PETER F. IOCONA - ATTORNEY AT LAW
ORANGE COUNTY'S "BEST" DUI LAWYERS

CALL NOW: 949-305-0343 - FREE CONSULTATION - PAYMENT PLANS

DUI CHECKPOINTS (PART I)


CONTACT US TODAY


ATTORNEY BIOGRAPHIES


 
CLIENT REVIEWS &
PEER-REVIEW RATINGS



FOLLOW OUR DUI BLOGS


GOOGLE BLOGGER

OC DUI Lawyer Blog


GOOGLE BUSINESS PAGES


PETER F. IOCONA
ATTORNEY AT LAW

22982 LA CADENA DR #239
LAGUNA HILLS, CA. 92653




THE SOCAL LAW NETWORK

23152 VERDUGO DR #201
LAGUNA HILLS, CA. 92653

 



SHARE AND FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA:

  


  



ALAN CASTILLO AND PETER F.  IOCONA BOTH SELECTED AS ONE OF ORANGE COUNTY'S TOP-RATED DEFENSE ATTORNEYS

Top-Rated OC DUI Attorney


PETER F. IOCONA: RATED BY "SUPER LAWYERS" 2015-2016


Super Lawyer Rated - Peter F. Iocona


PETER F. IOCONA SELECTED AS ONE OF THE "TOP 100 TRIAL LAWYERS" BY THE NATIONAL TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION


Top 100 Trial Lawyers - Peter F. Iocona



PETER F. IOCONA SELECTED AS ONE OF THE TOP CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEYS





PETER F. IOCONA SELECTED AS ONE OF THE NATION'S TOP ONE PERCENT ATTORNEYS BY N.A.D.C. 


Peter F. Iocona - Top One Percent Rated Attorney


PETER F. IOCONA SELECTED AS A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL ADVOCACY OF DUI DEFENSE


Nationally Ranked Superior DUI Attorney


FEATURED IN THE "TOP 100" MAGAZINE AS ONE OF THE NATION'S TOP 100 LAW FIRMS



 "MEMBER" OF THE CALIFORNIA DUI LAWYERS ASSOCIATION


DUI Defense Lawyer - California DUI Lawyers Association


"MEMBER" OF THE NATIONAL COLLEGE FOR DUI DEFENSE


DUI Lawyer - National College for DUI Defense


"MEMBER" OF THE DUI DEFENSE LAWYERS ASSOCIATION (DUIDLA)


DUI Defense Lawyer - DUIDLA Member

  
ALAN CASTILLO SELECTED AS 
ONE OF THE "TOP 100 TRIAL LAWYERS" BY THE NATIONAL TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION



Top 100 Trial Lawyers - Alan Castillo


ALAN CASTILLO SELECTED AS 
ONE OF THE NATION'S TOP ONE PERCENT ATTORNEYS BY N.A.D.C. 


Alan Castillo - Top One Percent Rated Attorney



FORMER CONTRIBUTING EDITORS TO "CALIFORNIA DRUNK DRIVING LAW "
(2003-2016)


California Drunk Driving Law - Contributing Editors (2003-2016)



LAWYER LEGION COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AWARD 


Lawyer Legion - Top Attorney



"LEAD COUNSEL" RATED DEFENSE ATTORNEYS


Lead Counsel Rated Orange County DUI Attorneys



 LAWYER.COM VERIFIED DEFENSE ATTORNEYS





 BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU RATED "A+"


BBB Top Rating - Top-Rated DUI Attorneys



EVERY ATTORNEY IS RATED "10/10" OR "SUPERB" BY AVVO ATTORNEY RATING SERVICE


Peter F. Iocona - Top-Rated Orange County DUI Lawyer

PETER F. IOCONA RATED "SUPERB" "10/10" BY AVVO



Peter F. Iocona - Best Orange County DUI Lawyer

PETER F. IOCONA RECEIVED "CLIENT'S CHOICE AWARD" 
FROM AVVO RATING SERVICE


Peter F. Iocona - Top Orange County DUI Attorney

 PETER F. IOCONA AWARDED 
"TOP CONTRIBUTOR" BY AVVO





ALAN CASTILLO RATED "SUPERB" BY AVVO





 
ALAN CASTILLO RECEIVED "CLIENTS' CHOICE AWARD" 
FROM AVVO RATING SERVICE





 MARLO CORDERO RATED
"SUPERB" BY AVVO


CALL NOW FOR A FREE DUI CONSULTATION:


