DUI Checkpoints in Los Angeles
DUI Checkpoints in Los Angeles are becoming very common, especially around the holidays. Police departments near Los Angeles also use DUI checkpoints to investigate and arrest DUI drivers. Los Angeles DUI Attorney is very experienced in fighting DUI checkpoint cases because police have to follow many rules to have a legal DUI checkpoint. Without following court guidelines regarding DUI checkpoint setup, all arrests at Los Angeles DUI Checkpoints can be illegal.
There are several ways how Los Angeles DUI lawyer can help you fight arrest at DUI Checkpoints. First, unless the police set up the DUI Checkpoints as told by the California courts, the checkpoint will be invalid. Second, because no bad driving was observed at a checkpoint, the DUI Los Angeles Attorney can challenge your arrest in court by proving that your DUI arrest was not proper.
To fight DUI checkpoint cases, a DUI lawyer in Los Angeles can file a motion to suppress evidence of the DUI. A motion to suppress evidence is also known in California by its statutory name, a PC 1538.5 motion because it is codified in California Penal Code section 1538.5. Often, DUI checkpoint cases are easier to win because the police have to follow many rules to set up the checkpoint according to law and they do not follow all the rules. There are several distinct ways police can set up the checkpoint wrongly and in violation of California state law. Los Angeles DUI attorney will help you determine if the DUI Checkpoint was not set up correctly and help you fight your Los Angeles DUI arrest.
The law about the standards of setting up sobriety checkpoints comes from the case of Ingersoll v. Palmer (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1321.
In that case, the Supreme Court of California decided that 8 separate factors determine if a DUI Checkpoint is set up correctly.
- Whether the decision to establish the checkpoint, the selection of the site and the procedures for operation are established by supervisory law enforcement personnel;
- Whether motorists are stopped according to a neutral formula;
- Whether adequate safety precautions are taken, such as proper lighting, warning signs, and signals, and whether clearly identifiable official vehicles and personnel are used;
- Whether the location of the checkpoint was determined by a policymaking official and was reasonable;
- Whether the time the checkpoint was conducted and its duration reflects good judgment on the part of law enforcement
- Whether the checkpoint exhibits sufficient indicia of its official nature
- Whether the average length and nature of detention are minimized
- Whether checkpoint is preceded by publicity.
When police do not comply with the requirements of Ingersoll v. Palmer, the DUI Checkpoints is invalid and the Los Angeles Superior Court can dismiss the DUI case against you. For example, if the police do not mark the checkpoint with clear signs or if the checkpoint is set up by not a supervising officer, the checkpoint can be invalid. In the case of People v. Alvarado, the court decided that the procedure to set up a checkpoint did not come from a supervisory law enforcement personnel and suppressed the evidence of DUI, causing a dismissal. The Alvarado court decided that the police did not present sufficient evidence why the location of the checkpoint was chosen – there was no evidence that the intersection for the checkpoint had a higher number of alcohol-related accidents. The DUI checkpoint location in the Alvarado case was chosen randomly, only the day was chosen specifically, but that was not a sufficient reason according to the Alvarado court.
In 1990 the Supreme Court of the United States decided that sobriety checkpoints were constitutional using a similar analysis to California Supreme Court (Michigan v. Slits 496 U.S. 444).
It is important to point out that all the factors stated above must be established by the People at a hearing. Failure to establish one of the factors will be a basis for dismissing a DUI case. For instance, if the police forget to testify about how long the drivers kept during the DUI Checkpoints, the government must dismiss that DUI case.
Many police agencies in Los Angeles County will violate the Ingersoll rules by not providing sufficient notice of the DUI checkpoint. The purpose of the DUI Checkpoints is to deter drivers from driving drunk – not to catch those who do. A notice of the DUI Checkpoints at an intersection where there were many DUI collisions in the past, will deter DUI drivers from going through that intersection, thus lowering the chances of a DUI collision in the future. The notice requirement is critical. When police fail to state specifically where the checkpoint will be set up, your DUI case can be dismissed. Often, Los Angeles DUI attorneys read police use the general statement “DUI Checkpoints will be set up in the city of Downey”. This is not a specific enough description and a checkpoint like this should be invalidated.
Los Angeles DUI attorneys specialize in Los Angeles DUI Los Angeles defense. We will fight your case at every turn, aiming for a dismissal of DUI charges or reduction of DUI charges. To know if your DUI case can be dismissed because of DUI Checkpoints rules violation call Los Angeles DUI lawyer anytime. We are waiting for your call and hope we get the chance to help you. Los Angeles DUI attorney offers competitive prices are great payment plans.
Please call Los Angeles DUI lawyer (818) 921 7744 so we can show you how we can fight your Los Angeles DUI.
NOTE: in 1993 in the case of People v. Banks, the Supreme Court held that advance publicity is not a constitutional prerequisite for the operation of a valid sobriety checkpoint. (6 Cal.4th 949).
NOTE: for a DMV hearing the legality of the stop must be challenged. Because California Law presumes that official function is properly performed (Evidence Code 664), the courts will presume that a checkpoint is properly set up in a DMV venue (Roelfsema v. DMV 41 Cal.App. 4th 871). To win a DMV hearing for a checkpoint case, Los Angeles DUI Attorney must bring up the issue of the “constitutionality” of a checkpoint. This can be done by questioning the officer or Respondent on each of the 8 issues presented in Ingersoll v. Palmer
(5 rating, 1 votes)
Loading...