Drunk driving checkpoint

[amboy49]

In that case, the Indiana Supreme Court found that the roadblock at issue was not constitutional.

Not entirely certain you are correct. Not entirely certain I am either, though. In the case cited the Supreme Court apparently suppressed the evidence. However, the language in the decision seems to state that the checkpoints don’t breach the 4th Amendment rights of an individual and are permissible when conducted under reasonable circumstances. (Whatever that is)

Curious then, that the PSA that has been posted to make the public aware of the upcoming checkpoint states the checkpoint is “legal” based on the very same court case. (State vs Gershoff)

So. . . . . at this point, although I still don’t disagree with the premise of catching impaired drivers, I am still convinced it can easily become a fishing expedition when a DL and registration must be provided.

One thing that is curious is that a checkpoint where 80+ people were stopped, 14 were arrested for OWI infraction and another 30 were given a warning for seat belt or child restraint violations. Depending on the level of the aggressive nature of the officers, it could easily become not just just an OWI activity but a revenue enhancer for the community as well.

I have no desire to be involved in a traffic accident where an impaired driver is the cause. Conversely, I also have no desire to have to “show my papers” when I am not committing, have not committed, or not about to commit a crime.

YMMV

 

[Rookie]

Easiest to me would be just stay home. No one stops me on my couch to check ID, or if I am sober or not.

I used to be the same way until I went to 2nd shift. Now, at times, these things become less avoidable.

 

[amboy49]

Impaired drivers sometimes have a hard time with tasks that divide attention.

Impaired drivers have impaired judgment. Maybe they hand you a debit card or a CVS receipt instead of the requested documents. Maybe they have glossy eyes and seem to be moving slower than the past few drivers. Taking it all together, might be worth further investigation. You know many "silent" intoxicated persons? They are going to answer questions because not answering will, in their mind, look suspicious.

If the driver provides the required information, and there aren't any other signs of impairment or criminal activity there isn't much they can do at a checkpoint.

Sent from my SM-A536U1 using Tapatalk

Perhaps when all of the above signs of impairment are observed THEN ask for a DL and registration. But why the need to ask for ID initially upon first making contact with a driver ? If the purpose is to catch impaired drivers initial identification wouldn’t seem necessary. Fail the field sobriety test(s) and expect to provide ID. On the other hand, if the law enforcement activity is NOT JUST for impaired driving activities then the PSA is disingenuous at best and outright misleading in the most extreme case(s).

“Yes, that’s a legal order.” “Yes, you have to identify.” “For officer safety.” “The law states you are required.”

 

[HoughMade]

Not entirely certain you are correct....

I read the case this morning. The case does give some guidance as to what makes a constitutional checkpoint, but this is the holding of the Court:

"In light of the above factors, with particular emphasis on the high level of officer discretion and the very weak link between the public danger posed by OWI and the objectives, location and timing of the checkpoint, the State did not meet its burden to show that this roadblock was constitutionally reasonable under Article 1, Section 11. The trial court therefore correctly suppressed the fruit of this seizure."

State v. Gerschoffer, 763 N.E.2d 960, 971 (Ind. 2002).

You are correct- there are many factors that go into the analysis of whether a specific checkpoint is constitutional.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Perhaps when all of the above signs of impairment are observed THEN ask for a DL and registration. Bit why the need to ask for ID initially upon first making contact with a driver ? If the purpose is to catch impaired drivers initial identification wouldn’t seem necessary. Fail the field sobriety test(s) and expect to provide ID. On the other hand, if the law enforcement activity is NOT JUST for impaired driving activities then the PSA is disingenuous at best and outright misleading in the most extreme case(s).

“Yes, that’s a legal order.” “Yes, you have to identify.” “For officer safety.” “The law states you are required.”

It's a standardized method to have an interaction to help determine if there is impairment. Much less intrusive then doing field sobriety tests on everyone. Though likely not as efficient at finding moderately drunk drunks.

