|
Advanced
notification (Alerts) of DUI Checkpoints was recommended
by United States Supreme Court under Chief Justice
Rehnquist:
“Advance
publicity is necessary to reduce the intrusiveness of the
checkpoint and increase its deterrent effect.”
Many Americans are subjected to random
stops for
DUI Checkpoints every year. These Checkpoints are setup all
across the nation, often without advance warning. There is a great controversy over the constitutionality of
this use of checkpoints. Aside from the fact that they use a large amount of police resources and
are not as effective as patrols, checkpoints also violate the Fourth
Amendment of the Constitution. Opponents of DUI Checkpoints have argued they constitute unreasonable search and seizure, and therefore are unconstitutional.
The argument against checkpoints went all the way to the Supreme Court. In 1990, the Court ruled that
Sobriety Checkpoints
most probably were an infringement on Fourth Amendment rights, but that this detail was minor. The Supreme Court found that getting drunk drivers off the road and eliminating potential public safety risks was more important that the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
In order for these to be legal, the Court set forth some guidelines for law
enforcement.
Despite the Supreme Court's surprising ruling and mention of guidelines, some states consider DUI Checkpoints
Unconstitutional. Drivers are not stopped at sobriety checkpoints in Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin or Wyoming.
REMEMBER:
DO NOT DRINK AND DRIVE!
|
