Guides for Police When Conducting Checkpoints

Professional Police Traffic Stops While the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees that individuals have the right to be free from undue searches and seizures, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that police actually have the right to conduct traffic stops and checks, such as DUI checkpoints. The case of Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990) held that "petitioners' highway sobriety checkpoint program is consistent with the Fourth Amendment" based on precedent cases such as United States v. Martinez-Fuerte and Brown v.

Texas, in which it was constitutionally upheld that police had the right to stop and conduct searches so long as the intrusion was not excessive and the search deemed reasonable based on attenuating factors. For a checkpoint search to be reasonable there has to be probable cause: thus, police will conduct a balancing test to gauge the driver's sobriety before conducting a search. (If the driver fails the sobriety test it is deemed that a search is warranted).

However, the seizure part of the checkpoint has raised eyebrows, as this is completely random and every car is made to stop in order to accommodate the police officers' wishes. While some have argued that this constitutes an undue seizure and thus a violation of the Fourth Amendment, the Supreme Court in Michigan Dept. of State Police v.

Sitz (1990) has decided that a state has a duty to protect its streets and guarantee the safety of its citizens and if setting up a dragnet to conduct checkpoints facilitates this end, then it is not a violation of the U.S. Constitution. Essentially, it is a matter of state authority overriding personal authority because of the good reason of protecting the public that is at the heart of the operation, according to the decision of this case.

The key elements that establish a traffic stop as legally defensible and professional are that it must be minimally intrusive, the location for the checkpoint must be chosen based on data collected by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (which issues guidelines on how to conduct stops and checks), the operation of the checkpoint must follow the guidelines of the Traffic Safety division and the checkpoint should be publicized. The case of Ingersoll v.

Palmer (1987) as decided by the California Supreme Court as put out a number of points that can be followed in order to ensure that a check is conducted legally and professionally by police. These include: requiring officers conducting the check to defer decisions to supervisors and follow accordingly; adopting a neutral strategy for stopping vehicles (for example, every second, third or fourth vehicle, etc.

-- this method is another example of how the police officer conducting the check is not making the decisions based on personal whim); making sure that the reason for the check is to ensure public safety, first and foremost; making sure that the chosen checkpoint site is one that supervisors agree is a place where considerable illegality has been occurring; making sure that limits are in place as to how and when the check will be conducted; making sure.