Roadblocks: How are they justified in light of the Fourth Amendment? by Darren Kavinoky

Back

Roadblocks: How are they justified in light of the Fourth Amendment?
by Darren Kavinoky

Roadblocks:
How are they justified in light of the Fourth Amendment?
Aren’t these warrantless searches and seizures, and therefore unreasonable?

A roadblock, also known as a sobriety checkpoint, is a temporary stop-point operated on a public road, which must be governed by established guidelines, set out by the California Supreme Court in the premiere roadblock case, Ingersoll v Palmer. A sobriety checkpoint roadblock must have advance notice to the public, set up by policymaking officials other than officers in the field, guided by a neutral mathematical formula, maintained safely for both police and motorists, have high visibility thus serving to give advance warning to the motorist as to the official nature of the stop, and minimize the average time each motorist is detained.

Each motorist stopped should be detained only long enough for the officer to question the driver briefly and to look for signs of intoxication, such as alcohol on the breath, slurred speech, and glassy or bloodshot eyes. If the driver does not display signs of impairment, he or she should be permitted to drive on without further delay. If the officer does observe signs of impairment, the driver may be directed to a separate area for a roadside sobriety test. At that point, further investigation must be based on probable cause, and general principles of detention and arrest would apply.

The United States Supreme Court has held that a vehicle stopped at a roadblock is a “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment. A Fourth Amendment seizure occurs “when there is a governmental termination of freedom of movement through means intentionally applied.” The question then becomes whether such seizures are reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. It has been determined that not all roadblocks violate the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures. In order to determine whether there has been a Fourth Amendment violation, courts apply a “balancing test” which balances the government’s interest against the intrusiveness of the detention on the individual. If a roadblock is operated in accordance with the required safeguards set out in Ingersoll, then there is no actionable intrusion on the Fourth Amendment. The intrusion on the individual is justified by the magnitude to society of having drunk drivers on the road. The Supreme Court has stated that the primary purpose of a sobriety check point is not to discover evidence of crime or to make arrests of drunk drivers, but to promote public safety by deterring intoxicated persons from driving and endangering the public. Thus, a sobriety checkpoint roadblock serves a regulatory purpose and is not considered a criminal investigation roadblock, and no warrant is required.

Author's Biography:

Darren Kavinoky is the founding partner of The Kavinoky Law Firm, a

criminal defense law firm with six offices throughout California. The

attorneys of the firm take pride in their constant continuing legal

education and unparalleled one-on-one client service. Every attorney at

the firm particpates in ten times the amount of education required by

the state bar.

In addition, the attorneys provide each client with a personal cell

phone number, and they make themselves available to clients at all

times. The attorneys of The Kavinoky Law Firm understand that there is

only one case that matters to you: yours! They are dedicated to treating

each client with personal service to ensure satisfaction.

Darren has defended numerous high-profile clients, developed key

relationships with media leaders, and earned public support for clients