Clarity in California DUI Checkpoints
AB 1389 (Allen) BACKGROUND DUI checkpoints in California are not getting drunk drivers off the road. Local police often use traffic checkpoints to stop SB XXX
checkpoints have resulted in 121 impounded cars compared to just 4 DUI arrests in a 2-year period.
Ingersoll vs. Palmer
and identify drunk drivers who threaten the safety of our roads and highways. In recent years, however, these checkpoints have netted fewer drunk drivers, and instead are targeting more unlicensed drivers whose cars are frequently impounded. In many cities throughout California, as many as 20 vehicles of unlicensed drivers are towed for each DUI arrest made, according to a 2010 report by the Center for Investigative Reporting at UC Berkeley.1
In its 1987 decision Ingersoll v. Palmer, 43 Cal.3d 1321 (1987), the California Supreme Court addressed the issue of checkpoints directly by clearly establishing requirements on how, when, and where law enforcement agencies can set up sobriety checkpoints that comply with both the Federal and State constitution and serve the underlying goal of sobriety checkpoints which is to deter drunk driving.
In 2009, more than 24,000 vehicles were impounded at checkpoints. That number is roughly seven times higher than the 3,200 drunk driving arrests at roadway operations. The percentage of vehicle seizures in these roadway operations has increased 53% statewide compared to 2007.
AB 1389 would codify these requirements as a tool for law enforcement to use when setting up checkpoints. This is beneficial for law enforcement, as well as the residents of California, who will not have a better understanding of the DUI process, since AB 1389 will set up standard, statewide protocol.
DUI checkpoints lack statewide protocol and uniformity, and have an unfair and disproportionate impact in low-income communities. There is currently little, if no, uniformity and guidance in state code for how DUI checkpoints shall be set up and conducted. Sobriety checkpoints are not required to be set up in areas that have a high correlation of DUI arrests or accidents. Testimony suggests that they may be set up in neighborhoods or locations where high populations of low-income families or other low-income communities. In one Northern California community that is predominantly Latino, DUI
1
Ryan Gabrielson, “Car seizures at DUI checkpoints prove profitable for cities, raise legal questions,” California Watch (Berkeley, CA: 2010), available at: http://californiawatch.org/public-safety/car-seizures-dui-checkpoints-proveprofitable-cities-raise-legal-questions (see the map for the data); See also “California Checkpoints Catch Unlicensed Drivers,” New York Times (February 13, 2010), available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/us/14sfcheck.html.
Why AB 1389 is needed? Despite clear existing case law, some law enforcement agencies continue to conduct checkpoints in areas and in a manner that does not effectively deter drunk driving and instead erodes community trust in law enforcement efforts. Harsh policies at police checkpoints are resulting in severe financial hardship, exposure to dangerous situations and fear of reporting crime or cooperating with police among low-income communities. This undermines public safety for everyone. With the limited set of resources that law enforcement agencies have, community oriented policing efforts are critical to combat all types of crime and to ensure that community members feel safe coming forward to serve as witnesses or report crimes.
Unfortunately, recent reports throughout the state indicate that law enforcement agencies often conducts checkpoints in broad daylight or outside of churches during mass, which demonstrates the need for statewide uniformity and the need for specific guidelines to make the checkpoints as effective as possible in order to enhance public safety for all Californians. Even when there are safe and reasonable alternatives, authorities are also impounding cars of unlicensed drivers at checkpoints and leaving people on the street, in some cases with small children, to find their way home. AB 1389 will enhance community-policing efforts on the ground by providing both law enforcement agencies and the communities they serve clear guidance and expectations on checkpoints.
AB 1389 adds existing state and federal case law governing checkpoints to the California Vehicle Code. This bill amends and adds a new section into the California Vehicle Code detailing compliance by law enforcement agencies to the criteria set forth in the Ingersoll decision on sobriety checkpoints. This codification will settle confusion for local law enforcement agencies on sobriety checkpoints and vehicle tows during checkpoint stops while protecting the civil rights of all drivers.
The California Highway Patrol, one of the most visible arms of law enforcement in our state, already codifies the Ingersoll factors on checkpoints, which is what this bill seeks to accomplish. AB 1389 would specifically codify the factors found in Ingersoll and the California Highway Patrol field manual on checkpoints by providing standards on the time and location of checkpoints, the notice requirements that law enforcement agencies must provide to community members prior to the checkpoint, clear and visible signs, and the sufficient staff and lighting necessary to conduct the checkpoint in a manner that enhances public safety.
In addition, the bill codifies the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision Miranda v. City of Cornelius, 429 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. 2005), which provides that a car that can be safely parked by a licensed driver will not be impounded under the “community caretaker provision.” Overall, this legislation will improve safety, while providing protection for low-income communities and all drivers who are bearing the costs of unclear, unsafe, and non-standard policies regarding checkpoints, towing, and vehicle impoundments.
SUPPORT
American Civil Liberties Union California Immigrant Policy Center Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (CHIRLA) Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) PICO California Services, Immigrant Rights, and Education Network (SIREN)
CONTACT Erica Costa Phone: (916)319-2007 ; fax: (916)319-2107 Erica.costa@asm.ca.gov