Random checkpoint
In a military context, checkpoints involve the setup of a hasty roadblock by mobile truck- or armored vehicle-mounted infantry to disrupt unauthorized or unwanted movement or military activity[1] and to check for valid identification and search for contraband, fugitives, or weapons that are not permitted in civilian hands.
[2] Patrol car-equipped police units regularly use random checkpoints to detect drivers who are suspected of impaired driving.
[2] Vehicular and pedestrian traffic that approach with the intent of passing flying checkpoints can be asked to produce identification and submit to a search of their persons or vehicle.
[3] A random checkpoint must be functional within 15 minutes of the unit's arrival on-site, and establish security teams 50–100 meters on both sides of the area to be controlled.
[4] Flying roadblocks and checkpoints are usually established for no more than a few hours, in order to decrease the possibility of insurgent attacks on them, as well as to maintain their effectiveness as a surprising, unexpected obstacle.
They are often set up late at night or in the very early morning hours and on weekends, and on holidays associated with parties (e.g., New Year's Eve) at which time the proportion of impaired drivers tends to be the highest.
Numerous websites host a database of checkpoints that are to occur based on information found in newspapers, the Internet and tips from visitors of such sites.
[11] For an operation involving a large number of police (typically 10–20) at a fixed location, the colloquial term "booze bus" is often used.
[14] Drivers who are found to have a preliminary reading of equal to or greater than 0.05% are usually arrested and taken to the police station or RBT/"booze bus" to undertake a breath analysis.
[citation needed] In all states and territories[15] the concept has been extended to make sobriety checkpoints also use "Random Drug Test (RDT) buses" (or "dual buses"), capable of testing drivers for a number of illicit drugs including cannabis (tetrahydrocannabinol), methamphetamine, and ecstasy (MDMA).
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” This fundamental right has a tense relationship with sobriety checkpoints.
In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote, "In sum, the balance of the State's interest in preventing drunken driving, the extent to which this system can reasonably be said to advance that interest, and the degree of intrusion upon individual motorists who are briefly stopped, weighs in favor of the state program.
Justice Brennan's dissenting opinion argued that the police had failed to show that the checkpoint seizures were a necessary tool and worth the intrusion on individual privacy.
"That stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving...is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion," he stated.
Although the U.S. Supreme Court has found sobriety checkpoints to be constitutionally permissible, ten states (Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming) have found that sobriety roadblocks violate their own state constitutions or have outlawed them.
Gen. 471 (1984, #84-902)) that devised "strict guidelines" for the legality of drunk-driving roadblocks, police departments and the California Highway Patrol (CHP) began using DUI checkpoints to apprehend drunk drivers.
However, this does not prevent police departments from attempting these types of checkpoints because they can be a significant source of revenue, particularly near festival periods like college spring break.
Because of some inconsistencies between the laws and actual police practice, some individuals maintain that DUI checkpoints are a violation of civil rights under the Constitution.
The court did not criticize any of the Ingersoll guidelines, nor did it recommend any others, seemingly making it the law of the land and leaving the decision of whether to permit sobriety checkpoints to the individual states.
In People v. Banks (1993) 6 Cal.4th 926, which was decided after Ingersoll and Sitz and incorporated a discussion of both cases in the opinion, the California Supreme Court held that '"advance publicity" is not an essential element of the constitutionally of a valid drunk-driving roadblock.
The survey found no deterrent effect: "To date, there is no evidence to indicate that this campaign, which involves a number of sobriety checkpoints and media activities to promote these efforts, has had any impact on public perceptions, driver behaviors, or alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes and injuries.
[25][26] Public Health Law Research, an independent organization, reported in a 2009 evidence brief summarizing the research assessing the effect of a specific law or policy on public health that there is strong evidence supporting the effectiveness of selective breath-testing sobriety checkpoints as a public-health intervention to reducing the harms associated with alcohol-impaired driving.
[31] Police at such a checkpoint may be armed with shotguns, submachine guns or semiautomatic carbines, in addition to their duty sidearms, depending on the laws and regulations in a jurisdiction.
