|
Are DWI roadblocks legal? Yes, because the United States Supreme Court and the New Hampshire Supreme court say so. But if the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution protects you from “unreasonable seizures,” how can roadblocks be ok? |
A Quick History of Roadblocks
The Case was Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz,
110 S.Ct. 2481 (1990). In Sitz, a group of Michigan motorists
challenged the constitutionality of a highway sobriety check-point
utilized by the Michigan State Police. The check-point was brief,
lasting for an hour and fifteen minutes and every vehicle passing
through the designated location was stopped for approximately 25
seconds. When officers believed that the drivers stopped at the
check-point might be under the influence of an intoxicant, those
vehicles were asked to pull over to the side of the road and drivers
were requested to perform field sobriety tests.
Out of the 126 motorists who passed through the check-point, only three motorists were asked to pull over. These facts were considered important to Supreme Court Chief Justice Rehnquist, who wrote the opinion for the majority who concluded that the Michigan check-point, under the facts and circumstances presented, did not create an overwhelming intrusion on individual's privacy under the Fourth Amendment. It is open to debate whether the typical New Hampshire check-point, lasting several hours and frequently involving several hundred motorists being detained, would have a different result.
The Supreme Court applied a three-point balancing test to determine whether sobriety check-points in general are reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. This test involved balancing the State's interest in preventing accidents caused by drunk drivers, the effectiveness of the sobriety check- points in achieving the goal, and the level of intrusion on an individual's constitutional right to privacy caused by the check-points.
Although seldom mentioned, the Supreme Court specifically found that a 25 second delay in travel was minimally intrusive on motorist's rights, especially considering the fact that traveling motorists could turn off the road when they saw the roadblock, or make U-turns to avoid passing through it. As to the effectiveness of the sobriety check-point, the court held that the procedure was effective, even though only 1 of the 126 drivers stopped was arrested. This is the start of the paradox (or dishonesty in the analysis) of the roadblock reasoning, “we arrested nobody which is evidence of the deterrent effect a roadblock has” or, alternatively, “we arrested three people and are thus an effective tool in arresting drunks”.
Thus, under federal fourth amendment law, most roadblocks probably pass constructional muster. It is important to remember however the facts of the Sitz case, and the attempted expansion by the Police to use Roadblocks in a manner not consistent with the Sitz analysis.
But doesn’t Part 1, Article 15 of the New Hampshire Constitution provide even greater protection from government searches and seizures?
Generally the answer to the above is yes, except the New Hampshire Supreme court has concluded that a properly conducted roadblock does not “per se” violate the State Constitution.
Out of the 126 motorists who passed through the check-point, only three motorists were asked to pull over. These facts were considered important to Supreme Court Chief Justice Rehnquist, who wrote the opinion for the majority who concluded that the Michigan check-point, under the facts and circumstances presented, did not create an overwhelming intrusion on individual's privacy under the Fourth Amendment. It is open to debate whether the typical New Hampshire check-point, lasting several hours and frequently involving several hundred motorists being detained, would have a different result.
The Supreme Court applied a three-point balancing test to determine whether sobriety check-points in general are reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. This test involved balancing the State's interest in preventing accidents caused by drunk drivers, the effectiveness of the sobriety check- points in achieving the goal, and the level of intrusion on an individual's constitutional right to privacy caused by the check-points.
Although seldom mentioned, the Supreme Court specifically found that a 25 second delay in travel was minimally intrusive on motorist's rights, especially considering the fact that traveling motorists could turn off the road when they saw the roadblock, or make U-turns to avoid passing through it. As to the effectiveness of the sobriety check-point, the court held that the procedure was effective, even though only 1 of the 126 drivers stopped was arrested. This is the start of the paradox (or dishonesty in the analysis) of the roadblock reasoning, “we arrested nobody which is evidence of the deterrent effect a roadblock has” or, alternatively, “we arrested three people and are thus an effective tool in arresting drunks”.
Thus, under federal fourth amendment law, most roadblocks probably pass constructional muster. It is important to remember however the facts of the Sitz case, and the attempted expansion by the Police to use Roadblocks in a manner not consistent with the Sitz analysis.
But doesn’t Part 1, Article 15 of the New Hampshire Constitution provide even greater protection from government searches and seizures?
Generally the answer to the above is yes, except the New Hampshire Supreme court has concluded that a properly conducted roadblock does not “per se” violate the State Constitution.
New Hampshire Roadblocks
In the case of State v. Hunt, 155 N.H. 465 (2007), the New Hampshire Supreme Court, interpreting the State Constitution, upheld a DWI roadblock. Interestingly, this was a Portsmouth roadblock case and the focus of the challenge was the fact that the police only ran an ad in Fosters a few hours before the roadblock, a process seemingly inconsistent with the requirement of advance publicity. The Hunt court concluded that the Roadblock in Portsmouth did not violate the state constitution as long as certain procedures are followed. What procedures are done, and if they satisfy Sitz and Hunt, is the first step in challenging a Roadblock arrest.
Can you win a roadblock case?
Generally
speaking, roadblock cases are highly defendable. Typically there is no
erratic driving involved, no individual suspicion and the heavy
presence of law enforcement would make any person nervous during field
sobriety testing.
Given the complex State and Federal constitutional issues involved in obtaining approval for a roadblock in the first place, the requirement that any approved roadblock strictly comply with the approved protocol, hiring a lawyer experienced in roadblock litigation is critical in obtaining a good result. If the roadblock was not properly authorized, or if authorized but the police did not follow the specific protocol authorized, your case should be won before the case goes to trial.
The justification, arguments, and statistics used to obtain a roadblock authorization in Portsmouth looks like this.
This firm has successfully challenged DWI roadblocks in Portsmouth and other New Hampshire communities on many occasions. A successfull roadblock challenge looks like this.
Citizen comments on DWI roadblocks:
http://blogs.seacoastonline.com/portsmouth-crime/2009/11/05/what-did-drivers-think-about-being-stopped-in-the-citys-dwi-roadblocks-last-summer
It seems press coverage is important to Law Enforcement when conducting DWI roadblocks:
http://blogs.seacoastonline.com/portsmouth-crime/2009/05/06/dwi-roadblocks-are-baaaaaaaack/
Given the complex State and Federal constitutional issues involved in obtaining approval for a roadblock in the first place, the requirement that any approved roadblock strictly comply with the approved protocol, hiring a lawyer experienced in roadblock litigation is critical in obtaining a good result. If the roadblock was not properly authorized, or if authorized but the police did not follow the specific protocol authorized, your case should be won before the case goes to trial.
The justification, arguments, and statistics used to obtain a roadblock authorization in Portsmouth looks like this.
This firm has successfully challenged DWI roadblocks in Portsmouth and other New Hampshire communities on many occasions. A successfull roadblock challenge looks like this.
Citizen comments on DWI roadblocks:
http://blogs.seacoastonline.com/portsmouth-crime/2009/11/05/what-did-drivers-think-about-being-stopped-in-the-citys-dwi-roadblocks-last-summer
It seems press coverage is important to Law Enforcement when conducting DWI roadblocks:
http://blogs.seacoastonline.com/portsmouth-crime/2009/05/06/dwi-roadblocks-are-baaaaaaaack/
