DUI Checkpoint Legality in New York
While the U.S. Supreme Court and the New York State Court of Appeals have both declared that DUI checkpoints are constitutional under both federal and state law, these court decisions have also established strict guidelines for the operation of DUI checkpoints.
For example, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the primary purpose of DUI checkpoints isn’t to apprehend drunk drivers, but to deter drunk driving in general. In deciding Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990), the court held that although DUI checkpoints are a "seizure" under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, its benefits outweigh its harms. The court disagreed with dissenting opinions that DUI checkpoints are a poorly targeted means of reducing drunk driving. According to the dissent, sobriety checkpoints waste resources and target a very small group of individuals.
The majority of the court was not swayed by these arguments, concluding that the roadblocks deter people from drinking and driving by instilling fear of detection. The court wrote: "While sobriety checkpoints might indeed burden the traveling public, such burdens are minimal , and any inconveniences must be weighed against the public interest in reducing drunk driving. . . . The balance of the harms and benefits is clearly on the side of the State."
However, the court did hold that sobriety checkpoints may be found unconstitutional if their "time, place, and duration is not well planned and reasonably located." Indeed, the majority noted that these sobriety checkpoints would be unconstitutional "if they were conducted at a time or on a highway having little traffic, or if the length of delay permitted would be considerable. Although the [Michigan] State Police have established guidelines to address some of these concerns, the record does not provide an adequate basis for determining whether these concerns were individually addressed in establishing the particular checkpoint involved in this case."
In another Ohio Supreme Court case, state ex rel. Wright v. Felix, 77 Ohio St. 3d 44 (1996), the parties agreed that the stop in this case was not a valid DUI checkpoint. The primary difference between this case and the text mileages above is that the Ohio checkpoint occurred at night, meaning that there is a greater likelihood that the officer will not be able to identify the license plate.
Elements Possessed by a Legally Conducted DUI Checkpoint
The purpose of the operation must be balanced by the seriousness of the motorist’s invasion of personal liberty and privacy interests. The evaluation of the justification for a sobriety checkpoint must account for, among other things, the scope and extent of discretion in the design and operation of the checkpoint. Some of the concerns are that the discretion afforded police officers participating at the sobriety checkpoint will lead to a lack of uniformity at particular stops and the potential for abuse if a particular officer issues a disproportionate number of tickets or makes more arrests than his or her fellow officers. The following guidelines must be followed:
• The checkpoint must be approved in advance in writing by an official supervisor
• Supervisory personnel not directly involved in the sobriety checkpoint must be in place to oversee checkpoint operations
• The area chosen for the checkpoint is selected (rather than randomly chosen) as a location where a high volume of traffic violators are likely to be apprehended, impaired motorists are likely to be stopped, and favorable conditions exist for publicizing the checkpoint (i.e., on a holiday or during peak patrol periods)
• Sufficient funding and manpower are allocated to the sobriety checkpoint
• Law enforcement personnel are properly outfitted with agency identification and reflective vests
• The sobriety checkpoint is publicized through media, press releases and roadside signage
• Portable signage is posted in advance of, en route to, and at the checkpoint
• Motorists experience only minimal intrusion
• Officers are trained to identify signs of intoxication and to conduct basic field sobriance testing
• A written operational plan is prepared detailing the design and implementation process The sobriety checkpoint plan should be in writing and evaluated by an official supervising officer before the checkpoint is operational. It should specify:
• The location of the checkpoint
• The time and duration of the checkpoint
• The legal authority and purpose
• The number of officers to be employed
• The sobriety checkpoint’s funding source
• The list of "signs" and locations of each sign
• The method of stopping vehicles
• The method of conducting field sobriance testing
• Whether field sobriance testing will be conducted at an alternate site
• If police officers will be in uniform
• If police vehicles will be in sight of the checkpoint operation
• If there will be any adverse impact on local businesses or residences
• A plan to screen all sober drivers and to detain only those motorists who demonstrate physical impairment
• The schedule for posting special sobriety checkpoint warning signs in advance of the date when the sobriety checkpoint will go into effect
• If a sobriety checkpoint under the plan will be operated on consecutive days
• The calendars of regularly scheduled local events likely to attract large crowds of motorists and pedestrians on the days the sobriety checkpoint will presumably be operational
• How often sobriety checkpoints will be conducted in the same area
• Who will be responsible for setting up and dismantling the sobriety checkpoint
• A checklist of all activities related to the sobriety checkpoint operation At the sobriety checkpoint site, the following procedures must be implemented:
• Police officers shall promptly approach each vehicle in order to determine if the driver possesses a driver’s license and has not been drinking
• Each vehicle shall stop long enough so that no more than three minutes pass between the time the vehicle arrives at the checkpoint until the time the vehicle departs the checkpoint
• No more than 30 seconds is to pass between vehicles in order to minimize the queue
• Sobriety checkpoint personnel shall be equipped with reflective vests
• Checking of sobriety checkpoint vehicles must be performed by a minimum of two traffic agents Consideration must be given to provide appropriate facilities and conditions on the road to ensure the safety of motorists, including barricading access roads. In addition, the sobriety checkpoint operation must be continually monitored to ensure that minimal intrusion of the motoring public’s rights is maintained.
