DUI Checkpoints: Their Legality in the State of Michigan
History of DUI Checkpoints
Often referred to as sobriety checkpoints, DUI checkpoints are traffic stops conducted at a particular location in a search of intoxicated motorists. This practice has been recognized by other states as a reasonable exception to the Fourth Amendment with regard to illegal searches and seizures.
It is also important to point out that unlike other roadblocks, a sobriety checkpoint is setup with the specific purpose of monitoring sobriety in motorists, who may cause an unjustified injury to themselves and others . In this respect, DUI checkpoints are similar to school zone or construction zone camera monitoring systems. Because these cameras can only capture law-breaking behavior specific to the purpose of the camera’s placement (motorists are speeding in a school zone or motorists are entering a construction zone against posted warnings), maintaining focus on the purpose of the sobriety checkpoint is necessary to avoid a Fourth Amendment violation.
Statutory Backing of DUI Checkpoints in Michigan
DUI checkpoints, which are police stops on a public roadway designed to detect drunk or impaired drivers, remain a mostly unregulated police practice subject to only a few specific legal guidelines. In Michigan, three main factors dictate the legality of DUI checkpoints: court rulings at the Michigan state level, legislative guidelines, and constitutional rights.
In 1990, the Michigan Supreme Court handed down a landmark ruling in the case of Baker v. Miller. The Court ruled that, "Absent compliance with legislative guidelines and supervisory standards, sobriety checkpoints are violative of the state and federal constitutions and cannot be deemed a reasonable exercise of the police power." This important ruling gave impetus to the Michigan Legislature to draft guidelines for DUI checkpoints.
But while the Legislature has set forth guidelines, these guidelines only bind the police as to maintaining a "supervisory" and "programmatic" role in DUI checkpoints. In other words, the Legislature’s guidelines do not define the scope of law enforcement’s investigative powers or otherwise prevent police agencies from conducting stops without a warrant or consent to search. Police in checkpoints remain authorized to detain individuals and obtain evidence through investigatory stops and questioning.
Beyond state-level guidelines, the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment also regulates the right of law enforcement to conduct DUI checkpoints. The Fourth Amendment protects citizens against unreasonable seizure of their persons. The standard for a lawful seizure is probable cause to believe that a crime has occurred. Thus, the Fourth Amendment does not provide constitutional safeguards against DUI checkpoints that restrict only the time and place of stops. But the Fourth Amendment does protect citizens against DUI checkpoints on the basis of unlawful detention or unreasonable search and seizure. Certain thresholds have been established by the courts to determine the legality of DUI checkpoints under the Fourth Amendment.
The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that, to be deemed lawful under the Fourth Amendment, DUI checkpoints must: All DUI checkpoints must comply with these legal guidelines to be lawful on either federal or state grounds. A DUI stop or arrest that fails to comply with these guidelines leaves the police agency liable to legal challenges, including civil liability.
Constitution and Legal Ramifications of DUI Checkpoints
According to the United States Supreme Court, DUI checkpoints are not unconstitutional. Drivers’ Fourth Amendment rights were at the heart of a case where the Utah Supreme Court ruled that the use of DUI checkpoints violates the state’s state constitution. State’s Fourth Amendment rights protect individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures. However, the United States Supreme Court ruled otherwise in Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, holding that DUI checkpoints are legal under the 4th Amendment. Subsequent rulings left certain parameters in effect for the use of sobriety checkpoints by law enforcement. Today, sobriety checkpoints can be established in certain circumstances to aid in the detection and apprehension of impaired drivers.
Sitz sets the standard for DUI checkpoints nationwide, specifically in Michigan and 10 other states, where checkpoints are considered unconstitutional by state courts. Michigan courts refuse to consider DPS sobriety checkpoints "roadblocks" or "safety checkpoints. Rather – while the U.S. Constitution applies throughout all states – Michigan courts have denied roadside sobriety checkpoints using the Michigan state constitution as grounds for their decision. In Michigan, sobriety checkpoints are not considered lawful.
The Michigan Supreme Court held in People v. McGhee that drivers have a "right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures without suspicion." Since then the Michigan Supreme Court has Franklin in 2000, then in 2003 invalidated another sobriety checkpoint in Atkin, 468 Mich 278 (2003). Following the McGhee decision, the Michigan Supreme Court has only rejected sobriety checkpoints in Michigan.
It is unclear how Michigan would react should the U.S. Supreme Court reverse its decision since the U.S. Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction. The U.S. Supreme Court defines its own set of criteria to determine if a decision is now out of step with national standards. It is up to the State of Michigan to decide if they will be bound by the U.S. Supreme Court decision or continue to rule a different way.
