Los Angeles DUI Check Points

Drunk Driving Sobriety Checkpoints

1. Ongoing DUI Program — Any agency considering safety checkpoints should integrate them with an ongoing, systematic and aggressive enforcement program. The use of checkpoints alone will not sustain the perception of risk so essential to an effective general deterrence program. In fact, if dinking drivers believe that their chances of being caught are only at safety checkpoints, their perception of risk of arrest may he quite low.
2. Judicial Support — When officials decide that they intend to use this technique, they should involve their prosecuting authority ... in the planning process to determine legally acceptable prosecute. This person can detail the types of evidential information that will be needed to prosecute cases emanating from checkpoint apprehension. The jurisdiction's presiding judge should be informed of hit proposed checkpoints and procedures, all essential step if the judiciary is to accept their use. The judge can provide insight on what activities would be requited to successfully adjudicate such cases. If a judge cannot he persuaded that this technique is acceptable, its implementation will he futile.
3. Existing Policy Guidelines — Any jurisdiction considering safety checkpoints should prepare mitten policy/guidelines which outline how, roadblocks are to be conducted prior to starting to use them. The courts have been very clear in directing that safety checkpoints be planned in advance. [See State v. Hillesheim, 291 N.W.2d 314, 318 (Iowa 1980).] Failure to do so I has been used as evidence that roadblock techniques were discretionary.
4. Site Selection — Planners should take into consideration the safety and visibility to oncoming motorists: Safety checkpoints cannot be of less public benefit than the behavior they are flying to displace, nor call they create more of a traffic hazard than the results of the driving behavior they are trying to modify. Planners should remember to select a site that allows officers to pull vehicles out of the traffic stream without causing significant subjective intrusion (flight to the drivers and/or creating a traffic backup). Furthermore, offices safety must be taken into account when deciding where to locate the checkpoint. Checkpoint locations should be selected in advance by officers other than those manning the checkpoint according to objective criteria that will maximize contact with DUIs, for example, locations with a high incidence of DUI-related fatalities, nighttime injuries or nighttime single vehicle crashes. If every vehicle is not to be stopped, the method used to determine which ones will be stopped must appear in the administrative order authorizing the use of the safety checkpoints.
5. Warning Devices — Special care should he taken to provide adequate warning to approaching motorists that a roadblock-type checkpoint has been established. Such notice can be accomplished with warning signs, flares and police cars with warning lights flashing. If possible, warning signs should he placed along the roadway well in advance of the checkpoint to alert motorists that they will be requited to stop. Signs should be placed to provide advance warning as to why motorists are being stopped, but at the same time should not give impaired motorists the opportunity to avoid the checkpoint.
6. Visibility of Police Authority —The visibility of uniformed officers and their marked police vehicles makes the power of the police presence obvious and serves to reassure motorists of the legitimate nature of the activity. This is an important aspect of any safety checkpoint. This is also part of the effort to reduce the intrusion to the passing motorists who will be affected by the checkpoint surveillance.
7. Chemical Test Logistics — Since DUI arrests are to he anticipated at the selected location, the logistics of chemical testing must also be included. A system for expeditiously transporting suspected violators to chemical test sites must be established.
8. Contingency Planning — If intermittent traffic conditions cause the officers to stray from the predetermined order of selecting motorists to stop (e.g., if a traffic backup occurs), the reasons for the departure must he thoroughly documented. Courts have allowed this deviation as long as records are kept documenting the necessity to deviate from the interview sequence. United States v. Prichard, 645 F.2d 854. If such an event occurs, jurisdictions must have prepared alternative plans in advance to handle the checkpoint. If to much traffic develops at a checkpoint, causing a backup that cannot be easily alleviated, the officer in charge of the checkpoint may consider discontinuing operation at that site and moving to an alternative site. The alternative site should have been identified in advance in the administrative order that first established the checkpoint surveillance, and should be prepared for operation.
   
9. Detection and Investigation Techniques — An agency considering safety checkpoints should ensure that the officers who staff it are properly trained in detecting alcohol- impaired drivers. The implementation of safety checkpoints that allow legally intoxicated drivers to pass through undetected will not be able to achieve a general deterrence effect. Examples of the kind of actions officers are taking during initial contact with a driver at a checkpoint are:
9. 1. Request his or her license and registration.
   2. Use a divided attention task (e.g., after requesting the driver's license, while the driver is looking for it, the officer engages him in conversation).
   3. Question the driver regarding his origination/destination, whether he had been drinking, etc.

   Police are using these approaches to try to quickly detect whether a driver has been drinking. Once an officer's suspicion has been raised, further investigation can take place out of the traffic lane without impeding the flow of traffic. These and other approaches are currently being studied. If an officer feels it is necessary to move a suspect's car after he suspects the driver is impaired, it will he necessary for someone other than the suspect to drive the car.

10. Public Information - To obtain maximum benefit in terms of its general deterrence effect, a safety checkpoint program should he aggressively publicized. The majority of drivers will most likely never encounter a checkpoint, but will only learn of it through media reports (and perhaps by word of mouth). These two valuable forms of public communication will greatly enhance any such program, however, and should be consistently employed.
    

To find a pre-screened Attorney in Los Angeles, call the 24HR Lawyer Referral Hotline 661 310 7999