I have recently heard from a neighbor (I live in Kentucky-USA) that the local police will be setting up checkpoints for the next few weeks and randomly stopping people to administer alcohol/drug testing. Sounds like major BS. Is this legal? What will happen if I refuse? I never drive under the influence or with anything illegal in my car. Thanks for any replies!
Random stops/checkpoints
- Thread starter jp411896
- Start date
- Status
Prinsesse
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2003
- Messages
- 490
I'm sure the increase and advertising of it is due to 4th of July. They set up these checkpoints thru-out the year in the city I live in.
Yes, they can do this by law, it's just like pulling you over on suspision of drunk driving. They can administer a test if they believe you are under the influence while driving. If you refuse, than they will believe they have reason to check you. I have driven thru them before, they just shine the flash light at you to see if you appear intoxicated. Sometimes they hardly look at all. If you're sober, it's highly unlikely they will even question you, so I wouldn't worry.
Yes, they can do this by law, it's just like pulling you over on suspision of drunk driving. They can administer a test if they believe you are under the influence while driving. If you refuse, than they will believe they have reason to check you. I have driven thru them before, they just shine the flash light at you to see if you appear intoxicated. Sometimes they hardly look at all. If you're sober, it's highly unlikely they will even question you, so I wouldn't worry.
forgotten
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2001
- Messages
- 5,161
Dr. J
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2001
- Messages
- 1,423
See Indianapolis v. Edmond; Michigan Dept. of State Police; Delaware v. Prouse
The Supreme Court has upheld brief, suspicionless seizures at a fixed checkpoint designed to intercept illegal aliens, and at a sobriety checkpoint aimed at removing drunk drivers from the road. The Court has also suggested that a similar roadblock to verify drivers’ licenses and registrations would be permissible to serve a highway safety interest. However, the Court has never approved a checkpoint program whose primary purpose was to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing, e.g. the presence of drugs.
So, if the purpose of the stop is to find drunk drivers, the stops are legal, so long as there is a set pattern in stopping cars, every car or every 5th car, for example.
However, if the primary purpose of the stop is to look for evidence of drugs, such a policy would violate the 4th amendment.
The Supreme Court has upheld brief, suspicionless seizures at a fixed checkpoint designed to intercept illegal aliens, and at a sobriety checkpoint aimed at removing drunk drivers from the road. The Court has also suggested that a similar roadblock to verify drivers’ licenses and registrations would be permissible to serve a highway safety interest. However, the Court has never approved a checkpoint program whose primary purpose was to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing, e.g. the presence of drugs.
So, if the purpose of the stop is to find drunk drivers, the stops are legal, so long as there is a set pattern in stopping cars, every car or every 5th car, for example.
However, if the primary purpose of the stop is to look for evidence of drugs, such a policy would violate the 4th amendment.
Helpful Hint
What tips cops at checkpoints more than anything is "turnarounds". They'll actually post a lookout several hundred yards before the actual checkpoint; sometimes they'll even have a sign warning you there is a checkpoint, just to flush the 'fraidy cats out. As soon as they see someone 180, the cops know that one's holding or drunk/high, so they stop 'em.
What tips cops at checkpoints more than anything is "turnarounds". They'll actually post a lookout several hundred yards before the actual checkpoint; sometimes they'll even have a sign warning you there is a checkpoint, just to flush the 'fraidy cats out. As soon as they see someone 180, the cops know that one's holding or drunk/high, so they stop 'em.
MattPD
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2001
- Messages
- 4,043
I've read...I believe on this site about a state which posted a sign on the interstate about a sobriety checkpoint ahead. The trick is that the checkpoint was actually on the off ramp, and they got people exiting to avoid the check point. the head honcho cop is quoted as saying something like, "What do they think? We can close down the interstate? Ha!"
Is this correct Dr.J? I will attempt to find the article.
M
***EDIT***
I retract my above statement as I haven't been able to find the article anywhere, however I am leaving it up in case anyone else recognizes the article and can provide a link. Thanks all.
M
Is this correct Dr.J? I will attempt to find the article.
M
***EDIT***
I retract my above statement as I haven't been able to find the article anywhere, however I am leaving it up in case anyone else recognizes the article and can provide a link. Thanks all.
M
Last edited:
Dr. J
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2001
- Messages
- 1,423
From State v. Mack, a Missouri case...
The state Supreme Court ruled that efforts to avoid a perceived checkpoint "ahead" by veering onto an isolated offramp did create reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle....
however
This decision does not overrule Edmond in which all drug stops are considered illegal, nor does reasonable suspicion arise automatically when a driver exits onto a ramp after seeing "Drug Checkpoint Ahead."
So, on its own, simply turning around following a drug stop does NOT create reasonable suspicion to stop a car.
