Guidelines for DUI Checkpoint

A lot of Chester County DUI defendants have questions about a sobriety checkpoint. The standard free legal checkpoint in Pennsylvania was addressed in, Commonwealth v. Blouse. This case, from 1992, was where the Supreme Court suggested guidelines to ensure the constitutionality of a police conducted roadblock.  The court stated 

1)  the very decision totally drunk driver roadblock as well as the decision as to its time and place should be matters reserved for prior administrative approval, removing police discretion;

2)  the route and time selected should be one, faced a local experience, that is likely to be traveled by intoxicated drivers; and

3)  the decision of which vehicles to stop should be in accordance with objective standards prefixed by administrative decision. 

But, the rule does not stop there.  A Chester County DUI lawyer should be aware of the additional case law that creates nuances and additional sharpening of the lines.  The court further held that "substantial compliance with the guidelines is all that is required to reduce the intrusiveness of the search to a constitutionally excepted level." In Commonwealth v. Worthy from 2008, the Supreme Court held that the guidelines were followed when officers in the field stopped all vehicles, but temporarily suspended the checkpoint and let traffic pass when it became congested, and there was no unreasonable delay. 

Additional Cases on Checkpoints

The Superior Court has held that there is no requirement that the motorist be afforded an opportunity to avoid the checkpoint by advanced Publis city; warning signs in the road are enough. This was from 1997 in a case called Commonwealth v. Pacek. In 2001, Commonwealth v. Yastrop, reaffirmed Blouse by a four – three margin that sobriety checkpoints are constitutional in Pennsylvania. This case has a good review of the law. 

Very importantly, in 2006, a panel of the Superior Court upheld seatbelt and inspection compliance checkpoints, even though seatbelt violations are only a "secondary" offense. In Commonwealth v. Kendall, of 1994, the Superior Court upheld a DUI conviction against allegations that "even though the state police were to stop all vehicles that enter the checkpoint, they did not follow their prefixed standard and were allowed to exercise their own discretion" where preliminary procedures were followed in the evidence that showed all vehicles, except the state police cruiser, were actually stopped during the operation. In Commonwealth v. Yashinski, from 1998, where a trooper was using a Turnpike toll booth as a defacto checkpoint (what a diabolical move), the stop was ruled to be illegal. 

In 1999, another case noted that a driver going toward a checkpoint and making an illegal U-turn to avoid it and was subsequently pursued by the police and arrested for DUI, the court ruled that no reasonable ground existed to believe a violation occurred. Avoidance of a checkpoint alone is not sufficient. Checkpoint site selection was valid where there were 21 DUI arrests on a 1 mile stretch of roadway in Franklin County over 26-month period. Thus in this case from 2012, the specific statistics warranted a checkpoint. Finally, in 1997, and Commonwealth v. Blee, the checkpoint was invalidated where there is insufficient testimony concerning why a particular checkpoint location was chosen.