In 1999 the Michigan Supreme Court "overruled" its previous decisions and upheld the constitutionality of checkpoints addressing the legislative powers of the state. In 2003, The Court of Appeals of Michigan United States v. Wren, the court addresses the constitutionality questions again, noting the "broad police powers" of the state. However, in 2005 the Court of Appeals of Michigan decisively held that a sobriety checkpoint was unconstitutional in Michigan in United States v Greer.
Michigan Courts and Law Enforcement
Michigan law enforcement agencies do not generally utilize DUI checkpoints due to their legal status. The Michigan Supreme Court has firmly established that DUI checkpoints are considered by the state’s highest court to be an unreasonable search and seizure under the Michigan Constitution. The primary requirement under Michigan law with respect to DUI checkpoints is that they be [both] reasonable and lawful.
That said, this individual state also mandates that it is the responsibility of each individual jurisdiction to set its own practice concerning intoxicated drivers. For these jurisdictions that still choose to utilize them, checkpoints may be established, and there are guidelines for making these types of arrests.
In 1990, the Grand Traverse County Prosecutor’s Office issued a report with proposed guidelines for sobriety checkpoints. Establishing a sobriety checkpoint in Michigan was described as a three-step process:
- The checkpoint must be announced in advance of its establishment – preferably the day prior. The announcement must be made in all media, including television, radio, print, and the Internet.
- The location of the checkpoint must not be "random" but rather a predetermined location where arrests must include predesignated criteria.
- The checkpoint must be staffed by at least two officers trained in the administration of sobriety testing.
As for the arrests attempted and/or conducted at such checkpoints, each officer must have, at the time of the arrest, particularized knowledge that such person has committed a crime. These criteria do not mandate that each officer personally observe the violation itself, but only require that the officer(s) have observed sufficient evidence indicating that such a crime has been committed.
Public Reception to DUI Checkpoints and Their Consequences
Public opinion on the matter is divided; however, the majority of Michigan residents do support DUI checkpoints. Of the people who oppose this practice, 51% state the police catch too many innocent people for every DUI they catch. A significant number of people believe that DUI checkpoints create more problems than they solve because they put the public in serious danger when roadblocks are in the middle of traffic .
The impact DUI checkpoints have made on DWI arrests throughout the nation is substantial, with approximately 6,000 Americans dying annually from drunk driving. Even though most of these deaths occur in states without DUI checkpoints, states like Texas with DWI checkpoints have seen these stops save thousands of lives. Even reportedly the citizens of Michigan support this method of keeping the roads safe. These stops have prevented literally thousands of lives lost to drunk driving.
Legal Rights When Stopped at a DUI Checkpoint
The following rights apply to motorists who pass through a DUI checkpoint in Michigan:
You DO have the right to ask the officer if you are free to leave. If you are NOT detained, then the officer must let you go.
If you are being detained, and questioned, you have the right to refuse to answer questions, but you MUST provide your license, registration and proof of insurance.
It is a CRIME in Michigan to refuse to provide your name, address, and date of birth to an officer. If you are asked for your license and you do not have one, you must provide other identifying information (if you do not have other form of ID, you must give the officer your name, address, and date of birth).
You are NOT required by Michigan law to tell the officer where you are coming from or where you are going. You also have the right to request to speak to an attorney.
Constitutional Challenges of DUI Checkpoints
While there are very few circumstances when a DUI checkpoint would be deemed unlawful, under certain conditions, it can still be disputed in court. The most common way to legally challenge the validity of a DUI checkpoint is demonstrating that there was no obvious lawful reason for its presence. For example, if you were stopped at a DUI checkpoint in an area where there is little to no history of drunk driving schedule violations, then you may have a case for challenging the DUI checkpoint stop in court.
Another example of when a police officer might be acting outside of the severe limited circumstances in which DUI checkpoints are legal occurs when a DUI checkpoint is set up a distance from an area where there is high traffic and history of DUI arrests . It would be considered reasonable in court if a police officer were to set up a DUI checkpoint in the immediate vicinity of a nightclub on a Friday or Saturday night, when chances of drunk driving will be higher. However, if a DUI checkpoint is set up two miles away from the nightclub, where there is statistically little risk of DUI offenses, the DUI checkpoint could be challenged in court.
A person cannot be penalized simply for being legally intoxicated at a DUI checkpoint, but the arrest indirectly creates a record with the Secretary of State, which could result in an automatic driver license suspension or sanction.