Rights of Drivers Stopped at a DUI Checkpoint
The New York DMV has outlined six basic rights of drivers at DUI checkpoints:
Asks to see your driver’s license, registration and proof of insurance.
Asks you to step out of the vehicle.
Asks you to submit to field sobriety tests or a portable breath test.
Asks you to blow into a Breathalyzer machine.
Asks to search your vehicle.
Arrests you.
While New York law does not prohibit an officer from asking to search your vehicle, there are certain legal reasons an officer may not require you to submit to a field sobriety test, portable breath test or breathalyzer test:
If you refuse to submit, the police cannot force you to give a Breathalyzer sample at the station.
If you are arrested and taken into custody, however, you can be compelled to submit to a blood alcohol test once you are at the police station. If you refuse to submit, you will be subject to automatic license suspension and possible increased penalties in court.
If you refuse to submit to a field sobriety test outside your vehicle, according to the New York DMV, the police officer may ask you to submit to a breathalyzer test at the station (ANC 5.2.1). Under state law, the only reason you can refuse a breath test at the station is if you are incapable of taking the test for medical reasons.
Although your lawyer might tell you not to answer a police officer’s questions without a lawyer present, at a DUI checkpoint, you must answer a police officer’s questions (ANC 5.1.1). If you do not, you may be arrested.
Consequences of Failed DUI Sobriety Test
Failing a field sobriety test at a DUI checkpoint can lead to two potential outcomes. If they ask you to perform a breathalyzer test, then they will undoubtedly arrest you on the spot at the checkpoint, charge you with DUI and begin the process to seek a conviction. If they do not ask you to perform a breath test then they will handcuff you, place you in their car, and take you to jail for further chemical testing. They will then charge you with DUI.
The next concern is you getting 2 tickets for DUI. Due to an error in EnCon Magazine in an article concerning the recent change in VTL § 1193 (1) and (2) to reflect a change in the law which removes the minimums and sets a range, it caused many people extreme concern as to whether you could be convicted or sentenced to 2 separate charges of driving while intoxicated. VTL § 1193 was changed in relation to the change in the law for the penalty, such as if your blood alcohol level is above .18, then you are subject to a fine of $500 to $1,000, a mandatory surcharge of $395, and a term of imprisonment of at least five days and up to six months. Whereas before the penalty was a minimum of seven days and a maximum of one year. The penalty for higher levels was similar, but it too had a minimum as well as a maximum. Now there is only a maximum penalty which could change on a case by case basis. The minimum situation is that you get two tickets. This information is absolutely correct. The judges, however, are now more mindful of just how harsh the law is in carrying out mandatory minimums, and therefore all that needs to be done is to ask the court to be mindful of the severe burden that is placed upon people who find themselves in this situation. The courts also tend to look at the fact that the majority of the additional charge is only a surcharge. They try to reduce the lower offense level to one charge.
The mandatory surcharges associated with a DUI are fixed; however , the fees associated with the booking and processing at the local police precinct are not accepted as valid either for a plea or for purposes of reducing the minimum penalties. The law specifically states that the fees, i.e., beer and cigarettes, bail, etc. have no relevance to the sentence. The judges are given discretion to impose sentences at the lower range based upon the Justice Center Memo, which is provided to every judge by the Chief Administrator of the Courts Office of Traffic Safety. In that Memorandum, there is a direct reference to the fairness of conducting a hearing or trial in lieu of the mandatory minimum on the lower charge. The judges are course not limited to that recommendation and could always impose the minimum regardless.
If you are stopped at a checkpoint, you are likely to be arrested, in which case you will be transported to the local precinct for booking and processing. Then you will be taken to the City Court for the arraignment. The arraignment is the time that you will be starting to make your bond or insurance claim to get yourself out. You will also be getting your next date for plea bargaining, which is usually 30 days, and your date for the state DMV hearing to determine the license status. Often, because of the priority nature of the arraignment, the judges will deal with the preliminary hearing at the time of the plea bargaining date. Therefore, you will not go first in the rotation. However, you still have the right to request the preliminary hearing date in order to protect your legal rights and ensure that the prosecutor has to present their evidence before you waive the hearing and plea bargain.
