Checkpoints and Civil Liberties in the State of Washington
Monitoring drivers for potential alcohol abuse through the use of temporary DUI checkpoints is a law enforcement technique enjoyed by many law enforcement agencies in the state of Washington. However, these types of DUI stops through checkpoints have raised questions of legality when it comes to the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures of the people and their property.
The general legal framework for DUI checkpoints can be found in the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Michigan v. Sitz, which stated that sobriety checkpoints did not violate the Fourth Amendment because the governmental interest in reducing the carnage of drunk driving far outweighed the minor inroad into the privacy rights of citizens . So long as the sobriety checkpoints meet the following set of requirements, they are legal: However, DUI checkpoints in the state of Washington are subject to much stricter requirements to be deemed constitutional. In 1990, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled in Washington v. DeMars that sobriety checkpoints ‘are not a constitutionally permissible method for conducting an investigatory stop.’ This was further explained in a 1994 case called Washington v. Aion Nw., Inc., which stated that the majority ruling from Washington v. DeMars has now led to the suspension of sobriety checkpoints in favor of other, less intrusive methods for combating drunk driving such as random patrols.
How DUI Checkpoint Procedures Work
In the states where DUI checkpoints are legal, there is a certain procedure that a police officer is expected to follow when stopping a vehicle at a checkpoint. First, once a vehicle approaches the sobriety checkpoint, it is completely legal for the officer to first flash their spotlight inside the vehicle, or "make initial visual observations" of the driver, including looking for a properly worn seatbelt or looking for an object or person sticking their head out of the window or mooning the police officers. Once the officer has determined that there is nothing suspicious about the driving behavior of the driver, the officer is allowed to then approach the driver at the sobriety checkpoint and request their driver’s license, insurance, or registration. If the officer observes other behaviors he or she finds suspicious, they may then ask the driver a series of sober-driving questions, which are typically meant to disarm the driver by acknowledging that he or she is drunk but that they "can still drive." If the driver exhibits behavior that the officer deems are not consistent with that of a sober driver, such as glassy eyes or slurred speech, the officer then has probable cause to assume that the driver is intoxicated or impaired in some manner. The officer may then ask the driver to exit their vehicle to perform a series of field sobriety tests, of which there are many. Many times, the driver is arrested on this basis for DUI. However, in Washington, denying the field sobriety exercises will not be viewed by any judge as probable cause to detain, arrest or continue to investigate the driver for intoxication or impairment. The courts have held that "because such tests are not necessarily a reliable indication of impairment, failure to perform the tests as specified does not provide probable cause to arrest." Further, simply saying "no," or electing to submit to only a breath test, is not enough for the police officer to establish probable cause to arrest the driver for DUI. However, it is important to keep in mind that while sobriety checkpoints are in fact legal, and the officers are acting within the scope of the law when pulling over drivers, the same cannot be said for many of the sobriety tests performed at the checkpoint. The results of many of these tests, such as the portable breath test, horizontal gaze nystagmus, and the field tests themselves, are invalid both scientifically and under the law in the state of Washington. Therefore, just because a driver is pulled over or even arrested at a DUI checkpoint, that does not necessarily mean that the driver will be found guilty of DUI.
Pro and Con Statements on DUI Checkpoints
DUI checkpoints are walled off areas where vehicles must slowly creep through while law enforcement officers look for evidence of intoxication. They are designed to capture drunk drivers, but there is disagreement over whether or not they are effective (or if they are a good idea in the first place) due to safety concerns, their draconian nature, and constitutional rights.
Those who believe DUI checkpoints are effective argue that they are one of the most efficient means of eradicating impaired drivers from our roads. They claim that the threat of encountering a checkpoint gives people pause before imbibing and hopping behind the wheel.
They further assert that even if individuals don’t initially find the checkpoints a deterrent, those arrested for DUI may still be swayed from driving under the influence in the future because they had to experience the negative consequences of their actions while in the company of their family and friends.
