Late hour DUI Checkpoints are a well known tactic used by law enforcement in their efforts to snare impaired drivers. However, the Florida Highway Patrol recently announced that they intend to start a new form of checkpoints. Coming soon to a roadside near you… “Daytime drivers license & vehicle inspection checkpoints.” This means that cars, trucks and motorcycles will be stopped and drivers detained for the sole “presumptive” purpose of ascertaining their drivers license status and potential equipment violations. Of course, this new tactic is nothing but an excuse to nab someone who has an outstanding Pinellas warrant for their arrest or emits the odor of alcohol originating from their breath. In the alternative, the smell of burnt marijuana emanating from a vehicle will likely result in a thorough search leading to an arrest for drug charges.
Keeping the System Honest….
Exposing Unlawful Police Tactics
Our office has previously written about this same “game plan” employed through the newly legislated seat belt law. See: Arrests Certain to Flow from Seatbelt Violations. We have also written about the multitude of hoops that a police agency must jump through to ensure that their DUI Checkpoint is legal. See: DUI Checkpoints Not Always Legal. In fact, a lawyer in our office has been credited with establishing precedential case law that mandates the suppression of evidence secured at an illegal DUI Checkpoint. See: Pinellas Criminal Defense Attorney Says DUI Checkpoint Illegal – Court Agrees.
When Can the Police Lawfully Stop a Motorist?
A well established constitutional principle is that a police officer may not stop a motor vehicle unless he observes a traffic infraction to occur in his presence or has reasonable suspicion to believe that the driver has committed a crime, is committing a crime, or is about to commit a crime. Previous efforts by the police to circumvent this doctrine have failed. In Delaware v. Prouse, a police officer stopped a vehicle absent “reasonable suspicion”for the limited purpose of verifying the drivers license and registration status. Subsequent to the stop of the vehicle, law enforcement fortuitously saw marijuana in plain view. In reviewing the officer’s right to stop the car, the United States Supreme Court found that the public interest in making certain that motorists are licensed and cars are properly registered justified the “slight” inconvenience to this motorist. However, the court concluded the the stop was illegal because the officer had unbridled discretion to subjectively determine which automobiles to stop. This made the stop of Mr. Prouse unconstitutional.
The subsequent United States Supreme Court decision of Illinois v. Lidster found “Information Seeking Checkpoints” to be constitutionally valid. However, it is important to note that the facts in Lidster are far and away different from the checkpoints that the Florida Highway Patrol intends to begin implementing. In Lidster, a police officer stood in the middle of a highway, handing out flyers that sought out information regarding a recent hit and run accident that had resulted in a fatality. Mr. Lidster attempted to avoid being stopped and police pursued him because of his efforts to circumvent the stop of his vehicle.Once stopped, the police detected alcohol on the motorist’s breath and subsequent investigation led to his arrest for DUI.
FHP Reliance on Lidster May Result in Dismissed Charges
It is important to note that in reviewing the Lidster facts, the United States Supreme Court reasoned:
“The relevant public concern was grave. Police were investigating a crime that had resulted in a human death. No one denies the police's need to obtain more information at that time. And the stop's objective was to help find the perpetrator of a specific and known crime, not of unknown crimes of a general sort”
In our view, the “Daytime drivers license and vehicle inspection checkpoints” contemplated by the FHP are more akin to those vehicle stops previously determined to be unconstitutional in City of Indianapolis v. Edmond . The court in Edmond was adamant that checkpoint programs whose primary purpose were indistinguishable in combatting general crime control are an unlawful violation of the fourth amendment. The Supreme court stated:
“ We decline to suspend the usual requirement of individualized suspicion where the police seek to employ a checkpoint primarily for the ordinary enterprise of investigating crimes. We cannot sanction stops justified only by the generalized ever present possibility that interrogation and inspection may reveal that any given motorist has committed some crime.”
Our Continued Efforts in Safeguarding Motorists’ Rights
If the stop of your motor vehicle leads to a criminal charge, call us for a free consultation. We can closely examine the lawfulness of the police activity that resulted in the stop of your vehicle. In most circumstances, an unlawful stop will translate into the suppression of evidence that can very well lead to the dismissal of charges.
At Russo & Russo, we are Pinellas Attorneys who represent clients charged DUI and other criminal offenses arising out of St. Petersburg, Clearwater, and the Pinellas County area. Former state prosecutors who can help!
Free Consultation: 727-578-0303
No need to come to our office… Get advice right over the phone
Possible Criminal Defense Solutions: www.defensehelp.com
Helpful Pinellas County DUI info at : www.duistpetersburglawyer.com
Related Video Links:
Pinellas DUI Roadblock / Sobriety Checkpoint Arrest?
Do I Really Need an Attorney for a DUI Charge?
Pinellas County Traffic Ticket Lawyer
Related Links:
Can Your Pinellas DUI Be Reduced?
Comments