Sobriety Checkpoints renamed Administrative Checkpoints
The sobriety checkpoint plan continues to be unveiled. The first step, in order to squeeze it into legality, is to rename it as “administrative checkpoints”. The next problem is that the state high court in 1988 ruled that our state constitution doesn’t permit motorists to be routinely stopped without suspicion or probable cause to believe the individual is doing something wrong. So law enforcement will have to get a warrant from the local Superior Court after giving the judge a plan for a specific location and time period. Then, there will be public notice of when and where the checkpoint will be.
This is where they loose me. I’m fairly confident that this information will be regularly broadcast on the internet, and checked by those in the habit of drinking and driving. So the plan looses much of it’s effectiveness there. Or an inebriated person could panic and decide not to stop. A person who failed to stop could be prosecuted for a gross misdemeanor. That could carry a maximum penalty of a year in jail and $5,000 fine. Which could easily beat the alternative of a repeat DUI offense.
It remains to be seen how well this will hold up in court. Washington state is one of only 11 states which does not already have this type of thing, and it has been upheld by the US Supreme Court. So the matter comes down to the Washington State constitution, which is very strong on personal privacy. One thing is certain - the paperwork involved will be extensive, so I hope it’s worth it. Within twenty days after the checkpoint program is completed, the warrant must be returned containing information on what hours the checkpoint was actually operable, the number of vehicles stopped, and, to the extent such information is available, the number of drivers investigated and arrested for DUI violations.
If you have any thoughts on the issue, for, against, or indifferent, please leave me a comment and let me know.
Leave a Reply