If you do not submit to a breath test at the checkpoint, you will also be arrested, charged with refusal, and taken to the local precinct for booking and processing. Then you will be taken to the City Court for the arraignment.
Challenging the Legality of a DUI/OVI Checkpoint in Court
Challenging the Legality of a DUI Checkpoint in Court
In New York, while the legality of DUI checkpoints is supported by numerous cases, that does not mean that you cannot challenge their legality—if it is warranted in your case. After all, there may be a legitimate reason to believe that the officers did not operate a checkpoint according to the required standards of the law. This would not be an argument that a person could make on their own, however. This would require the work of a skilled New York DUI defense lawyer to evaluate the situation and determine if there was a violation.
The officers involved in a DUI checkpoint must make sure certain legal criteria are followed. If there was even one small deviation from this protocol, it could render the checkpoint illegal and thus, the arrest without probable cause, making it unable to stand up in court. A DUI checkpoint is usually a sign that the police hope traffic stops will result in drunk drivers being taken off the road. Sometimes, however, the police use DUI checkpoints to catch other types of offenses—it is not always about DUIs. This is not the case in New York, where sovereign immunity waives the state’s liability for decisions made by law enforcement. For this reason, the only viable method of contesting the constitutionality of a DUI checkpoint in New York State is to argue that the checkpoint was simply not implemented in a constitutional manner.
So how do you go about doing this? There are limited options. One is that you can contend that the checkpoint was conducted without prior notice. In New York, the police are not required to give prior notice of a checkpoint being conducted—but they do tend to publicize these checkpoints in ways that encourage people not to drink and drive, such as leafleting local businesses or posting signs at the location prior to the stop being conducted. If the officers did not do this, then you might point to that as a sign the checkpoint was not established properly.
A second common argument is that proper notice was not given to motorists regarding the presence of the checkpoint. Officers need to give drivers "meaningful advance warning" of the checkpoint, and many cities where checkpoints are conducted—such as Buffalo—post signs showing where a checkpoint will take place and informing drivers of the reason for the checkpoint.
Another argument against the legality of a checkpoint could involve improper disguise of the checkpoint. This means that there could have been a reasonable doubt cast to whether the officer was using a DUI checkpoint as a legitimate law enforcement tool and had knowingly disguised it as something else—such as a crack down on driving without a license or car registration. Then there is failure to record that the proper amount of time from both the planning stages and operation of the checkpoint, and also turning to whether officers followed certain guidelines set by the police department that operates the checkpoint.
Safety Concerns and Public Opinion
Public perception of DUI checkpoints in New York is often divided, with some viewing them as a critical tool for ensuring public safety on the state’s roads and others seeing them as a questionable invasion of privacy. Despite the potential for confusion and inconvenience caused by temporary roadblocks, a significant portion of the population supports sobriety checkpoints as a valuable countermeasure against impaired driving. A 2016 statewide study conducted by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety found that 75 percent of New York adults support DUI checkpoints. This figure would be consistent with opinions expressed by government officials, with New York State Police Superintendent George Schein once stating "There are no better ways to deal with impaired drivers than aggressive DWI patrols and sobriety checkpoints." The same AAA study also revealed that public awareness of sobriety checkpoints was rather low—only 38 percent of respondents said that they were aware of local checkpoints—and that many people believed that sobriety checkpoints are an unfair or unreasonable way to combat impaired driving. In spite of these concerns, many people do not believe that other measures such as increased penalties for those who drive under the influence are a viable alternative. The beneficial effects of sobriety checkpoints on community safety are difficult to ascertain , as large-scale studies that consider the effectiveness of checkpoints beyond a single police department are generally lacking. However, research seems to suggest that sobriety checkpoints are an effective deterrent that helps reduce alcohol-related traffic injuries and deaths. In a 2016 study published by the Traffic Injury Prevention, the authors conclude after data analysis that sobriety checkpoints "appear to produce a reasonable deterrent effect on drunk driving," and suggest that sobriety checkpoints should be expanded in order to further reduce drunk driving injuries and fatalities. The same team of researchers, led by Dr. Jennifer Hope, suggested that sobriety checkpoints not only reduce drunk driving but also decrease the motivation for alcohol consumption in general. Given the severity of injuries and fatalities caused by drunk driving and the growing prevalence of driving under the influence, there is certain encouragement for and ongoing public support of sobriety checkpoints. Abuses of sobriety checkpoints, however, and the perception that such checkpoints may compromise individual rights may deter some members of the public from supporting continued sobriety checkpoints in New York.