DUI Los Angeles

Criminal lawyers are necessary if you have been arrested for drunk driving or driving under the influence or DUI after being stopped at a DUI Sobriety Checkpoint.

The Checkpoints may be operated by one police department or by law enforcement officials from several local police departments calling themselves a special DUI task force.

DUI in California

Recent DUI Statistics: The first weekend of the 2011 Holiday Season of the Avoid 100 anti-DUI holiday campaign throughout Los Angeles County resulted in more DUI arrests for driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol than last year. Police Officers from 100 Los Angeles County police officer agencies made 598 drunk driving arrests the first weekend of the Holiday Checkpoint Saturation Patrol Season. 510 DUI arrests were made last year.

After your arrest, the district attorney will file a complaint in the county courts of California or in Los Angeles County charging you with DUI and possibly other vehicle code offenses like driving on a suspended license. Before you do anything on your case, speak with Los Angeles DUI Defense Attorney and Former DUI prosecutor Richard Wagner.

All DUI Sobriety Checkpoints cases in Southern California should be looked at in light of filing a defense motion to suppress evidence obtained at the sobriety checkpoint tending to show alcohol-related impairment.

These motions filed in court challenge the lawfulness of the sobriety checkpoint under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and force the District Attorney to show that the checkpoint conformed to the guidelines set forth by the California Supreme Court.

The Drunk Driving Laws For DUI Checkpoints

(1) DUI attorneys at our firm find out how the decision to establish your sobriety checkpoint, the selection of the site, and the procedures for the operation of your DUI checkpoint was made and whether it was established by supervisory law enforcement personnel;

(2) Our DUI lawyers find out whether motorists were stopped according to a neutral formula, such as every third, fifth or tenth driver. All citizens should be concerned that a motorist should not be subjected to the unbridled discretion of the officer in the field on the subject as to who is to be stopped.

(3) Our drunk driving attorneys find out whether adequate safety precautions were taken, such as proper lighting, warning signs, and signals, and whether clearly identifiable official vehicles and personnel were used;

(4) Our drunk driving lawyers find out whether the location of the DUI checkpoint was determined by a policy making official, and find out if that decision was reasonable. i.e., Was the DUI checkpoint on a road having a high incidence of alcohol-related accidents or DUI arrests;

(5) Our DUI Attorneys know DUI checkpoint laws require the time the checkpoint was conducted and its duration must reflect "good judgment" on the part of law enforcement officials;

(6) Our DUI Lawyers examine the DUI checkpoint to see whether it exhibits sufficient indicia of its official nature (to reassure motorists of the authorized nature of the stop);

(7) DUI Law requires law enforcement to minimize the average length and nature of each detention; and

(8) Our DUI Lawyers know whether the checkpoint was preceded by publicity.

DUI LAW also requires DUI checkpoint staff and officers to be instructed that drivers must not be stopped by for avoiding the checkpoint. DUI attorneys must discover whether this instruction was given to the DUI Task Force during training.

Was there a road sign announcing the checkpoint? Was this sign placed sufficiently in advance of the checkpoint that motorists could choose to avoid the checkpoint?

As California Supreme Court Justice Broussard stated, "the Fourth Amendment is highly inexpedient to law enforcement, yet to date we have not allowed mass detentions on the theory that these might prove useful in combating crime. I see no basis for distinguishing a drunken driving roadblock from any other mass detention established to prevent crime or apprehend wrongdoers."

The DUI attorneys here have a distinct advantage because we have experience defending DUI checkpoint cases during our over 80 years of combined experience. We identify the crucial parts of your DUI defense that other DUI defense lawyers may miss.

These experienced DUI attorneys look to formulate a solid defense for you by showing that the Checkpoint violated your rights under article I, section 13 of the California Constitution and the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure.

The purpose of the Fourth Amendment is to safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions by governmental officials. With the right criminal lawyers looking for the right evidence in your favor, your criminal lawyer can make the case that the Checkpoint was actually an Unconstitutional Roadblock and you were stopped illegally and subjected to a warrantless search and seizure.

History of Drunk Driving Checkpoint Cases

In 1987, the California Supreme Court ruled that sobriety checkpoints are lawful under the state and federal constitutions if they are conducted within certain limitations. In order for a sobriety checkpoint, to be elevated from unconstitutional roadblock status, each must be set up and regulated according to specific Constitutional guidelines.

In 1990, the United States Supreme Court upheld the use of sobriety checkpoints, stressing the individual states' strong interest in eliminating the drunk driving, noting the slight intrusion on drivers if subjected to a brief stop at the checkpoint, and the fact that it is for politically accountable officials to decide which reasonable law enforcement techniques should be used and that checkpoints are a reasonable technique.

In 1993, the California Supreme Court said advance publicity is not a prerequisite to a constitutionally valid sobriety checkpoint, but the Court also said in footnote number 3, "nothing in our decision should be construed to suggest that any of the eight guidelines, including advance publicity, are not relevant to a consideration of the intrusiveness of a sobriety checkpoint stop."

In 2000, the United States Supreme Court ruled that vehicle checkpoints for the purpose of interdicting unlawful drugs violated the Fourth Amendment of United States Constitution, because the primary purpose of the checkpoints was indistinguishable from the general interest in crime control. The primary purpose of a sobriety checkpoint must be to "prevent and deter conduct injurious to persons and property."

The United States Supreme Court noted that it has upheld brief, suspicionless seizures at a sobriety checkpoint aimed at removing drunk drivers from the road in 1990, and in other limited instances, but the United States Supreme Court has never approved a checkpoint program whose primary purpose was to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing. The fact that it may have a secondary purpose of keeping impaired motorists off the road does not make such a checkpoint Constitutional.

The use of a checkpoint is controversial because of the real danger it poses to liberty interests, including the right to be secure in our persons, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures as stated in the Fourth Amendment of United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

If your DUI case involves being stopped at a DUI checkpoint, contact the lawyers with over 80 years of combined experience at Gold, Leftwich & Wagner right away.