Texas Checkpoint Overview
Checkpoint laws in Texas are based on a balancing of the government’s interest in reducing intoxicated drivers on the streets and the individual’s expectation of privacy. The law in Texas does not prohibit sobriety checkpoints per se but varies as to types of checkpoints.
Under state law, sobriety checkpoints may be conducted in the absence of reasonable suspicion or probable cause. These are administrative inspections, designed to ensure compliance with the law. Administrative inspection checkpoints generally follow the Supreme Court case of Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990), which held that traffic checkpoints did not violate the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Federal law tends toward a more rigid, rule-oriented approach. Under the federal constitution, traffic checkpoints are seizures that must be justified by a balancing approach similar to the one applied by the Supreme Court in Pennsylvania v. Mimms , 434 U.S. 106 (1977). Courts weigh the state’s interest in conducting the seizure against the individual’s expectation of privacy. The United States Supreme Court has recognized the constitutionality of sobriety checkpoints because the balance of interests favors sobriety checkpoints. However, checkpoint law varies among the states, and Texas do not always follow the federal approach to checkpoint law.
The rules for sobriety checkpoints, in turn, apply to DWI checkpoints. The First and Fourteenth Courts of Appeals have also approved vehicle safety checkpoints that occur when a decision to stop all cars is made according to a neutral formula previously determined. Other checkpoint requirements are not linked to sobriety checkpoints, and the checkpoint requirement reviewed was whether an exception to the fourth amendment requires probable cause or reasonable suspicion.
Checkpoint Types in Texas
In Texas, there are various types of checkpoints that law enforcement officials can establish for different purposes, and each type is subject to its own legal standards. Here are some common types of checkpoints you might encounter:
DUI checkpoints, also known as DWI checkpoints or sobriety checkpoints, and driving while intoxicated checkpoints, are traffic stops established for the purpose of checking for impairment. The legality of these DUI checkpoints is complex. Although U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz in 1990 and City of Indianapolis v. Edmund in 2000 effectively paved the way for DUI checkpoints as a legal tactic, Texas law criminalizes any roadblock that is intended to administer breath tests and urine tests. To enforce DWI laws in Texas, police cannot require a breath test, also known as an alcotest, without probable cause or a warrant.
The legality of DUI checkpoints in Texas hinges on the balancing of the intrusion the checkpoint causes vehicle occupants against the promotional benefits that checkpoint could possibly produce. For this reason, Texas law evaluates the legality of a DUI checkpoint based on several criteria:
Because DUI checkpoints are a relatively new innovation in Texas traffic law, the rules governing their use are not yet as firmly established, and they are subject to constant change as courts issue rulings on how checkpoints can be used in the state. Thus, you should keep up to date on the law regarding sobriety checkpoints if you are involved in the criminal justice system in Texas.
Two other commonly encountered checkpoints are the border and agricultural checkpoints. The border checkpoints exist because entering the state from Mexico is a matter of great concern to Texas law enforcement officials, who wish to seize illegal weapons, drugs, and criminals as they attempt to cross the border into the state. This goal is met with the border checkpoints, which are located several miles north of the Mexican border.
In 2015, the U.S Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that border checkpoints are unconstitutional due to their intrusion upon liberties. However, a 2019 Fifth Circuit Court ruling (United States v. Flores-Montano) implied that the law allowing for border checkpoints would remain in place, as Texas law gives law enforcement officials the right to search commercial vehicles at any place inside the state as long as the checkpoint is 25 miles or fewer from the border. Additionally, the Flores-Montano ruling stated that the U.S. is not required to follow Fourth Amendment requirements when it comes to the Mexican border.
Agricultural checkpoints exist for similar reasons. These checkpoints are designed to prevent the spread of agricultural pests from Texas into the state of Mexico.
In Texas, any checkpoint designed to enforce immigration laws is illegal. While immigration checkpoints have been legally challenged as recently as February 2019, state law does similarly not allow this type of checkpoint.
