LAKE OF THE OZARKS, Mo. — Love them or hate them, law enforcement sobriety checkpoints are a fact of life: backed by state law and a Supreme Court ruling. But the tension between an individual’s constitutional rights and his or her obligation to cooperate with law enforcement has come under scrutiny in recent days, following a viral Internet video depicting a Rutherford County, Tenn. Sheriff’s Deputy interacting with a 21-year-old driver on July 4, 2013.
The driver, Chris Kalbaugh, claims in the video that Deputy A.J. Ross violated Kalbaugh’s constitutional rights at a sobriety checkpoint.
Whether or not Kalbaugh is correct, local attorney Duane Randle points out that drivers’ constitutional rights do not fly out the window when they stop at a checkpoint.
Randle, of Price and Randle Injury Attorneys in Osage Beach, advised, “If you are stopped at a checkpoint, you have a constitutional right to remain silent. You should consider exercising that right whether you have had anything to drink or not. You do not have to answer any questions other than stating your name. The only actions you must do are to produce your license and proof of insurance. However, under a recent, and in my opinion, incorrect United States Supreme Court decision, a subject must now invoke their right to remain silent, or else their silence may be used as an inference of guilt.”
“That was a dark day for the Constitution indeed,” he mused.
Randle also said drivers should not act belligerently towards the officers who are enforcing the checkpoint: “A dose of common sense is in order... There is no need to intensify a routine stop by being a jerk. At the end of the day, most officers just want to do their job and make it home.”
Randle commented on several other areas of concern that some have raised in light of Kalbaugh’s video.
Note: Randle stipulated that none of his comments should be taken as legal advice, and readers should consult with an attorney for more information.
The 4th Amendment – How Much Searching and Seizing Is Too Much?
“Generally, I recommend that people do not consent to searches of their vehicles. Such is our right, and we should exercise it,” Randle said.
The 5th Amendment – Answering Questions That Might Incriminate You
“You are not required to answer potentially incriminating questions,” Randle noted. “If you have not been drinking, I would recommend saying so. A polite, ‘I would like to speak with an attorney before I answer any questions’ is a good reply. On the other hand, admitting that you had one or two beers is not in and of itself incriminating: one 12-oz beer is not sufficient to cause intoxication—and it may explain the odor of alcohol on your breath.”
Can Officers Request Photo ID Without Suspicion of Criminal Activity?
“In Missouri, officers generally have to have some reason to stop and request identification. However, this can be very vague. By statute, police can stop any person abroad whenever there are reasonable grounds to suspect that he is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime and demand of him his name, address, business abroad and whither he is going,” Randle said.
“An officer can stop a vehicle or approach a stopped vehicle for a ‘safety check.’ At this point, the officer can request identification, usually in the form of your driver’s license.
“At a checkpoint, an officer may, and usually will ask for your ID. You are required to carry your driver’s license with you when operating a motor vehicle.”
Randle concluded, “Properly conducted checkpoints have been upheld all over the country. If a quick license and insurance check is all that you are subjected to, there is really no reason to start busting out the Constitution. If it goes downhill from there, that’s when you had better know your rights... If you run into an irrational or abusive officer, the situation can become dicey. I strongly advise maintaining your composure, or you risk giving an officer an arguably valid reason to detain you.”
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of sobriety checkpoints in 1990, with its 6-3 ruling in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote the majority opinion, and in it, he agreed that a Fourth Amendment “seizure” does occur when a vehicle is stopped at a checkpoint. But he contended that such seizures are reasonable.
“No one can seriously dispute the magnitude of the drunken driving problem or the states' interest in eradicating it. Media reports of alcohol-related death and mutilation on the nation's roads are legion,” he wrote. An expert witness at the trial testified that as a whole, sobriety checkpoints resulted in drunken driving arrests of approximately one percent of all motorists stopped.
Rehnquist also observed that in a previous case, the court had “disapproved random stops made by Delaware Highway Patrol officers in an effort to apprehend unlicensed drivers and unsafe vehicles.” Those stops, he pointed out, had been statistically less fruitful than sobriety checkpoints had proven to be.
It is worth noting that in a recent Morgan County Sheriff’s Department notification about a planned sobriety checkpoint, the department stated, “The primary purpose of a DWI Checkpoint is to deter drunk driving.” The notice also mentioned the checkpoint was an effort at “ensuring drivers have a valid driver’s license.”
Associate Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a dissenting opinion in the 1990 case, in which he stated, “The most disturbing aspect of the Court's decision today is that it appears to give no weight to the citizen's interest in freedom from suspicionless, unannounced investigatory seizures... On the other hand, the Court places a heavy thumb on the law-enforcement interest by looking only at gross receipts instead of net benefits.”
Stevens referred to sobriety checkpoints as “elaborate, and disquieting, publicity stunts,” and “symbolic state action,” reacting to the sentiment expressed by some that checkpoints and even the Supreme Court’s deliberations about them would bring the issue of drunk driving to light and would act as a deterrent to individuals who might get behind the wheel after drinking too much.
Ultimately, Stevens appealed to the Constitution 13 years ago, just as Chris Kalbaugh did less than a week ago.
Stevens concluded his opinion, “Unfortunately, the Court is transfixed by the wrong symbol—the illusory prospect of punishing countless intoxicated motorists—when it should keep its eyes on the road plainly marked by the Constitution. I respectfully dissent.”
More than a decade later, the debate rages on. Regardless, drivers in Morgan County may find themselves greeting an officer at a checkpoint the Sheriff’s Department has announced it will be setting up somewhere in the county, sometime this week.
