DUI Checkpoints - Who's Challenging Them?

A few weekends ago my wife and I encountered a police sobriety checkpoint on the way back from a party.  My wife was driving after having two drinks over the span of 6 hours.  We passed the checkpoint, but the experience left me a with very mixed feelings.  Let me share...

At about 11:30 on a Saturday night we were returning home from the party, as we turned the corner onto a 4-lane road about 10 minutes from our home we saw a long line of cars and many police lights in the distance.  We thought there might have been an accident and slowed down to join the traffic line.  As we got closer we noticed at least a dozen police vehicles in the median between the 4 lanes and saw that they were doing a DUI checkpoint.  No problem, we thought.  My wife was driving, she was fine, and we inched along awaiting our turn.  I've been through such checkpoints before.  Usually they ask to see your license, take a quick glance to make sure the driver isn't bombed, and send you on your way.

But this was different.  We got to our turn and two policemen asked my wife if she had a drank anything that night.  She answered honestly (2 over 6 hours), then one officer asked her to follow his pen with her eyes back and forth one time.  He evidently didn't like what he saw, so he asked her to step out of the vehicle and stand with a group of other suspicious folks leaning against the guardrail on the side of the road.  The other officer hopped into my driver's seat and drove my car around to the side of the road in the opposite direction.  He turned off the engine, took my keys and told me to sit tight.

So for at least 15 minutes I sat in the car craning my neck to see how my wife was doing back there.  My mind ran through scenarios: Am I going to have to bail her out? How would I get home? What will the babysitter (and her parents) think?  But my main feeling was anger.  Anger that my wife was perfectly fine but now subject to risk of an officer's judgment or a Breathalyzer's technology.

Finally she walked back to the car and got the keys from the policeman.  She passed.  Sure enough, though, she had to go through the full battery of tests: walk the line, backwards alphabet, etc., and then a full breathalyser test.  She was a bit unnerved by the experience and I was even more angry.  It basically ruined the end of our night out - and those nights out alone are pretty rare due to my travel and our difficulties in finding a regular babysitter.

Does this challenge lead to improvement?

In some ways, I think these random DUI checkpoints are a good idea for society.  They offer the immediate benefit of pulling dangerous drunks off the roads.  And they sure can be a memorable deterrent; I know I'll be thinking about this vividly the next time I'm on the borderline of being safe to drive home.  Overall, drunk driving is still a main cause of traffic accidents and deaths.

On the other hand, I really worry about the lack of challenge to the government organizations and police officers who conduct these checkpoints.  For example:

• I believe the sobriety tests (except the breathalyzer) are engineered to provide officers with reasonable cause.  In other words, everyone fails these tricks.  Who challenges this?
• There is no cost to the police for wasting people's time or putting them through unnecessary tests
• Police departments receive big budgets for these checkpoints, it pays their salaries.  They are rewarded for testing and arresting people - not for how many accidents they prevent (what we really want).
• The legal blood alcohol limit itself (.08 in most states) is unchallenged by debate or science
• There is an imbalance in the debate.  Special interest like MADD fight for more regulation.  Politicians see tougher DUI laws as an "easy win" to make them look like they are tough on crime.  And average people (who may fall victim later) have no immediate pressure to protest.  Who's going to prevent the BAC limit to fall to .06% or lower?

Thankfully, we have at least one ultimate check and balance in this country, as the Supreme Court weighed in this a few years ago.  After Michigan found checkpoints illegal, the U.S. court overturned this decision 6-3.  Some general guidelines were issued, but details were left to the states.  (Below you can see the document we got from Hamilton County, Ohio, which tries to explain its process.)  Since then, 11 states have found these checkpoints to violate their own state constitutions.  So there's no consensus here.

At the end of the day, I think checkpoints can be a net positive.  But I would like to see some push back in the system to drive improvement and accountability.  Frankly, I'd rather the police pull out the obvious drunks (who cause the real wrecks), and let the rest of us get home.

What's your take? What's your experience?

(UPDATE: I find it interesting that since this post went up, I receive about 5-10 visitors on Fridays and Saturdays for people plugging in "DUI checkpoints Cincinnati".  It goes to show a potential web 2.0 business, and that there is no end to how people will use the Internet to seek information!)