Mahan and I are looking for more concrete info on this, but it's pretty late on Friday night, so be patient
The state Supreme Court ruled that efforts to avoid a perceived checkpoint "ahead" by veering onto an isolated offramp did create reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle....
however
This decision does not overrule Edmond in which all drug stops are considered illegal, nor does reasonable suspicion arise automatically when a driver exits onto a ramp after seeing "Drug Checkpoint Ahead."
So, on its own, simply turning around following a drug stop does NOT create reasonable suspicion to stop a car.
Mahan and I are looking for more concrete info on this, but it's pretty late on Friday night, so be patient
Last edited:
AfterGlow
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2000
- Messages
- 4,544
What's next.... Police invasion of every 50th house in high crime areas because it will likely result in the discovery of some sort of illegal activity?
I have always been a firm believer that unless you're doing something suspicious, your vehicle should be allowed to travel the roadways (paid for by OUR tax dollars) without having to stop for random police searches or inspections. There's enough law breakers in the community to occupy our police force without them having to bother innocent people driving along and minding their own business.
I have always been a firm believer that unless you're doing something suspicious, your vehicle should be allowed to travel the roadways (paid for by OUR tax dollars) without having to stop for random police searches or inspections. There's enough law breakers in the community to occupy our police force without them having to bother innocent people driving along and minding their own business.
PottedMeat
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2001
- Messages
- 3,433
Jumbo said:
It may go on but nonetheless it is correct that turning off or around prior to reaching a checkpoint does not give the cops the legal authority to chase you down.
Dr J, this portion of a decision, from a state of Missouri appellate case no less, merely says the particular facts presented to the court didn't amount to reasonable suspicion. And the point is...? Do you not note a distinction between pulling off to a lawful exit and a U-turn, in and of itself a traffic violation? This is not what passes for stare decisis.
I think you're a little hasty and far too broad with this.
Mahan Atma
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2002
- Messages
- 4,522
A problem is that the evasive maneuver a driver takes to avoid a checkpoint may itself be illegal. Here's a typical example from a recent federal case out of the 4th Circuit, U.S. v. Scheetz, 293 F.3d 175 (4th Cir. 2002):
The facts concerning the stop of Scott Brooks's car in July 1998 are as follows. On July 10, 1998, the New Hanover County Sheriff's Department conducted a checkpoint in Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina. The law enforcement officers erected two signs on Salisbury Street visible to eastbound motorists approaching the check-point. Both signs read "K-9 CHECK POINT AHEAD" and were placed approximately 100 feet apart. (J.A. 95). The checkpoint itself--where law enforcement officers actually were stopping motorists--was visible from the location of the first sign.
The operational plan to be implemented by the checkpoint was two-fold. Law enforcement officers stationed at the checkpoint itself were to request and examine motorists' driver's licenses and vehicle registration cards and be alert for impaired drivers. In addition, narcotics officers observing from unmarked vehicles nearby were to watch for motorists who threw items out of their vehicles or who made u-turns or other evasive actions upon seeing the "K- 9 CHECK POINT AHEAD" signs. The narcotics officers planned to investigate any vehicle involved in such conduct.
The narcotics officers were seated in unmarked police vehicles on Pelican Drive just beyond the first checkpoint sign and about 100 feet from the checkpoint itself. Pelican Drive runs parallel to Salisbury Street and the two streets are separated by a grass median. Crossing the median is not permitted, as indicated by double yellow lines on Salisbury Street.
Although the two signs alerted motorists that there was a "K-9 CHECK POINT AHEAD," in fact, there was no K-9 officer at the checkpoint. A K-9 officer was present and available to assist, however, in a vehicle parked near the narcotics officers who were observing the activities from Pelican Drive.
The narcotics officers stationed on Pelican Drive observed a burgundy Pontiac Grand Am approach the checkpoint signs *183 and then execute an illegal u- turn across the grass median after passing the first checkpoint sign but before reaching the checkpoint itself. Upon observing that conduct, the narcotics officers pursued the Grand Am and executed a stop.
Three narcotics officers approached the stopped car. Narcotics officers Almeida and Kennedy approached the driver's side and requested a driver's license and vehicle registration card from the driver, Scott Brooks. Narcotics officer Blackmon approached the passenger's side and immediately signaled to narcotics officers Almeida and Kennedy that he smelled the odor of marijuana emanating from the interior of the car. Narcotics officers Almeida and Kennedy smelled the same strong odor at the same time.
Upon smelling the odor of marijuana, the narcotics officers directed Scott Brooks to step out and stand at the rear of the car. The narcotics officers sought Scott Brooks's consent to search the car but Scott Brooks declined to give his consent. Based on the strong odor of marijuana emanating from the car, the narcotics officers conducted a search of the car, and, during the search, narcotics officer Kennedy discovered marijuana in a knapsack inside the car. Upon the discovery of the marijuana, the narcotics officers arrested Scott Brooks and conducted a search of his person during which they recovered and seized $2,725.
