DUI Checkpoint Stop Lawyer in San Jose, CA Ingersoll Guidelines and Section 2814.2

The statutory duty to stop, and its limits

Vehicle Code section 2814.2 provides that a driver of a motor vehicle shall stop and submit to a sobriety checkpoint inspection conducted by a law enforcement agency when signs and displays are posted requiring that stop (Vehicle Code 2814.2). The same section constrains what may happen at one. Subdivision (b) provides that notwithstanding sections 14602.6 and 14607.6, an officer or other authorized person shall not cause the impoundment of a vehicle at a sobriety checkpoint if the driver's only offense is a violation of section 12500.

Why the standard is different from a normal stop

In Ingersoll v. Palmer the California Supreme Court held that within certain limitations a sobriety checkpoint may be operated in a manner consistent with the federal and state Constitutions, reasoning that the primary purpose of the stop was not to discover evidence of crime or to make arrests of drunk drivers but to promote public safety by deterring intoxicated persons from driving (Ingersoll v. Palmer (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1321). The court therefore concluded that the propriety of such stops is determined not by the standard pertinent to traditional criminal investigative stops, but by the standard applicable to investigative detentions and inspections conducted as part of a regulatory scheme in furtherance of an administrative purpose.

The guidelines the court set out

The opinion enumerates functional guidelines, and each is a factual question about how a specific checkpoint was run. The decision to establish a checkpoint, the selection of the site and the procedures for its operation should be made and established by supervisory law enforcement personnel, and not by an officer in the field, a requirement the court said is important to reduce the potential for arbitrary and capricious enforcement. Motorists should not be subject to the unbridled discretion of the officer in the field as to who is stopped; instead a neutral formula such as every driver or every third, fifth or tenth driver should be employed. Primary consideration must be given to maintaining safety for motorists and officers, with proper lighting, warning signs and signals, and clearly identifiable official vehicles and personnel, and the checkpoint should be operated only when traffic volume allows it to be conducted safely (Ingersoll v. Palmer).

Location, timing, official appearance and publicity

The court said sites chosen should be those most effective in achieving the governmental interest, on roads having a high incidence of alcohol related accidents or arrests, with safety factors also considered, and that the location should be determined by policy-making officials rather than officers in the field. On the appearance of the operation it said the roadblock should be established with high visibility, including warning signs, flashing lights, adequate lighting, police vehicles and the presence of uniformed officers, because advance warning reassures motorists that the stop is duly authorized. On publicity it said advance publicity is important to the maintenance of a constitutionally permissible sobriety checkpoint because it both reduces the intrusiveness of the stop and increases the deterrent effect.

How long a lawful stop lasts, and what the officer may do

The court described the permitted scope narrowly. Each motorist stopped should be detained only long enough for the officer to question the driver briefly and to look for signs of intoxication, such as alcohol on the breath, slurred speech, and glassy or bloodshot eyes. If the driver does not display signs of impairment, the driver should be permitted to drive on without further delay; if the officer does observe symptoms of impairment, the driver may be directed to a separate area for a roadside sobriety test, at which point further investigation would be based on probable cause and general principles of detention and arrest would apply. The opinion records that the average detention for cars stopped was 28 seconds, and 6.13 minutes for those who took field sobriety tests. It also records that a sign announcing the checkpoint was posted sufficiently in advance to permit motorists to turn aside, and that under the operational guidelines no motorist was to be stopped merely for choosing to avoid the checkpoint (Ingersoll v. Palmer).

What happens after a checkpoint arrest in San Jose

Once a driver is directed to secondary screening, the ordinary DUI framework takes over. Section 23612 supplies the chemical testing obligation and states that a preliminary alcohol screening test is a field sobriety test and a further investigative tool, that the person must be advised the screening test does not satisfy the chemical test obligation, and that the person may refuse the screening test (Vehicle Code 23612). and the DMV states that a hearing must be requested within 10 days of receipt of the order (California DMV). A criminal charge from a San Jose checkpoint is answered at the Hall of Justice at 190 West Hedding Street (Santa Clara County Superior Court), and the operational records behind the checkpoint — the supervisory authorization, the neutral formula used, the signage plan and the publicity — are documents rather than assumptions. This page is general information about California law and is not legal advice. Anyone arrested at a checkpoint should speak with a licensed California attorney, and the attorney who advertises on this site can be reached at the number posted here.