The Problem with DUI Checkpoints
DUI checkpoints are traffic roadblocks which are randomly placed on the highways or busy intersections, to help arrest DUI offenders. At these checkpoints, police screen and conduct sobriety tests on motorists. You can either opt for a blood or breath test, and if found culpable of a DUI, then the due penalties are given, and only an experienced DUI attorney can save the day.
However, do these checkpoints ascertain 100% sober driving on the roads? According to research by The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), these checkpoints have helped to reduce alcohol-related fatalities by about 18-24%.
Although these statistics are exciting, critics still feel that DUI checkpoints are not the best way to combat alcohol-related accidents. After their introduction in the USA, critics argued that these checkpoints violate the Fourth Amendment, and went on to challenge their introduction in court. However, in 1990, The US. Supreme Court upheld the checkpoint’s legitimacy arguing that these rules only minimally interfered with the driver’s privacy. Since then, DUI checkpoints have been a norm on our roads.
According to critics, these checkpoints cause long traffic jams, and only a few arrests are made since most motorists avoid areas pinpointed for the checkpoints. Additionally, DUI checkpoints are not cost-effective.
In this article, we will discuss some of the shortcomings of having DUI checkpoints, while analyzing the progress of the states that don’t have the checkpoints.
States That Have Illegalized DUI Checkpoints
Although most states have appreciated DUI checkpoints for the past 25 years, they have been in existence, about ten states are still adamant with the regulations. These states include; Iowa, Minnesota, Idaho, Michigan, Rhode Island, Washington, Texas, Oregon, Wyoming, and Wisconsin.
The state of Alaska is an exception that doesn’t recognize DUI rules and checkpoints under any circumstance. These states mostly pose unaffordability as the leading cause for the reluctance, but in some cases, the decision is just irrational.
Problems with DUI checkpoints
Economically Unviable
The Federal Government spend a considerable chunk of their budget trying to regulate drunk driving. It is estimated that about $100 million is generated annually to facilitate responsible driving. About 30% of the total helps in funding the actual crackdown, for instance, checkpoints. This is according to reports by The IRPA (Investigative Research Program Analysis). Additionally, this campaign also receives external funding from NGOs like MADD (Mothers against drunk driving) and other agencies.
Apart from reducing the levels of drug-related road accidents, what other economic advantage does the government get after spending all these amounts on a single department? Although much money is collected from the checkpoints, the resultant doesn’t match the amount of funding made by the government. The government ends up making money from other illegal arrests on the checkpoints, while the actual reason for their presence generates little or no money. If you look at these statistics at an economic-conscious angle, then you will agree that the government is allocating too much of their money to a project whose returns don’t match the input.
Excessive Overtime Incentives
In 2015 alone, every DUI checkpoint spent about $16,200 on overtime fees for officers alone, which accounts for about 90% of the funds allocated to every sobriety checkpoint. In return, the government made slightly over $60 million from towing fees and fines at the checkpoints. About half of the total was used to fund the overtime salaries of the officers involved in the crackdown. Usually, officers only frequent checkpoints while not on a regular shift, to have a share of the overtime funds.
Additionally, checkpoints are allocated more officers than those recommended by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. This is in a move to reward all the officers with the overtime incentives. According to state data, some of the checkpoints may have an average of up to 20 officers, triple the recommended number of maximally six officers per checkpoint. These figures are at times exaggerated that in one time a neighboring Riverside County allocated about 40 officers per checkpoint. Even after such exaggerated allocations, the officers only average about three arrests a night or even lesser.
Several independent organizations, including seasoned DUI Attorneys, have tried to find out the cause of the over-aggressiveness of these officers at the checkpoints. According to the National Motorists Association, the overtime incentive is the key catalyst of this aggressiveness. Most police officers feel pressured to hit their ticket targets only to help them earn excessive money, but not to curb DUI.
No Guarantee That Only DUI Suspects Are Arrested At the Checkpoints
Typically, only people who violate the DUI rules and regulations of a given state should be arrested at DUI checkpoints. However, that is not always the case at the checkpoints. The officers often impound drivers for other technical reasons, like lack of a license, expired insurance, or other offenses that are unrelated to DUI, while most DUI suspects drive away. In most cases, these technical offenses mainly face the poor, and if the car is impounded, then getting it back attracts enormous fines, and if one is unable to pay, the vehicle goes forever.
In an analysis, The UC Berkeley Investigative Reporting Program reviewed the numerous police reports data collected, and all the financial reports of all the sobriety checkpoints that are government-funded for the past two years. According to the research: These checkpoints are mainly located near or within Hispanic neighborhoods. Primarily this is because Hispanics are the most vulnerable, not in the case of DUI, but for other technical offenses. In most of the cities where Hispanics are the majority, police are said to seize cars on an average of three times the other cities. For instance, in Southgate, where only 8% of the residents are non-Hispanic, the police impounded on average, 86 vehicles per operation, most of which didn’t violate any DUI offense. However, the officer on duty will fill the ticket, and the overtime payments increase.
Such arrests are against a 2005 Federal appellate ruling that criminalized arrests on motorists solely for unlicensed driving. In the last year alone, police impounded over 24,000 cars at different checkpoints. This is a high number compared to the 3,200 reported DUI crimes on the same checkpoints. Shockingly these disparities keep growing annually and have recorded a total of 53% growth since 2007. John Bowman, a representative from the National motorists association, summarizes this whole debate by saying “DUI checkpoints are generally not for detecting DUI offenders but are globally used to help police arrest technical and insurance offenders to help the government collect revenue. “
Drunk Drivers Easily Evade These Checkpoints
Some rules and regulations must be followed before a sobriety checkpoint is set up, and a DUI attorney should use them as the base for a DUI case. They include:

• The operation’s supervisor should notify the public of the location, duration, and time of the checkpoint, together with the regulations controlling the activity. This should be done in a written form and should not be presented by a junior officer.
• Advanced and conspicuous warnings- The approaching motorist should get a good indicator of an impending halt to ensure a safe stop, and before any confrontation, a formal introduction should be made.
• Systematic criteria should be used to stop cars. On arrest, the police should be able to justify the pattern they used to stop your car specifically. This helps to reduce profiling for driving a given car brand.
• Detention should be within a limited period.

In most cases, police tend to defy such regulations, and hence, arrests are random without prior notification, making the checkpoints a lousy idea. On the other hand, if the police followed these regulations, then the serial drunken drivers would always be on the lookout for a possible checkpoint and evade the route. DUI checkpoints are highly conspicuous by design, and the law requires prior publicity before setting up. Hence everyone is aware of their presence, making it very easy to escape. This leaves the DUI offenders at large, and they can cause fatal accidents on their escape routes.
There Are More Effective Ways to Create Awareness on DUI, Than the Checkpoints
If you follow most of the police agencies press releases, the main goal of DUI checkpoints is not to arrest people or for public safety, but to create awareness. However, there are better ways to develop this awareness. For instance, mothers through an umbrella body Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), have been very instrumental in campaigning against drunk driving.
Today, almost everyone is aware that it is illegal to drive under the influence. Additionally, the government, through the government media action campaign, has played a significant role in sponsoring high profile awareness. Hence the famous tagline ‘don’t drink and drive.’ These forms of outreach are less expensive and more constitutional compared to the checkpoints.
Although the government wants to combat DUI fully, it is almost evident that a checkpoint is not the most appropriate approach to curtail the vice. This way, the government should strive to enhance awareness using better strategies that are more effective.