Legal Q about Checkpoints

[ChamberedRound]

This from today's Reading Eagle, emphasis by me:
http://www.readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=140432

5/27/2009

Police plan drunken-driving checkpoint in Berks County
Reading Eagle

Berks County police departments in the North Central Regional DUI Enforcement Program will conduct a sobriety checkpoint this weekend on an undisclosed road.

David R. Brickel, coordinator for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation's North Central Highway Safety Network, said the operations are on roads where large numbers of alcohol-related accidents and arrests have occurred.

Anyone who suspects a driver might be intoxicated can call 9-1-1, Brickel said.

Youths suspected of underage drinking should be reported to 888-under21 (888-863-3721), he said.

State and federal grants fund the program.

I thought the law stated that checkpoints are required to be disclosed due to 4th Amendment issues. Is this correct? Why are they announcing a checkpoint but not it's location?

[HiredGoon]

This from today's Reading Eagle, emphasis by me:
http://www.readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=140432



I thought the law stated that checkpoints are required to be disclosed due to 4th Amendment issues. Is this correct? Why are they announcing a checkpoint but not it's location?

Maybe they feel that announcing the very general area is enough disclosure?

I dunno.

[JCWohlschlag]

The best information I can find comes from a seemingly repetitive advertisement for lawyers, which states:

Police should advise the public of the sobriety checkpoint by making an announcement through local media, although they're not required to disclose the exact location.

This same advertisement can be found at:

• http://penn-duilawyers.com/sobrietycheckpoints.html, http://delawarecounty-duilawyer.com/...eckpoints.html, and http://montgomerycounty-duilawyer.co...eckpoints.html (all three seem to be the same site)
• http://pennsylvania-dui-drunk-drivin...eckpoints.html
• http://www.chestercounty-duilawyer.c...eckpoints.html

Although I have not found where the requirement to announce the checkpoint through the local media comes from, as I didn’t see it in the Tarbert-Blouse guidelines, or my layman interpretation of them anyway.

[LittleRedToyota]

some kind of advanced notice must be given per SCOTUS, but exactly what is required is left to the states.

this web page (http://www.iihs.org/laws/checkpoints.html) has a synopsis of the relevant cases for each state. for PA, they are:

Pennsylvania Upheld under state and federal Constitution. Commonwealth v. Yastrop, 768 A.2d 318 (Pa. 2001); Commonwealth v. Blouse, 611 A.2d 1177 (Pa. 1992); Commonwealth v. Tarbert, 535 A.2d 1035 (Pa. 1987); Commonwealth v. Fioretti, 538 A.2d 570 (Pa. Super. 1988); Commonwealth v. Myrtetus, 580 A.2d 42 (Pa. Super. 1990). Under Commonwealth v. Pacek, 691 A.2d 466 (Pa. Super. 1997), a checkpoint does not have to provide a legal means of avoidance. Checkpoint must be located in area where DUI is prevalent. Commonwealth v. Blee, 695 A.2d 802 (Pa. Super. 1997). Legal U-turn in advance of checkpoint does not justify a stop. Commonwealth v. Scavello, 703 A.2d 36 (PA. Super. 1997). A checkpoint conducted at a toll booth was held illegal because it was not conducted in accordance with state Supreme Court guidelines. Commonwealth v. Yashinski, 723 A.2d 104 (Pa. Super. 1988).

i have not looked up those cases to see exactly what they say.

michigan state police v. sitz...which is the case in which SCOTUS said checkpoints could allowed (if properly configured) even though they do violate the 4th amendment...is up there with the worst decisions in the history of SCOTUS.

the very idea that it is permissible to "carve out" exceptions to the constitution when it is in the "compelling interest of the state" to do so is one of the biggest intellectual frauds in all of history...

[Gunny1969]

"Legal U-turn in advance of checkpoint does not justify a stop"

This is pretty interesting. So, I see a checkpoint up ahead, I pull into a parking lot (or) driveway, turn around and head back the way I came - and they can't stop me? Regardless of the law, I'd bet they would pursue.

[ChamberedRound]

"Legal U-turn in advance of checkpoint does not justify a stop"

This is pretty interesting. So, I see a checkpoint up ahead, I pull into a parking lot (or) driveway, turn around and head back the way I came - and they can't stop me? Regardless of the law, I'd bet they would pursue.

And if they did stop you simply for choosing not to go through a checkpoint, you comply but DO NOT CONSENT, and when it's all over have a conversation with a lawyer.

[ihunt49]

"Legal U-turn in advance of checkpoint does not justify a stop"

This is pretty interesting. So, I see a checkpoint up ahead, I pull into a parking lot (or) driveway, turn around and head back the way I came - and they can't stop me? Regardless of the law, I'd bet they would pursue.

I do it at every checkpoint I come across. They can't pull you over for turning around but they will make a reason to pull you over. I usually get the " you crossed the yellow/white line" routine. It's all bullshit and a waste of time and resources.

[JCWohlschlag]

"Legal U-turn in advance of checkpoint does not justify a stop"

This is pretty interesting. So, I see a checkpoint up ahead, I pull into a parking lot (or) driveway, turn around and head back the way I came - and they can't stop me? Regardless of the law, I'd bet they would pursue.

As per Commonwealth v. Scavello:

Finally, the Commonwealth argues that avoidance of the roadblock is itself sufficient justification for the traffic stop. Again, we disagree. Although there is statutory authority in the Motor Vehicle Code at 75 Pa.C.S. § 6308 (b) for police to conduct roadblocks, and although this court to date has declined to rule this practice unconstitutional, see Commonwealth v. Tarbert, 535 A.2d 1035 (Pa 1987) (plurality opinion), Commonwealth v. Blouse, 611 A.2d 1177 (Pa. 1992) (implementing the guidelines set out in Tarbert), there is no requirement that a driver go through a roadblock.[1] Failing to go through the roadblock in and of itself, therefore, provides no basis for police intervention. However, as Superior Court points out, if police should observe a violation of the Motor Vehicle Code or have a reasonable suspicion that the vehicle which is avoiding the roadblock is involved in criminal conduct, such observation or suspicion, which can be articulated with particularity, would be the basis for a vehicle stop.

As long as your maneuvers to avoid the checkpoint are not in violation of the Vehicle Code, and the police do not see marijuana plants sticking out your passenger window (or direct observation of other illegal activity), your avoidance of the checkpoint is not a sole justification to stop you.

[RoyJackson]

I despise checkpoints...smacks too much of a totalitarian government. I don't drink and drive (was a bad boy in the past, but that was long before MADD and the strict crackdown). But I don't drive much at night, when the checkpoints are active.
If you really have problems with them, then contact your legislative reps to make them illegal.