Politics & Government

DUI Checkpoints: Good Tool for Getting Drunks Off Streets or Violating the Constitution?

New legislation by a Sonoma County pol has put the issue back in the limelight

DUI checkpoints were created to stop drunk and other dangerous drivers. But according to statistics, they end up apprehending more unlicensed people—usually undocumented Latino immigrants who don’t qualify for a driver’s license.

In 2010, a total of 215 people were arrested at DUI checkpoints, but only 25 were for driving under the influence. In comparison, more than half--117--were cited for not having a license, according to the Petaluma Police Department. Most had their car impounded for 30 days, the maximum penalty under California law.

Now a new bill, sponsored by Michael Allen (D-Santa Rosa), wants to revamp the way law enforcement conducts checkpoints by publicizing their location at least two hours beforehand. To buttress his legislation, Allen is relying on a 1987 California Supreme Court decision, Ingersoll v. Palmer, that ruled that checkpoints were fine so long as they met certain criteria.

Find out what's happening in Petalumawith free, real-time updates from Patch.

These include:

▪   Requiring officers to use a neutral formula to select vehicles to be stopped, such as every vehicle or every third vehicle, rather than leaving it up the officer in the field

Find out what's happening in Petalumawith free, real-time updates from Patch.

▪   Selecting locations with a high incidence of drunk driving

▪   Requiring that checkpoints be announced in advance in order to reduce their intrusiveness, including by flashing bright lights.

The last point is vital, say Allen and backers of the legislation, so as to not violate the Fourth Amendment, which protects people—including those in the country illegally— from unreasonable search and seizure. 

But a 1993 court decision, known as People v. Banks, ruled that the police did not need to give advance notice when scheduling DUI sobriety checkpoints and that publicly announcing their location was not constitutionally required.

That's the view the Petaluma Police Department appears to be backing, arguing that letting people know the location of a checkpoint renders them less effective.

“Drunk drivers are not going to drive through the checkpoints, they're going to drive somewhere else,” Petaluma Interim Police Chief Danny Fish told the Press Democrat. 

In an interview with Patch earlier this year, Sgt. Ken Savano, who heads the department’s traffic unit, defended the checkpoints as an effective prevention tool, despite the low apprehension rates for drivers under the influence.

“Even though we don’t apprehend that many people, it’s the education and the deterrent that matter in the overall,” Savano said. 

What’s your take on DUI checkpoints? Are they an effective tool for catching drunk drivers? Will announcing them beforehand defeat their purpose? 


Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here