 

[amboy49]

It's a standardized method to have an interaction to help determine if there is impairment. Much less intrusive then doing field sobriety tests on everyone. Though likely not as efficient at finding moderately drunk drunks.

My assertion is that “interaction” shouldn’t involve having to show ID upon initial contact. At least go through the action of feigning to suspect impairment - then require ID. Requesting ID from the “get go“ is a fishing expedition IMHO.

 

[fullmetaljesus]

The easiest solution is to avoid checkpoints. It seems to work for me.

Easiest solution is to abide by the constitution and not allow these illegal check points.

 

[manifest destiny]

OWI checkpoints should be considered unconstitutional. But if they must be used (gotta get those fed $'s for OT) perhaps they should be constructed at the parking lot exit at 3am - in front of the bars. If it's arranged on a random section of a thoroughfare road at a random time, is it still about safety?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

My assertion is that “interaction” shouldn’t involve having to show ID upon initial contact. At least go through the action of feigning to suspect impairment - then require ID. Requesting ID from the “get go“ is a fishing expedition IMHO.

The entire thing is a fishing expedition. Fishing for drunks. Again, I'm not a fan of checkpoints, but the ID thing isn't the onerous part. They don't run the ID, just see that you have it. You could have a felony warrant and cruise on through.

There's no need to 'feign', aka lie, and zero incentive to put your integrity on the line for whatever reason you think you'd do so. There's enough drunks on the road Stevie Wonder can find them. Go sit at a stop sign near a bar district and stop people who ignore or roll it. You'll get a drunk. Sit near a bar district at night and stop people who forgot to turn on their headlights (not as reliable these days since cars do it for you) and most of them will be drunk. Watch a flashing yellow and stop people who stop for it. They are always drunk. Sometimes they catch a little nap while they are stopped. Some nights it's harder to not find drunks. Look, man, I just want to get to the murder scene. Can you wake up and get off the road?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

OWI checkpoints should be considered unconstitutional. But if they must be used (gotta get those fed $'s for OT) perhaps they should be constructed at the parking lot exit at 3am - in front of the bars. If it's arranged on a random section of a thoroughfare road at a random time, is it still about safety?

That would be unconstitutional since there's no option to bypass it. At least in Indiana, what constitutes a constitutional checkpoint is pretty tightly controlled. Basically it makes it very close to a consentual encounter, in that you've had options to legally bypass or turn away from it but went through it anyway. I think it's fair to say that the vast majority of people who don't visit 'entertainment districts' on peak evenings/nights will never see an active one.

They are not random in place or time. Ever see one on a residential street at noon on a Sunday? Of course not. There is a selection process, though I don't know what all elements are used other than drinking holidays, near bar/entertainment districts, etc. I don't know if crash data or arrest data is used for that grant, but it is for others. In the late 2000's I worked a lot of the High Fatality Crash Intersection grant that, as the name implies, focused enforcement on a hand full of intersections that had abnormally high rates of fatal crashes.

NHTSA's reasoning is it shows enforcement is happening and a reminder to people of the consequences, like the "drive sober or get pulled over" commercials and billboards. It's as much advertising anti-DUI messages as enforcement, in other words. I don't know how effective that is or if it's the best use of the funds, but that's their rationale.

 

[Destro]

Perhaps when all of the above signs of impairment are observed THEN ask for a DL and registration. But why the need to ask for ID initially upon first making contact with a driver ? If the purpose is to catch impaired drivers initial identification wouldn’t seem necessary. Fail the field sobriety test(s) and expect to provide ID. On the other hand, if the law enforcement activity is NOT JUST for impaired driving activities then the PSA is disingenuous at best and outright misleading in the most extreme case(s).

“Yes, that’s a legal order.” “Yes, you have to identify.” “For officer safety.” “The law states you are required.”

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.

Asking for the ID and registration is part of the process to determine intoxication. They usually aren't actually checking the ID. If the officer asks for a drivers license and someone insists their Kroger+ card is actually their drivers license...further investigation might be in order. Maybe the person is too intoxicated to locate their DL...

