crashes-booze-lose-dwi-checkpoint-center-194356181.html
Speaking of irony… a co-worker just got into a serious accident because a drunk driver pulled onto opposite lane traffic to avoid a police check point and collided with co-worker’s car head on.
I’ve only ever been stopped at a roadblock once whilst driving out of the University of British Columbia late one Friday night. The RCMP pulled over every car including mine, got me to wind my window down, were very apologetic for stopping me, checked to see if I had been drinking, then sent me on my way.
TBH, as much as I didn’t like the road block, the fact that they already had 5 cars parked up and their drivers being hauled away for drink driving made me realize that *sometimes* that roadblocks are useful and acceptable.
…..sounds like you thoroughly enjoyed the experience. See my comments re: “rolling over and playing dead”.
We are not living in a fascist dictatorship (despite Harper’s best efforts). For that kind of experience, try somewhere like Syria.
Having been run off the road before by a drunken ass-hat, I really don’t give a crap how they get drunk driving fools off the road. Sure pulling over to the side of the road to answer a question is a PITA, but so is queuing to renew my license, so is dealing with the nazi-like ICBC, so are a whole number of things to do with driving. I don’t regard having to stop at a road block and answering a question as a major invasion of my privacy, especially when what they’re doing is removing dimwits from the road who would otherwise make driving even more dangerous. If it means I get 30 seconds taken from my day and my journey momentarily interrupted to see drivers who are flouting the law get pulled off the road and fined/arrested/lose their car/license – I’m all for it. The more crap/illegal drivers that are off the road – the better. As for your previous comment of “Anybody looking to have a fun night out in a suburban or rural area has got major headwinds, as penalties are increasingly draconian.” Jebus – how difficult is this. If you’re going to drink, share a ride or GET A CAB. Anyone who claims they can drink booze then clamber into a car and still maintain the same level of control as they did when they were sober is either pumped up on hubris or is a complete dumbass.
…..s/man…amazing….you’ve only been roadchecked once “whilst” driving in Canada. That would seem to suggest you either just recently began driving, don’t drive at night, or don’t drive much at all. And just how did this “very apologetic” officer check whether you had been imbibing? Your use of the term “drinking”, and later “drink driving” as opposed to “drunk” leads me to believe you are an abstainer yourself. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but your barely contained glee at seeing (no less than) five fellow motorists detained, and your rush to judgement on their guilt, make me wonder how you really feel about rights and freedoms. Maybe you would be happy in Syria or Saudi Arabia…..very few “drink” drivers there……alas, very few of those freedoms either.
“Drink driving” is British English for “drunk driving” – nothing to see here….
dvp…
As krhodes1 suggested, drink driving is British English. Very sorry, but that’s my place of birth and that’s how I say/type – ‘drunk driving’.
Regarding ‘how did this officer check whether you had been imbibing’ – go and ask any Police officer how. They use their nose and their training. Booze is easy enough to sniff out, and the reactions of someone guilty of ‘drunk driving’ is usually easy enough to spot.
Perhaps I did assume that failing a breath test is cast iron proof of guilt (but I now realise it is not), but I wouldn’t doubt my feelings about rights and freedoms over my sense of satisfaction of knowing that those who have zero regard for anyone else on the road getting to see a court room. That’s called justice, and it’s what most modern civilizations are founded upon. Methinks that you’ve been on the receiving end of justice by the way you see to rail against it.
FYI, I do not abstain, nor would I recommend anyone abstain from drinking, as I believe that beer is one of the worlds all time greatest creations.
I almost hate to say it, but driving IS a privilege, not a right. I have not a problem with the 30 seconds of my time that a checkpoint takes, if it gets a bunch of drunks off the road. And at least around here, that is all they use them for – they will point out that you have an expired inspection or registration,and give you a verbal warning, but they will not normally ticket you for it at a checkpoint.
+1
I have nothing to hide so it doesn’t bother me. The checkpoints I have been stopped at in SC have only been looking for drunks. One time I had left my wallet/license at home and they just told me to let my wife drive.
“The checkpoints I have been stopped at in SC have only been looking for drunks.”
“One time I had left my wallet/license at home and they just told me to let my wife drive.”
Replay those two statements in your head , as many times as it takes for the insurmountable internal contradiction to sink in.
@Steve65,
No contradiction, I volunteered the info prior to knowing what they wanted. I was told they were not checking licenses or insurance cards as he handed me a DUI flyer. Seems reasonable to check these items while stopped as they are required by law and what I agreed to when signing for my license. I found it silly that they were not. Like I said I have nothing to hide but I do understand people being afraid of these checkpoints turning into something other than reasonable checks.
