“Reasonable Cause” is interchangeable with “Probable Cause”, “Reasonable Suspicion” is the term most likely to be invoked, although, sure, PC can be the basis also.
There is nothing in the federal constitution forbidding an officer from approaching a person and asking if they mind answering some questions, it may be a fine line when a consenusal encounter turns into a seizure, true, compare Florida v. J.L..
While I have read a few states, from past research, that permit a Terry Stop of a person who avoids a DUI checkpoint, I do not believe it was criminalized, or if it was, it would hold up in court if challenged.
Some states rule that way. In California, though I do not live there, from other research, a so called SERNA Motion is a byproduct of a speedy trial right under the federal constituion, but NOT the state constitution.
As a comparitive example, while the Excessive bail provision of the 8th AM has not been incorporated to the states, a few federal circuits have applied it.
To expand on this, they fall under the administrative exception to the 4th. That means they are constitutional if the police agency has clearly delineated procedures (stopping every fifth car, or whatever) and their location and procedure are published in advance.
In other words, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy when passing through a checkpoint because you are assumed to know it’s there.
Because they are administrative, not investigative, a stop of a vehicle which avoids a checkpoint is probably not going to hold up (absent independent grounds for reasonable suspicion).
I keyed in; Avoiding DUI checkpoint + Terry stop; and retrieved this, in part:
Alabama
Driving into private driveway to avoid a checkpoint justified a stop. Smith v. State, 515 So. 2d 149 (Ala. Cr. App. 1987).
Maine
Avoiding a checkpoint is grounds for an investigative stop. State v. D’Angelo, 605 A.2d 68 (Me. 1992).
BUT;
Nebraska
State v. McCleery, 560 N.W.2d 789 (Neb. 1997). Checkpoint avoidance does not justify an investigatory stop.
http://www.iihs.org/laws/checkpoints.html
There are others;
New York; (Two pronged)
Turning into a parking lot to evade a checkpoint is cause for an investigatory stop. People v. Chaffee, 590 N.Y.S.2d 625 (A.D. 4 Dist. 1992); but turning off a highway before reaching a checkpoint on to another road is not cause for a stop. People v. Rocket, 594 N.Y.S.2d 568 (Just. Ct. 1992). New York does not require written guidelines for a checkpoint. People v. Collura, 610 N.Y.S.2d (N.Y. CityCrim. Ct. 1994).
North Carolina
State v. Johnson, 446 S.E.2d 135 (N.C. App. 1994) held entering a parking lot to avoid a checkpoint justified a stop. In State v. Foremen, 527 S.E.2d 921 (N.C. 2000), the Court held that is it reasonable and permissible for an officer to monitor a checkpoint’s entrance for vehicles whose drivers may be attempting to avoid the checkpoint, and an officer, in conjunction with the totality of the circumstances or the checkpoint plan, may pursue and stop a vehicle which has turned away from a checkpoint within its perimeters for reasonable inquiry to determine why the vehicle turned away.
This is one of those things that, while I understand it’s been tested in SCOTUS to be allowed constitutionally, I am not fond of the justification. Ultimately, I feel like it’s a slippery slope argument on probable cause. Consider, if I see someone driving erratically, I have probable cause for that specific individual that he is under the influence. Now let’s say I’m in a neighborhood with a lot of bars, it will have a higher percentage of people who may have been drinking on the road, but short of seeing someone leaving a bar, I have no specific probable cause that a particular driver was at a bar and drinking, I only have an increased probability. So I think we’re left with a question of what increased probability justifies as high enough for probable cause on what amounts to a random sampling?
If the normal expected drunk rate is 1% and we estimate in this area it’s 2% or 5% or 10% or 20%, where does it stop being a waste of resources and harrassment of an overwhelmingly law abiding group and start being reasonable? And if it’s high enough, couldn’t they just see these guys driving erratically and pull them over?
The other part that bothers me is that, at least here in Northern Virginia, I never see these check points near the areas that have lots of bars. In my area, it’s always on one or more of the three biggest roads in the area and I never see them on any other roads, where they could easily put them next to one of the three or four major shopping areas that have a higher density of bars where they’re not only more likely to catch more drinkers but also less likely to impede traffic and harrass law abiding citizens. They’re clearly not that motivated to maximize the number of drunks they catch by their selection.
So, sure, it’s been found constitutional, but I disagree with the logic the SCOTUS used, and so do some other states. And, in practice, it looks like it’s at least to some extent used as a politically safer justification for checking people for other violations like expired tags, licenses, and all that.
It seems to be a bit less settled than my crim pro professor suggested. PA, for example, says the roadblock must be “so conducted as to be ascertainable from a reasonable distance”, which suggests drivers have the right to turn around. Com. v. Blouse, 611 A.2d 1177, 1180 (1992).
