Advanced notification (Alerts) of DUI Checkpoints was recommended by United States Supreme Court under Chief Justice Rehnquist:
�Advance publicity is necessary to reduce the intrusiveness of the checkpoint and increase its deterrent effect.�
Many Americans are subjected to random stops for DUI Checkpoints every year. These Checkpoints are setup all across the nation, often without advance warning. There is a great controversy over the constitutionality of this use of checkpoints. Aside from the fact that they use a large amount of police resources and are not as effective as patrols, checkpoints also violate the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. Opponents of DUI Checkpoints have argued they constitute unreasonable search and seizure, and therefore are unconstitutional. The argument against checkpoints went all the way to the Supreme Court. In 1990, the Court ruled that Sobriety Checkpoints most probably were an infringement on Fourth Amendment rights, but that this detail was minor. The Supreme Court found that getting drunk drivers off the road and eliminating potential public safety risks was more important that the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seizure. In order for these to be legal, the Court set forth some guidelines for law enforcement.
Despite the Supreme Court’s surprising ruling and mention of guidelines, some states consider DUI Checkpoints Unconstitutional. Drivers are not stopped at sobriety checkpoints in Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin or Wyoming.
REMEMBER: DO NOT DRINK AND DRIVE!
Drinking any amount of alcohol and driving is extremely dangerous.
You should ALWAYS have a Designated Driver or take a taxi!
Copyright 2008-2017 AlertMedia, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
The information on this website is for general information purposes only.
Nothing on this website or associated pages, emails, texts or other communications should be taken as legal advice.