It is not about trying to ID and check for warrants for every person who happens upon the checkpoint

 

[hoosierdoc]

How often does that happen around you?

Depends on the day. Seems like once every few shifts for me. So on average a few times a week at the hospital. Some nights it's several though.

 

[manifest destiny]

That would be unconstitutional since there's no option to bypass it. At least in Indiana, what constitutes a constitutional checkpoint is pretty tightly controlled.

You mentioned this in an earlier post. Did the laws surrounding opportunity to avoid checkpoints change? I ask because on two separate occasions, in the 90's, many weeks or months apart, I as a passenger left the back parking lot of what was then called Deer Creek, and my driver was subjected to a checkpoint. At the time there were only two possible turns that could be made prior to the checkpoint. Both had barriers stating road closed. BBI, there was no possible way to avoid that checkpoint on either occasion. It was still fairly rural around there at the time and cars were bumper to bumper from the parking lot to the checkpoint.
Side note and you might the man that knows something about this... I recall, again from last century, some aspect to which cars are actually stopped. The LE could/would have some type of sequence like only every third car, or fifth car, or whatever. Such that it would be truly random. Thoughts?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Depends on the day. Seems like once every few shifts for me. So on average a few times a week at the hospital. Some nights it's several though.

Dang, that's higher than I figured. I figured most stops that would require a blood draw via warrant they would have enough evidence to prove it without. And who in their right mind wants to wake up a judge in the middle of the night for a piddle misd. Now an accident with injuries or death and the person refuses, yeah I could see that. In Indy you probably see that a couple of times a week or much more. Around me not even once a month.

But I'm mainly curious about DUI checkpoints. Do you have any idea if the warrants that come through are a result of a checkpoint/stopped for cause/accident? I've heard/read of places that have a judge on call when running a checkpoint, but not in IN.

One more question, are most of the warrants for blood or urine? I'm not an officer and this is a good reason why, if I thought someone was drunk and caused an accident with injuries I'd get a warrant for a catheter. For me I'll take a needle in the arm over a tube in my junk any day of the week. For a drunk causing an accident, make them feel every inch.

 

[Denny347]

You mentioned this in an earlier post. Did the laws surrounding opportunity to avoid checkpoints change? I ask because on two separate occasions, in the 90's, many weeks or months apart, I as a passenger left the back parking lot of what was then called Deer Creek, and my driver was subjected to a checkpoint. At the time there were only two possible turns that could be made prior to the checkpoint. Both had barriers stating road closed. BBI, there was no possible way to avoid that checkpoint on either occasion. It was still fairly rural around there at the time and cars were bumper to bumper from the parking lot to the checkpoint.
Side note and you might the man that knows something about this... I recall, again from last century, some aspect to which cars are actually stopped. The LE could/would have some type of sequence like only every third car, or fifth car, or whatever. Such that it would be truly random. Thoughts?

The law didn't change, there is no law regarding sobriety checkpoints. However, judicial case law DID change since then. That case law spells out what is needed to make a sobriety checkpoint legal in Indiana.

Vol. 19 No. 6 September 29, 2000: 19: Indiana Law Annotated: News, events & media: Maurer School of Law: Indiana University Bloomington

Vol. 19 No. 6 September 29, 2000

law.indiana.edu

 

[Denny347]

Dang, that's higher than I figured. I figured most stops that would require a blood draw via warrant they would have enough evidence to prove it without. And who in their right mind wants to wake up a judge in the middle of the night for a piddle misd. Now an accident with injuries or death and the person refuses, yeah I could see that. In Indy you probably see that a couple of times a week or much more. Around me not even once a month.

But I'm mainly curious about DUI checkpoints. Do you have any idea if the warrants that come through are a result of a checkpoint/stopped for cause/accident? I've heard/read of places that have a judge on call when running a checkpoint, but not in IN.