He might have been referring solely to federal interpretation, though, which seems pretty consistent.
US v. Wright, 512 F.3d 466 (8th Cir. 2008) indicates that a stop of a driver who avoided a (fake) drug checkpoint was constitutional only because of the trial court’s finding that the driver committed a traffic infraction.
Sixth Circuit: “Carpenter’s act of exiting just after the checkpoint signs may be considered as one factor in the totality of circumstances, although it is not a sufficient basis standing alone to justify a seizure.” U.S. v. Carpenter, 462 F.3d 981, 987 (8th Cir. 2006).
Tenth Circuit: “We agree with the Eighth Circuit that a driver’s decision to use a rural highway exit after seeing drug checkpoint signs may serve as a valid, and indeed persuasive, factor in an officer’s reasonable suspicion analysis… But, standing alone, it is insufficient to justify even a brief investigatory detention of a vehicle.” U.S. v. Neff, 681 F.3d 1134, 1141 (10th Cir. 2012)
All well and good; but what the cop will do instead is just follow the car until it coasts through a stop sign, forgets to signal, or lets a wheel touch the yellow line. There’s your reason for a stop.
It’s possible, but typically DUI checkpoints around here involve no more than two officers. Maybe they’re different elsewhere.
Oh, around here they’re regular police conventions. Joint agency operations even, a couple dozen officers isn’t out of the norm.
Imho, they are unconstitutional. It boils down to interpretation, and my reading is that the 4th was designed to protect the public from harassment, fishing expeditions, and bullying seizures by the government. The current Supreme Court and other legal eagles here on the dope disagree. However, I’ve yet to see much on the justification for that position. “The law is the law because the law says it is” is a terrible argument when discussing a logical or ethical basis for the implementation of law.
One big issue with DUI checkpoints is that they are essentially useless for catching all but the most wasted of drunks. The usual justification for making a stop isn’t present, and all too often they are used to enforce other minor stuff like licensing and insurance violations. Now, this doesn’t happen at all stops or in all states, but I see no reason we should allow a general stop and search of the public without immediate and dire circumstances being present. That is usually covered, I believe, under the police power to detain someone. So DUI stops are not a proper detainment, nor an arrest, but if you try to avoid one, it can rapidly turn into one or the other. That is fishing, and searching without cause.
The cases you cited refered to fake drug checkpoints, as real ones are UNconstitutional, but I suppose the feds could set up DUI checkpoints on federal property.
Regardless states are not required to follow (specific, but consensus is no) federal courts on Constitutional law, the Supremacy Clause only applies to US SC rulings.
Yes, but if all (or most) the federal circuits are in agreement it’s likely that SCOTUS would rule the same way.
I heartily agree, which is why in my compliment to Rachellelogram I digressed to say I think checkpoint authorities should be restricted to the checkpoint’s official purpose – if it’s a DUI checkpoint, then they have to focus on DUIs. And if Foolish Fred is driving by at midnight with only one of his two headlights shining, they’d have to let the matter slide at that time because they’re not doing a Fix-It Checkpoint on that site at that time.
But that would still let them do DUI checkpoints, still let them improve public safety, and still get drinkers who are either too selfish or too inexperienced to reconsider the value of endangering the people (and property) around them.
–G!
Whiskey bottle!
Brand-New Car.
Oak Tree, you’re in my way
. --Allen Collins & Ronnie Van Zant (Lynrd Skynrd)
. That Smell
. Freebird: The Movie
I thought checkpoint locations in California had to be published in advance. Is that no longer true?
It seemed to me, when all this was new in CA, that there was something very mysterious and secretive about the debate. Some people were all up in arms against DUI check-points, fearing exactly this: That they would be fishing expeditions for all sorts of other stuff like this.
The California branches of the American Automobile Association claimed, in their quarterly magazine, that they had lobbied vigorously to ALLOW DUI checkpoints (because of the safety advantages) BUT with strong lobbying to protect all our rights against this fishing.
They published an article mentioning this, but it struck me at the time that it was utterly devoid of detail. They (the AAA) claimed to have helped the legislators develop a compromise that would work well, allow checkpoints, and carefully specify what the cops could and couldn’t do at a checkpoint – and then the article gave ABSOLUTELY NO DETAILS WHATEVER.
So that meant cops can check whatever they damn well want, since driver’s aren’t likely to know what the limits are? That’s the way it seemed.
What if Foolish Fred has both headlights out? Or a package of cocaine on the front seat? Or a dead body in the back seat? I think it would be pretty hard to delineate which violations of law should be overlooked.