[2] According to Scott Brooks, the district court erred in allowing into evidence the evidence seized following the stop of his car because the stop of his car was part of a checkpoint whose primary purpose was drug interdiction, and, therefore, the checkpoint was unconstitutional. City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 44, 121 S.Ct. 447, 148 L.Ed.2d 333 (2000) (holding that a checkpoint whose primary purpose is drug interdiction is unconstitutional). In making this argument, Scott Brooks posits that the government should not be permitted to use his illegal actions in seeking to avoid the illegal checkpoint as a basis to justify the stop.
[3] [4] We find nothing improper with respect to the stop and subsequent search of Scott Brooks's car and person. Because of his vehicular flight prior to arriving at the checkpoint, Scott Brooks was not seized for Fourth Amendment purposes by the show of police authority by virtue of the checkpoint signs or the checkpoint itself. California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 626-29, 111 S.Ct. 1547, 113 L.Ed.2d 690 (1991) (no seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes when a defendant did not acquiesce in the show of police authority); id. at 629, 111 S.Ct. 1547 ("Assuming that [the officer's] pursuit ... constituted a 'show of authority' in enjoining Hodari to halt, since Hodari did not comply with that injunction he was not seized until he was tackled."); Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593, 599, 109 S.Ct. 1378, 103 L.Ed.2d 628 (1989) (holding that for purposes of determining whether the roadblock worked a Fourth Amendment seizure, the controlling considerations are whether: (1) the motorist "was meant to be stopped by the physical obstacle of the roadblock"; and (2) the motorist "was so stopped"); Latta v. Keryte, 118 F.3d 693, 700 (10th Cir.1997) (holding that a fleeing motorist was not seized for Fourth Amendment purposes until the law enforcement officers were successful in stopping the motorist at a roadblock); Bella v. Chamberlain, 24 F.3d 1251, 1256 (10th Cir.1994) (holding that, unless the law enforcement officer's show of authority succeeds in restraining a person, the person has not been seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment). Consequently, Scott Brooks's commission of a traffic infraction provided a basis for the stop of his car. *184 Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 810, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996) ("As a general matter, the decision to stop an automobile is reasonable where the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred."). Once the car was properly stopped and the narcotics officers smelled marijuana, the narcotics officers properly conducted a search of the car. United States v. Morin, 949 F.2d 297, 300 (10th Cir.1991) (holding that, because marijuana has a distinct smell, "the odor of marijuana alone can satisfy the probable cause requirement to search a vehicle or baggage"). Finally, the money found on Scott Brooks's person was properly admitted as evidence seized pursuant to a lawful arrest. Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 762-63, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969) (holding that a search incident to a lawful arrest does not violate the Fourth Amendment); United States v. Nelson, 102 F.3d 1344, 1346 (4th Cir.1996) (same). Accordingly, the district court did not err when it denied Scott Brooks's motion to suppress.
The facts concerning the stop of Scott Brooks's car in July 1998 are as follows. On July 10, 1998, the New Hanover County Sheriff's Department conducted a checkpoint in Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina. The law enforcement officers erected two signs on Salisbury Street visible to eastbound motorists approaching the check-point. Both signs read "K-9 CHECK POINT AHEAD" and were placed approximately 100 feet apart. (J.A. 95). The checkpoint itself--where law enforcement officers actually were stopping motorists--was visible from the location of the first sign.
The operational plan to be implemented by the checkpoint was two-fold. Law enforcement officers stationed at the checkpoint itself were to request and examine motorists' driver's licenses and vehicle registration cards and be alert for impaired drivers. In addition, narcotics officers observing from unmarked vehicles nearby were to watch for motorists who threw items out of their vehicles or who made u-turns or other evasive actions upon seeing the "K- 9 CHECK POINT AHEAD" signs. The narcotics officers planned to investigate any vehicle involved in such conduct.
The narcotics officers were seated in unmarked police vehicles on Pelican Drive just beyond the first checkpoint sign and about 100 feet from the checkpoint itself. Pelican Drive runs parallel to Salisbury Street and the two streets are separated by a grass median. Crossing the median is not permitted, as indicated by double yellow lines on Salisbury Street.
Although the two signs alerted motorists that there was a "K-9 CHECK POINT AHEAD," in fact, there was no K-9 officer at the checkpoint. A K-9 officer was present and available to assist, however, in a vehicle parked near the narcotics officers who were observing the activities from Pelican Drive.
The narcotics officers stationed on Pelican Drive observed a burgundy Pontiac Grand Am approach the checkpoint signs *183 and then execute an illegal u- turn across the grass median after passing the first checkpoint sign but before reaching the checkpoint itself. Upon observing that conduct, the narcotics officers pursued the Grand Am and executed a stop.