One more question, are most of the warrants for blood or urine? I'm not an officer and this is a good reason why, if I thought someone was drunk and caused an accident with injuries I'd get a warrant for a catheter. For me I'll take a needle in the arm over a tube in my junk any day of the week. For a drunk causing an accident, make them feel every inch.

Urine is worthless for OVWI charges. It's a byproduct of metabolizing ETOH. It just shows it was in your system, not how much. Blood is the accurate method by which to measure BAC. Most warrants are from traffic stops. After that it's SBI crashes. Checkpoints don't produce a lot of arrests and even fewer blood draw warrants.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

You mentioned this in an earlier post. Did the laws surrounding opportunity to avoid checkpoints change? I ask because on two separate occasions, in the 90's, many weeks or months apart, I as a passenger left the back parking lot of what was then called Deer Creek, and my driver was subjected to a checkpoint. At the time there were only two possible turns that could be made prior to the checkpoint. Both had barriers stating road closed. BBI, there was no possible way to avoid that checkpoint on either occasion. It was still fairly rural around there at the time and cars were bumper to bumper from the parking lot to the checkpoint.
Side note and you might the man that knows something about this... I recall, again from last century, some aspect to which cars are actually stopped. The LE could/would have some type of sequence like only every third car, or fifth car, or whatever. Such that it would be truly random. Thoughts?

I don't know what the state of the law was in the 90's, I was either in high school or the Army depending on when exactly in the 90's. I entered law enforcement in 2006, and at that time one of the criteria for a checkpoint to be valid was there had to be signage for the checkpoint and a legal means of turning off to avoid it after the signage but before the checkpoint. There's a list of things that have to be considered, and honestly I don't know I ever knew them all and have certainly forgot them at this point regardless. From memory it had to be designed to be effective (hence the no random time/random place), had to have the turn offs, had to have a pre-set method of selecting vehicles, but I know I'm missing other things. I suspect if you googled "Indiana DUI Case Law" you could find the history of it. **EDIT: Or just ready Denny's post. **

So on the side note, yes, that's one method to do it. Generally there will be some selection process so that you don't back traffic up too much. You can either take every X number of cars or you can take X number of cars at a time. So you take every 5th car, or you take 5 cars in a row, then let traffic flow until those 5 are checked and released, then take the next 5. There may be other methods, but those are the only two I'm aware of that anybody uses.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I could've sworn that at least in the past, trying to avoid a checkpoint (in an obvious way, like hanging a U-turn even where it's legal) would get you pulled over. It sounds like that's no longer the case?

 

[Hatin Since 87]

I could've sworn that at least in the past, trying to avoid a checkpoint (in an obvious way, like hanging a U-turn even where it's legal) would get you pulled over. It sounds like that's no longer the case?

Its legal, but "suspicious" lol

 

[hoosierdoc]

Dang, that's higher than I figured. I figured most stops that would require a blood draw via warrant they would have enough evidence to prove it without. And who in their right mind wants to wake up a judge in the middle of the night for a piddle misd. Now an accident with injuries or death and the person refuses, yeah I could see that. In Indy you probably see that a couple of times a week or much more. Around me not even once a month.

But I'm mainly curious about DUI checkpoints. Do you have any idea if the warrants that come through are a result of a checkpoint/stopped for cause/accident? I've heard/read of places that have a judge on call when running a checkpoint, but not in IN.

One more question, are most of the warrants for blood or urine? I'm not an officer and this is a good reason why, if I thought someone was drunk and caused an accident with injuries I'd get a warrant for a catheter. For me I'll take a needle in the arm over a tube in my junk any day of the week. For a drunk causing an accident, make them feel every inch.

Always blood for us. And it's only Morgan county. Marion must have a different place they use, or their own staff to handle the blood draw.

I think people are hoping the delay in obtaining a sample will get them out of a DUI. Their license is toast either way by refusing breathalyzer, may as well try to get lucky

Paul pelosi was .082 after refusing breathalyzer. Took two hours to get blood from him, so probably over 0.12 when he got in the accident. He almost made it under legal limit.

For some reason can't use basic human physiology to work backward on the metabolized level