The pro-checkpoint lobby also claims that the majority of people stopped in Washington are let go with nothing more than a warning. They suggest this represents good policing as it saves valuable time, money and law enforcement resources. Further, they declare that the visibility of the checkpoints keep the public generally aware of the dangers of drinking and driving.
It is important to remember that the prohibitions outlined in the United States Constitution extend to all citizens in all situations. Additionally, our incredible American system includes checks on law enforcement powers as a means of respecting the rights of citizens.
Opponents of DUI checkpoints maintain that such efforts are ineffective, and in some instances where the laws are skirted (such as when a minor is still arrested at a checkpoint), downright dangerous. In their minds, the best deterrent to drunk driving is strict self-enforcement or offenses by relatives and peers. They make the case that having your uncle, Aunt Beth or your best friend’s younger sister dead in a drunken accident is an ample reminder not to drink and drive.
Few can argue that there is no benefit to the average person should she encounter such a situation, but research suggests otherwise. Some studies also show that DUI checkpoints do not really reduce the number of persons convicted for drunk driving beyond a 24-hour period, and arresting a few drunk drivers does not compensate for the money spent on the program.
As early as 1983, former Supreme Court Justice William H. Rehnquist stated in Michigan Department of State Police vs. Sitz that "the balance of the interests strongly tips in favor of excepting highway sobriety checkpoints from the normal rule that a 4th amendment seizure occurs only when an officer, by physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen."
One could argue that law enforcement officers should have probable cause or a warrant to detain someone or search a person’s belongings. Additionally, to deny that such checkpoints slow traffic and cause major backups that may make matters worse in the case of an accident is shortsighted. There are also arguments about whether these checkpoints require a "probable cause" as outlined under the 4th Amendment or if law enforcement officers have the right to sidestep probable cause if there is another overriding reason (for instance, public safety).
In order to conduct a DUI checkpoint in the state of Washington, law enforcement must follow certain rules and laws. These protocols elaborate on when and where the checkpoint is to be set up; who the officers will be; when and how the public will be notified that a checkpoint will be held; and how the officers at the checkpoint will go about speaking to the cars. It also regulates when a driver will be allowed to pass through the checkpoint without stopping and for which offenses that person can be arrested.
These protocols help get rid of any ambiguity pertaining to the DUI checkpoints and ensure that officers are limited to speaking to the drivers at the checkpoint. Officers are not allowed to search the car or take any action as a result of a brief conversation except in the case that they find evidence of criminal activity. However, there is always the story (or videos) of the DUI checkpoint that went wrong or the arrest made because the officer cared more about the perceived severity of whatever happened in front of them.
Washington Alternatives to DUI Checkpoints
In addition to DUI checkpoints, Washington State takes an active approach to DUI enforcement through a variety of alternative methods. Increased patrols, which are often marked by visible signage indicating "DUI Patrol Ahead," are a common enforcement tactic. These increased patrols typically occur during holiday weekends when the likelihood of intoxicated drivers on the road is higher.
Furthermore, in an effort to promote road safety and prevent DUIs, public awareness campaigns are employed to educate the public on the risks and consequences associated with drunk driving. Campaigns often run in conjunction with national efforts organized by groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), focusing on the dangers of peer pressure that can often lead to drunk driving incidents .
The Washington State Patrol (WSP) also engages the community in their efforts to prevent DUI offenses through programs involving citizen volunteers. For example, WSP is known to provide citizens with blank breath alcohol screening devices, after first making sure the volunteer understands how to use the device. If the device indicates wait times recommended between drinks have not been met, the citizen is encouraged to seek alternate transportation, such as a taxi or rideshare service, before continuing to consume alcohol.
Regardless of whether DUI checkpoints are utilized, Washington actively enforces DUI laws through a combination of visible police presence, public information campaigns, community programs, and increased law enforcement patrols.
