Five Key DUI Roadblock Requirements
![DUI Law DUI Law](https://www.tampa-criminal-attorney.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/DUI-Law-200x200.jpg)
Even though the Supreme Court approved DWI checkpoints in 1990, only thirty-eight states, including Florida, have legalized them. DUI roadblocks, which allow police officers to circumvent the Fourth Amendment and detain people without reasonable suspicion, usually pop up during the July 4th holiday and other holidays, like New Years, associated with drinking and driving.
DUI checkpoints are only legal if they strictly adhere to certain requirements, some of which are discussed below. If the checkpoint was illegal, a Tampa DUI lawyer can throw out the stop and everything that happened as a result of that stop, such as field sobriety test results, chemical sample (if any), and the arrest. If that happens prosecutors must normally drop the case.
Supervisory Authority
Florida legislators delegated the authority to set up checkpoints to CLEOs (chief law enforcement officers), which are usually elected sheriffs or police chiefs who are directly accountable to an elected official, like a mayor.
According to this framework, if a municipality has an unelected city manager, and the police chief reports to the city manager, the checkpoint’s legality is questionable. A supervisor, in this context, is someone who’s directly accountable to the people. Most courts might tolerate one or maybe two degrees of separation.
The supervisory authority usually covers the general framework. Sheriff Jones must decide the time and pace (e.g. Labor Day weekend in south Tampa). Then, the sheriff can delegate the details to underlings.
Neutral Decision-Making
DUI checkpoints aren’t “random” checkpoints. They must be officially sanctioned and officers cannot pull over people who don’t “look right.” Instead, all operational rules, such as specific time and place, must be set in advance.
Additionally, officers must detain motorists according to a set formula, such as every third or fourth vehicle. Officers have a little discretion in this area. More on that below.
On a related location note, the DUI checkpoint must be designed to apprehend drunk drivers. Most DUI defendants are white men. If officers establish a checkpoint in a non white area of town, a Tampa criminal defense lawyer can successfully argue that the checkpoint was a pretext.
Public Notice
Authorities must provide advance public notice of the time and location of the checkpoint, allowing drivers to make informed decisions regarding alternate routes. The notice must be sufficiently broadcast to give drivers a chance to avoid the area altogether if they so please.
Drivers have the right to make U-turns when they see checkpoints ahead. Most likely, squad cars will shadow these motorists. However, these officers must have reasonable suspicion to detain thes emotorits. Avoiding a checkpoint doesn’t constitute reasonable suspicion.
Proper Setup
Note that we’ve gone through three checkpoint requirements before we got to the checkpoint itself. If authorities take any shortcuts during the setup process, the checkpoint is usually illegal.
DUI checkpoints must be clearly lit, properly identified, and in safe areas. The lights must make the checkpoint area almost as bright as day. Furthermore, officers must deploy signs that inform motorists what’s happening. Surface streets are safe areas; freeways and freeway exits aren’t safe places.
Minimal Intrusiveness
The aforementioned rules are hard and fast. This one isn’t. As a rule of thumb, motorists cannot wait more than about twenty seconds. The clock starts ticking at the first DUI Checkpoint Ahead sign. If traffic backs up, officers can temporarily change the formula. For example, instead of stopping every third car, they can stop every fifth car.
Count on a Hard-Working Hillsborough County Attorney
A criminal charge is not the same thing as a criminal conviction. For a confidential consultation with an experienced criminal defense lawyer in Tampa, contact the OA Law Firm. Convenient payment plans are available.
Source:
law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/496/444