Angiulo: Was Worcester’s Weekend Sobriety Roadblock Constitutional?

Monday, August 05, 2013

Leonardo Angiulo, GoLocalWorcester Legal Expert

Did you get pulled over this weekend in a Saturday night sobriety checkpoint in Worcester County? How does this square with your Constitutional rights? Photo: versageek/Flickr.

According to my Facebook newsfeed, the Massachusetts State Police announced a sobriety checkpoint would be conducted somewhere in Worcester County during the overnight hours of Saturday August 3rd, 2013 and Sunday August 4th. The practical reality is that, wherever this thing is located, many drivers will be on their way home, or to the next bar, or to someone's house after the bar and they will see blue strobe lights in front of them. They will be placed in line with other motor vehicles. They may have a conversation with screening officers who will then decide whether to order individuals into the evaluation area for Field Sobriety Testing or allow them to continue on to their destination.

What are your rights?

In order to place this situation in context, keep in mind that ordinarily police cannot stop your car for no reason. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights frown upon that sort of thing. In Massachusetts, the rationale is that it is okay, and Constitutional, for sobriety checkpoints to occur because everyone on the road gets stopped, not just individuals at the discretion of the officers on duty that night.

Now, there are two distinct reactions to the words “Massachusetts State Police” and “Sobriety Checkpoints.” On the one hand are people who say that this is an important tool in protecting the public from drunk drivers. And on the other hand are people that are pretty sure this is an example of warrantless search and seizure ordinarily reserved for militarized countries and fascist nations. If you believe you fall into that second category, nothing I say next about Supreme Court decisions or objective standards and policies for officers will likely change your mind. No matter your belief, it's important to know what's happening and what, if any, legal explanation there is for the actions.

Picture yourself leaving a bar on Saturday night

Imagine this . . . there you are leaving your favorite drinking establishment and you point your car towards home. You take the same roads you've taken since you were driving home from soccer practice as a kid. However, instead of orange slices you have been consuming tasty alcoholic beverages. Maybe you've been careful; maybe you haven't had too much. But when the bright flood lights of a Massachusetts State Police Sobriety Checkpoint appear on the roadway in front of your car, the Trooper won't know for sure how many you've had. The only thing that he or she can know is that they can smell liquor on you. To restate, the process goes like this: a) you drive down a street, b) law enforcement has a roadblock set up in front of you, c) after waiting in line you speak with the screening officer, d) after that conversation you are either directed into the interview area or told to drive on, and e) if you are directed into the interview area you are asked to perform field sobriety testing and offered a breath test.

A warrantless seizure? Yes.

For a freeze frame, there is no question that the moment your vehicle is stopped at a roadblock a warrantless seizure of you and your car has occurred. Not only is this a warrantless seizure, but at that point it is a seizure without any evidence of wrongdoing. As recently as 2009, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in Commonwealth v. Robert Murphy that sobriety checkpoints are distinct from suspicionless traffic stops, which are unconstitutional, because of the objective standards used, the minimal intrusion on operators and the importance of limiting the damage caused by drunk drivers. Consider the logic here: it's okay to conduct warrantless seizures without suspicion so long as everyone on the road is being stopped. Interestingly, this exception to the general rule of the Fourth Amendment is currently limited by to the search for illegal aliens and drunk drivers.

In a case from 2000, Commonwealth v. Hector Rodriguez, the Supreme Judicial Court considered whether or not to expand the use of roadblocks to combat drug trafficking and other items like illegal firearms. The court decided roadblocks could not be used for such searches because it was too much like the broad powers of the British over colonial Americans that the Fourth Amendment and Article 14 were designed to prevent. In addition, the court stated the danger of drunk drivers was a direct danger and the harm of contraband like drugs was too far removed from its presence in cars to justify the use of similarly styled roadblocks. This ruling was based, in part, on the historical context of our state and federal constitutions and the importance of preserving individual's rights to be free from arbitrary searches and seizures.

Worth it for public safety?

And here we have the problem for many people. The court is saying drunk drivers are so dangerous that we are suspending the Constitution to address this threat. But don't worry, we're doing it to everyone equally so it's okay. Some people have a real problem with justifying the elimination of a fundamental Constitutional principle by saying “it's not just you, no one in this situation has this right anymore.” And on the other side, we have people that strongly believe drunk driving is an endemic threat to public safety and the government has an obligation to protect us.

Leonardo Angiulo is an Attorney with the firm of Glickman, Sugarman, Kneeland & Gribouski in Worcester handling legal matters across the Commonwealth. He can be reached by email at [email protected].

Enjoy this post? Share it with others.

Email to a friend Permalink