++++1 Not only drunks, but the drugged, the un-roadworthy cars, un-licensed drivers and un-registered cars with no third party insurance. This isn’t revenue raising, like a speed camera on a downhil stretch of road outback of beyond. These are a genuine law enforcement and safety issues. We too get a warning for “minor” infractions, ie brakes light lenses are a different colour, unless you mouth off and give the police a hard time, then it’s out with the tape measures, torches and mirrors! Australia normally have them around the public and school holiday dates. on major and minor road, plus it’s an offence to avoid them. We have just gone through a blitz for defect cars. I’m happy with them, keeping the ratbags and rattlers off the roads.
It’s different here in CT. In the last two years I’ve been random checked 3 times. The first time they simply told me to pull into an area filled with diesel powered floodlights, removed me from my car and proceeded to do a full drunk test on me, in front of my wife and two kids, while looking directly at a set of floodlights. It was so bright I could barely see the cop doing the test, they were just a dark outline. My eyes were so burnt from the light I had to have my wife drive the rest of the way home.
I haven’t drank in over 15 years, nor was I even checked before being sent to the test area. It was a truly random stop. It scared the living sh!+ out of me and my family. When I got home I was still shaking. My son still brings it up randomly every couple of weeks. I dunno about you, but scaring the crap out of the local citizens seems a bit harsh. My son is barely a kid at this point amd he already hates cops. Everything about it just sucked. The other two were simple “follow my finger” okay you’re good type stops, but because of the first I was sweating bullets for the next two.
…..krhodes……thanks for the “British English” vernacular correction…however, you’ll forgive me if I continue to refer to impaired motoring in the quaint, but overwhelmingly popular US term, “drunk driving”. That’s not the issue here anyway……random roadblocks are.
I wish they ran checkpoints yesterday. 3 inches of wet snow overnight in Midland TX. 90% of the vehicles on the road had all the snow on the roof, 40% had all the snow still on the hood, and one complete idiot had just dug out a peephole.
Today’s headline would have been “Record number of moving violations issued in one day”. Unless the editors could have thought up some double entendre.
And it wasn’t like it was difficult to sweep it off with a broom. Took me all of 5 minutes to completely clear off an e46 and an Insight.
Really now, how difficult is it for a functioning adult to remember to have their license and registration with them before hitting the road? How difficult is it to keep one’s registration tab, or inspection tag up to date and replace your burnt out bulbs?
Random road checks is one thing, but when it amounts to an organized roadblock, that’s quite another.
I had the misfortune of living in Wasaga Beach, Ontario for a single year. That town used to go from a sleepy 8 or 9 thousand people in the winter months to 100,000 on the weekends. So, in April the OPP would hire quite a few extra hired guns to handle the summer crowd, and until those crowds arrived, they would literally park trucks across Mosley Street and direct every car into the Lion’s Club parking lot. Every car. Every night.
I would close up by shop in nearby Collingwood and drive home, and had to go through this Soviet-like experience every night. There was no alternate route, other than to by-pass the entire town and approach from the east.
Sure, the old geezers that lived in that retirement community were long in bed, but the sheer violation of any form of civil rights was such an affront, that I moved by the end of the summer.
(They must have grown tired of my ‘this isn’t Russia!’ shouts, too!)
The answer to the question: NEVER.
This is unreasonable search and seizure. The police should NEVER stop anyone who has not committed a crime against anyone. “Potentially” committing a crime is no justification for trampling on our freedoms to freely move about our country.
I’ve even started to rethink our DUI laws. DUI is a complicated thing – everyone handles medication and drink differently, and everyone’s driving skill is also different, yet we pull people over and punish them for “potentially” harming another.
We need bad driver laws – not drunk driver laws. We are stupid to think that we can prevent tragedies on the road by trampling all over the freedoms of everyone.
Random stops for “potential harm” are not the answer. Punishment for actually harming someone is the answer.
DUI enforcement went wrong in the same way that speed enforcement went wrong. We invented the tools to quantify it.
And as soon as we did that the quantity became the end in itself and we lost sight of what it was we were originally quantifying.
Like sending the fire inspector out with his only tool a thermometer.
zerofoo: “Random stops for “potential harm” are not the answer. Punishment for actually harming someone is the answer.”
It’s nice in theory, but many countries do have valid laws for potential harm, even if none was actually caused. Attempted murder charges are one where even if the victim has absolutely no harm done the perpetrator can be convicted.
In Australia we have DUI breath testing stations set up, mostly on weekends. Most are located behind corners or over the crest of a hill so they can’t be seen from a mile away and avoided. Drivers are wise to the tactics therefore police do randomly chase down and stop drivers at 3am for a breath test. I had one done recently.
The sad reality is that some drivers do choose to down 5 beers and then go for a drive. ‘I’m Mr Fantastic and I can drive!’ they say to themselves, as they slur the words and drop the car keys. How else are these people meant to be caught before they T-bone someone or slam into a pedestrian? Some people suggest waiting until the DUI driver causes an accident and then arresting them, but isn’t that a little too late for the unfortunate individual the DUI driver has mowed down?