Legality of DUI Checkpoints
A DUI checkpoint is defined as a location where law enforcement officers screen vehicles for symptoms of impaired driving. The public relation defense for this practice is that it lowers DUI drunk driving rates and improves public safety. It’s important to note, however, that sobriety checkpoints and their legality are questioned by a number of people and experts. They argue that they don’t stop drunk driving more than random patrol stops, and they question the effectiveness and legality of sobriety checkpoints.
In Texas, DUI sobriety checkpoints are not legal. Under the Texas Constitution right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, without a probable cause, sobriety checkpoints are illegal. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects citizens from any unlawful search and seizures. In Sarasota V. Outerbridge, the Florida Supreme Court analyzed sobriety checkpoint stops in terms with respect to the Fourth Amendment. Their ruling was that sobriety checkpoint stops do not have enough probable cause, and are therefore unlawful.
Though sobriety checkpoints have been ruled as unconstitutional, the government still attempts to continue to use them, on the basis of a different legal theory. The enacted law is that in order for a police officer to stop a vehicle for questioning about DUI, there must be a reasonable suspicion of illegal conduct. Because the driver’s license and registration, as well as insurance, are required for safe travel; stopping someone for failure to produce these items does not require any suspicion. Putting up road blockers and flashing lights causes traffic back ups, which is a known impairment risk. Essentially, the system is designed to find impaired drivers, but is facilitating a risk for other drivers in the process. Also, officers are not trained in properly assessing sobriety as a patrol officer would be.
That said, there are some questions as to the real purpose of DUI checkpoints. A recent study conducted by Harel Borenstein and Rosanna Smart, economists from Israel and California/Stanford University respectively, showed that even though the sentiment is that driving under the influence increases accident rates, the data they researched concluded that the opposite is true. Rather than reducing accidents, these checkpoints, and other methods used to assess DUI, actually may increase the number of violations. After reviewing different programs developed in Michigan, the State of Washington, and California, the results show a non-correlation with DUI checkpoints and the reduction of traffic accidents.
Border Checkpoints and Legal Basis
Border checkpoints are different than other types of stops for two vital reasons. First, border checkpoints don’t require reasonable suspicion or probable cause as a basis for a lawful stop. In this way, it’s similar to a sobriety checkpoint. They are also similar in the fact that the officer must have probable cause to conduct an in-depth investigation. Officers may use SIU equipment to test for alcohol concentration, for instance, but that doesn’t mean they can then go onto conduct a standard DWI investigation. In order to do this, they require additional probable cause – such as slurred speech, etc.
Border checkpoints are the only exception to the reasonable suspicion rule, which is why you have to understand the legal mechanics behind why they’re considered an exception. Border patrol checkpoints are technically under federal jurisdiction. However, they lawfully extend into the territory of all states because the federal government owns the land on which they sit. This is the same reason maritime state borders work the way they do. Under federal law, the maritime border extends out to three nautical miles from the shore, and Texas recognizes that rule. But the three mile distance is simply because the federal government owns the land three nautical miles out into the ocean. That’s why the border checkpoints don’t run into problems about reasonable suspicion even though they’re within state territory.
The second reason that border checkpoints don’t have to conform to reasonable suspicion rules is that they aren’t considered an issue of sovereign immunity. The reasoning is that border checkpoints exist in the territory of all 50 states because their respective states recognized federal land as lawful within its boundaries. In other words, the majority of citizens have agreed to allow federal law enforcement the ability to stop vehicles without reasonable suspicion. This means that it’s not a sovereign immunity issue because people have agreed to the existence of a federal exception.
Your Rights at Checkpoints
If you are stopped at a checkpoint, the police officer has very limited ability to detain you. If a police officer approaches your car and asks you questions at a checkpoint designated for drunk driving, you should not be compelled to do anything against your wishes since you are presumed innocent until you are proven guilty.
If asked, you should show your driver’s license and proof of insurance. This is the only information about your identity that you are required to give them. Nothing else is legally required.