Three narcotics officers approached the stopped car. Narcotics officers Almeida and Kennedy approached the driver's side and requested a driver's license and vehicle registration card from the driver, Scott Brooks. Narcotics officer Blackmon approached the passenger's side and immediately signaled to narcotics officers Almeida and Kennedy that he smelled the odor of marijuana emanating from the interior of the car. Narcotics officers Almeida and Kennedy smelled the same strong odor at the same time.
Upon smelling the odor of marijuana, the narcotics officers directed Scott Brooks to step out and stand at the rear of the car. The narcotics officers sought Scott Brooks's consent to search the car but Scott Brooks declined to give his consent. Based on the strong odor of marijuana emanating from the car, the narcotics officers conducted a search of the car, and, during the search, narcotics officer Kennedy discovered marijuana in a knapsack inside the car. Upon the discovery of the marijuana, the narcotics officers arrested Scott Brooks and conducted a search of his person during which they recovered and seized $2,725.
[2] According to Scott Brooks, the district court erred in allowing into evidence the evidence seized following the stop of his car because the stop of his car was part of a checkpoint whose primary purpose was drug interdiction, and, therefore, the checkpoint was unconstitutional. City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 44, 121 S.Ct. 447, 148 L.Ed.2d 333 (2000) (holding that a checkpoint whose primary purpose is drug interdiction is unconstitutional). In making this argument, Scott Brooks posits that the government should not be permitted to use his illegal actions in seeking to avoid the illegal checkpoint as a basis to justify the stop.
[3] [4] We find nothing improper with respect to the stop and subsequent search of Scott Brooks's car and person. Because of his vehicular flight prior to arriving at the checkpoint, Scott Brooks was not seized for Fourth Amendment purposes by the show of police authority by virtue of the checkpoint signs or the checkpoint itself. California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 626-29, 111 S.Ct. 1547, 113 L.Ed.2d 690 (1991) (no seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes when a defendant did not acquiesce in the show of police authority); id. at 629, 111 S.Ct. 1547 ("Assuming that [the officer's] pursuit ... constituted a 'show of authority' in enjoining Hodari to halt, since Hodari did not comply with that injunction he was not seized until he was tackled."); Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593, 599, 109 S.Ct. 1378, 103 L.Ed.2d 628 (1989) (holding that for purposes of determining whether the roadblock worked a Fourth Amendment seizure, the controlling considerations are whether: (1) the motorist "was meant to be stopped by the physical obstacle of the roadblock"; and (2) the motorist "was so stopped"); Latta v. Keryte, 118 F.3d 693, 700 (10th Cir.1997) (holding that a fleeing motorist was not seized for Fourth Amendment purposes until the law enforcement officers were successful in stopping the motorist at a roadblock); Bella v. Chamberlain, 24 F.3d 1251, 1256 (10th Cir.1994) (holding that, unless the law enforcement officer's show of authority succeeds in restraining a person, the person has not been seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment). Consequently, Scott Brooks's commission of a traffic infraction provided a basis for the stop of his car. *184 Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 810, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996) ("As a general matter, the decision to stop an automobile is reasonable where the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred."). Once the car was properly stopped and the narcotics officers smelled marijuana, the narcotics officers properly conducted a search of the car. United States v. Morin, 949 F.2d 297, 300 (10th Cir.1991) (holding that, because marijuana has a distinct smell, "the odor of marijuana alone can satisfy the probable cause requirement to search a vehicle or baggage"). Finally, the money found on Scott Brooks's person was properly admitted as evidence seized pursuant to a lawful arrest. Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 762-63, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969) (holding that a search incident to a lawful arrest does not violate the Fourth Amendment); United States v. Nelson, 102 F.3d 1344, 1346 (4th Cir.1996) (same). Accordingly, the district court did not err when it denied Scott Brooks's motion to suppress.
Dr. J
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2001
- Messages
- 1,423
Clearly, in this case, the illegal turn provided complete justification for the stop.
However, it would appear that someone who commits no traffic violation, but simply seeks to legally avoid a checkpoint by exiting early or getting off the interstate and then back on going the opposite direction would not, by this simple act alone, raise enough suspicion to warrant a stop.
Think of it this way--how would officers know that someone exiting isn't simply doing so because this coming exit is the one the driver would take anyway, or that some other reason has caused the driver to turn around? There has to be some other justification for the stop.
So, in answer to the first question at hand, if you approach a checkpoint and can legally turn around or get off the interstate without committing a traffic violation, there are no grounds for a stop.
PottedMeat
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2001
- Messages
- 3,433
^^^
And that, my friends, is the last word on that.
And that, my friends, is the last word on that.
psychetool
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2003
- Messages
- 6,186
If you ever run into one of these situations, pretend to run out of gas and then just get your contraband and gasoline container and head for the nearest gas station - this HAS worked before to avoide a drunk driving charge.
- Status