Comments

[David Rose]

Bob:

Thanks for posting this and asking the question. While I have not had this experience, I have had the unfortunate experience of having a Cincinnati Police officer give me a ticket with a laser gun for going 72mph, when I was within the speed limit. The cop told me radar never lies. I knew I was not speeding. It was a known speed trap on my way home. I was rounding the bend next to a car that was passing me on I-71 northbound and it had just started to rain. When I saw the cop, I knew he was going to pull over the other guy, until he pulled up behind me. I was pissed. I tried talking to the cop, but to no avail. I got a book about fighting tickets and decided to show up in court to fight it. My brother is a Prosecuting Attorney in Michigan and he said I had very little chance of winning for 2 reasons: (1) judges see these as nuissance cases and view defendants in a dim light and (2) the money generated for communities by tickets is a top source of revenue and no one in the city/county government wants to see this go away.

Regardless of the low odds, I knew I was not speeding and I also knew from reading the book that laser can be subject to error if it has just started to rain, the unit has not been maintained or calibrated recently, or if there was user error (i.e., has the cop been certified to use it and maintained their certification). As you can imagine, this is an administrative nightmare and truth be told, most laser and cops do not have their documents up-to-date for calibrations and certifications. So, I wrote a letter to the prosecuting attorney asking for these documents and copied the court. I received a notice from the prosecutor that surprised me indicating he would not provide them ahead of time and the court had a "dim view" regarding wasting the courts time. He was trying to intimidate me by not providing them and getting me to plead out. I would have none of it. I had a motion prepared for the judge and had examples of other cases that had been thrown out due to faulty equipment. No one has stats on how much equipment is in compliance, but to keep these sensitive units in compliance would take a lot of effort by every traffic cop on the force. My gut tells me it doesn't happen and the incentive structure is to let it ride. More revenue from traffic tickets means less property taxes, that is, until you get ticketed.

Well, how does this story end? After taking the morning off work, doing a lot of prep work and being prepared to write a huge check on the spot if I lost, the cop did not show and the city could not present their case. I won! Go figure. Challenge does work and it can pay off. My learning from this experience, is that more people should challenge the system and force localities to prove they are in the right. Having lived in Baltimore where they have traffic cameras on street lights is perhaps a better approach to driving revenue, saving lives and providing iron clad proof all at once. Forcing people to slow down for lights saves lives and the posted signs are a real deterrent to driving fast.

[Jackie]

Within the past year, I have passed through FIVE such checkpoints.

I agree with catching drunk drivers, but I am becoming increasingly irritated at the sheer number of checkpoints.

I am a law-abiding citizen, and I make it my practice to not drive after drinking. I have nothing to hide.

Nevertheless, I object to this practice. I believe that it is unconstitutional to stop drivers without suspicion of wrongdoing.

The proliferation of checkpoints makes law enforcement too obtrusive, and I am starting to feel like I am living in a police state.

[Bob G]

FIVE checkpoints in a year is amazing. Your tax dollars at work!

You know, I'd rather the government automakers to create some kind of breathalyzer that you HAVE to pass before your car starts. That way we're all treated the same and maybe we can reduce drunk driving deaths to near-zero. Hey, if it's the number one reason for driving death, shouldn't we? But this would end a lot of police officer jobs...

[Mike Stone]

Good info and thoughts. I believe that as the economy continues to worsen we are going to see municipalities become even more aggressive in increasing revenue via citations. I like you think the checkpoints can be a good thing. But lets use them to filter out the obvious, and not write someone a $15 ticket for having a faulty break light. Public safety needs to practice sensitivity at times and common sense.

[cynthiya]

Checkpoints have become an effective tool in removing impaired drivers from the roadway in recent years, as high visibility, efficiency of enforcement and media attention have dramatically reduced the number of DUI arrests.
---------------------------------------------
cynthia jacquline
DUI

[Mike]

The last comment is incorrect. Smells like a bacon to me. DUI checkpoints have NOT reduced the number of impaired drivers from the road. Their sole purpose is to bring in more revenue to the city and state. I agree with Bob G - why not put breathalyzers in all vehicles (including cops , lawyers, judges and those beloved "lawmakers"). If no one can drive after drinking, everyone's safe except the cops, lawyers, and lawmakers who value power and revenue over true safety. Of course, there's no breathalyzer for drug use while driving so we need technology for that otherwise the million dollar DUI task force will still be out there "protecting society".