You may be detained longer than 20 minutes if the police officer believes you have been drinking. However, if you have not been drinking, you have a right to ask what you are detained for. The officer will inform you if they suspect that you have been drinking. However, you do not have to answer any questions that the officers may have for you. In fact , you are advised not to as they may take your answers out of context at a later date. Simply tell the officer that you wish not to answer any questions.
The police officer may also alert the breathalyzer officer to come and conduct the sobriety test. This should not take long, unless the officer suspects that you are attempting to leave the scene, in which case he may call for back up. Thirty minutes is generally the limit of legal cooperation for a Houston freeway stop.
If you feel like your rights have been violated longer than are legally allowed, you should contact an attorney immediately. They may file a motion for an illegal seizure on your behalf to prove that the officer did not comply with the law during the checkpoint process. If the officer does not comply, the traffic ticket case will be dismissed and charges will be dropped.
Controversy and Public Opinion
Checkpoint controversies have been a recurring subject in the news. The rise in roadblocks as a staple of law enforcement has heightened public awareness of their dangers. As roadblocks have become more common, so have the controversies that surround their use. For some, the very idea of checkpoints raises difficult questions of constitutional interpretation; for others, the real issue is finding out how to prove their innocence.
Some of those controversies revolve around issues of privacy. The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures." But should all motorists be subject to an "unreasonable" seizure simply because they are driving? What if there is no probable cause?
The debate over the effectiveness of checkpoints reflects frequently heated, but never resolved opinions. Some argue that roadblocks have little real effect on the public’s safety. Others suggest that a properly run sobriety checkpoint will save lives. And other say that random sobriety checkpoints just "annoy" the law abiding public.
There is a great deal of controversy associated with sobriety checkpoints. Opponents may be blind to their effectiveness, or incredulous of their legality, since there have been recent court challenges to sobriety checkpoints. But the recent Supreme Court rulings uphold their legality.
Recent scientific studies show that sobriety checkpoints are effective. Properly run sobriety checkpoints can reduce the number of drunk drivers on the road. As checkpoint technology improves, the number of drunk drivers caught by them will increase.
In 1990, one western state sobriety checkpoint study found that "vehicle checkpoints had substantial deterrent effects on drunken driving." 31.2% of the 1,162 motorists interviewed used alternative transportation methods: taxi, bus, or simply abstaining from drinking.
Perhaps the most remarkable conclusion from that study was that only 1.62% of the motorists interviewed had been to a sobriety checkpoint before. The conclusion was that alcohol-related crashes would be reduced by 9.6% and overall traffic fatality by 11.9% with just 50% of the target population participating. "If those motorists who were deterred were likely to have caused the accidents, the expected effect [of the sobriety checkpoints] might be even greater."
Legal Action and Challenging Checkpoints
On occasion, a motorist will stop at a checkpoint, only for it to be later determined that the stop was unlawful. What are the legal options? This is not a situation unique to border crossings. In certain cases, the motoring public in Texas may find itself face to face with checkpoints that were not properly constructed or where there has been no legal premise for the checkpoint. The legality of a checkpoint will, in turn, lead to questions about next steps for the unfortunate motorist who has been pulled over.
As previously mentioned in the Texas Checkpoint Laws section, the standard for checkpoints is set forth in the case of Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Delgado. Delgado is a recent case decided with regard to an unlawful entry into a landing site. Prior to Delgado, the standard was established in United States v. Martinez-Fuerte , which concerned a vehicle checkpoint. While Delgado was a close precedent, the standard test still applies to cars stopped at a checkpoint.
Delgado identified five relevant factors: (1) the location of the checkpoint; (2) the manner of its operation; (3) the extent and level of intrusiveness of the questioning; (4) the specific purpose of the interrogation; and (5) the procedure by which the decision to arrest was made.
Where checkpoints fail this standard, drivers may have the option of petitioning the case for suppression. A successful suppression order results in the inadmissibility of any evidence obtained during the illegal checkpoint stop, which in turn has the effect of dismissing the case itself. A close examination of the information provided to private citizens is necessary to ensure that correct information is presented at a checkpoint stop.