Your Rights at a DUI Checkpoint
If you find yourself driving into a DUI checkpoint, under Washington State law there are certain things that you are entitled to do. It is a well know fact that DUI checkpoints are highly intrusive and can be extremely inconvenient for everyone involved. Fortunately, the law also imposes certain limitations on DUI checkpoints, and gives you rights at such checkpoints.
First, you have the right not to incriminate yourself at checkpoints. In other words, you do not have to tell the officers where you are coming from or where you are going. Law enforcement at checkpoints do not get to ask you where you are coming from or going to. The Washington Supreme Court has confirmed time and time again that these questions are "broadly irrelevant in the assessment of whether reasonable cause existed."
Second, after being stopped at a DUI checkpoint and talking with an officer, you have the constitutional right to refuse to answer questions. You should always be polite and respectful when exercising this right. More importantly, however, is that under no circumstances should you ever feel compelled to answer questions. Once an officer asks you a question, you may peacefully invoke your right to counsel. A typical interaction would be something like this: An officer may approach your vehicle and ask if you are ok to drive. You may respond, "I have the right to counsel. Do not ask me another question until my lawyer is present." At this point, the officer should not continue the stop and will likely let you go. If the officer continues to ask questions, simply remain silent. Some people will say it is better to simply say, "I am invoking my right to counsel," but in our experience simply remaining silent is sometimes even safer, as saying anything at all may be used against you later.
Third, you have the right to a legal challenge. Law enforcement may not stop you without reasonable suspicion that you have committed a traffic infraction, or that you are under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The Washington Supreme Court has stated that checkpoints must actually stop cars in order to be deemed lawful, and they cannot subject you to an unconstitutional level of intrusion. If you find yourself at a checkpoint, and feel that you have suffered an unconstitutional level of intrusion or that reasonable suspicion did not exist at the time of the traffic stop, you have the right to seek help. Once they are stopped, some drivers fear that once they are stopped they cannot go anywhere, effectively holding them hostage until the officers decide whether to arrest them or not. This is not true. You may reverse and leave any time you feel that you are not breaking the law or being at risk in doing so.
Current Events and Public Perception
In recent years, there has been an increasing push for the legalization of DUI checkpoints as states seek to balance public safety with citizens’ privacy rights. Supporters argue that controlled DUI checkpoints are an effective means to reduce drunk-driving accidents. In October 2015, the City of Redmond voted unanimously to send a letter to Washington State Legislature’s Joint Transportation Committee requesting approval for two deployed enforcement DUI check points. The request outlines two locations where officers would randomly stop vehicles in an effort to identify sober and impaired drivers. Additionally, at the request of the King County Sheriff’s Office, a DUI checkpoint was scheduled for April 2016; however, it was canceled after opponents voiced their concerns regarding the legality of roadblock-style stops in Washington State. Meanwhile, public opinion of DUI checkpoints remains divided. According to a 2015 regional poll provided by the West Seattle Blog, a majority of the 700 respondents (87%) said they were aware of the City of West Seattle DUI checkpoints in 2014 . Furthermore, respondents in the West Seattle area reported that the 2014 roadblocks increased their awareness of and concern about the prevalence of drunken or distracted driving in the area. A majority of those in favor of the checkpoint cited that the increased soberness of the roads justified the cost. Respondents who opposed even the concept of the checkpoint cited several reasons, including distrust of police officers and prioritizing better education and treatment programs as alternatives to police action. Some also claimed the police should be more focused on violence and crime in the community. The debate on DUI checkpoints in the state of Washington will remain the subject of much-publicized discussion within the public until legislation is passed—if it passes at all. In the meantime, Washington law enforcement agencies will continue to hold sporadic temporary roadblocks, relying on the fact that a warrantless checkpoint stop is reasonable and permissible for purposes of detecting DUI. However, DUI checkpoints will remain a controversial practice until and unless the court system or the legislature weighs in on the issue.
Leave a Reply