Click to call

ON-CALL 24 HOURS A DAY 7 DAYS A WEEK

SHARE AND FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA:


  


  


DUI CHECKPOINTS (PART I)

RATED BY SUPER LAWYERS, ORANGE COUNTY'S TOP-RATED DUI DEFENSE ATTORNEYS

Peter F. Iocona - Top 100 Trial LawyersPeter F. Iocona - Super Lawyers Rated Orange County DUI Lawyer  Peter F. Iocona - Top-Rated DUI Criminal Defense Attorney
 Peter F. Iocona - Top-Rated Orange County DUI Defense Attorney

A PREFATORY ON DUI SOBRIETY CHECKPOINTS AND/OR OTHER ROADBLOCK DETENTIONS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

This is part I of series dealing with DUI Checkpoints in the State of California.  Some of the principals are applicable across the country in varying degrees, so if you are or were charged with a DUI stemming from a DUI Checkpoint, you should consult a lawyer in that State to determine the applicability of the information contained here.

In 2001, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (N.H.T.S.A.) 
published a book on sobriety or DUI checkpoint and/or roadblocks and DUI Saturation Patrols. [
U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Saturation Patrols And Sobriety Checkpoints, DOT HS 809 063 (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service (NTIS), revised 2002). June 2001).

Among other things, the publication encourages law enforcement agencies to invite prosecutors and judges to help plan sobriety checkpoint or roadblocks. Some times the jurisdiction's crime laboratory also participates in the checkpoint or roadblocks. Basically, everyone involved in prosecuting you or judging whether the checkpoint or roadblock was constitutionally permissible.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL & STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION HISTORY

Shortly after a 1984 California Attorney General’s Opinion (67 Ops Atty. Gen. 471 (1984, #84-902)), which set out what were intended to be "strict guidelines" for the legality of drunk driving roadblocks, police departments and the CHP began using DUI checkpoints to apprehend drunk drivers i the State of California.

Roadblocks carried out pursuant to these "strict guidelines" were approved by the California Supreme Court in Ingersoll v. Palmer (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1321, wherein the 4-3 majority concluded: "We conclude that within certain limitations a sobriety checkpoint may be operated in a manner consistent with the Federal and state Constitutions.”

The United States Supreme Court later approved the use of roadblocks to enforce drunk driving laws in Michigan Dep’t of State Police v. Sitz (1990) 496 U.S. 444, a case that set opened the doors to DUI checkpoints in places across the country that did not previously use roadblocks to enforce drunk driving laws.


THE REQUIREMENT TO "SUBMIT" TO A DUI CHECKPOINT

Vehicle Code § 2814.2(a), (effective January 1, 2012), requires that a driver of a motor vehicle shall stop and submit to a sobriety checkpoint conducted by a law enforcement agency when signs and displays are posted requiring the stop. What the Legislature means by “submit” is unclear and subject to interpretation.

THE "STRICT COMPLIANCE" REQUIREMENTS OF CHECKPOINTS

The Ingersoll case set forth the requirements of a DUI Checkpoint and/or roadblock if conducted in the State of California.  Obviously, then, attacks on DUI Checkpoints and/or roadblocks arrests should be based on any failure to comply with any of the “certain limitations” that the Ingersoll opinion referenced.  Each will be discussed in further detail throughout this series.  It is important to note that nothing in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Michigan Dep’t of State Police v. Sitz (1990) 496 U.S. 444, criticized any of these guidelines or recommended any others.  

The Ingersoll guidelines fall under the following general headings:

A.       Decision Making at the Supervisory Level

B.       Limits on Discretion of Field Officers

C.       Maintenance of Safety Conditions

D.       Reasonable Location

E.        Time and Duration

F.        Indicia of Official Nature of Roadblock

G.       Length and Nature of Detention

H.       Advance Publicity

In the case of People v. Alvarado (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th Supp. 13, the Alvardo Court analyzed the Ingersoll factors and determined that the prosecution failed to sustain its burden of proof to establish the operational legitimacy of a checkpoint. It made the following findings on sufficiency of five of the Ingersoll factors:

1.       Role of Supervisory Personnel was insufficient because the evidence showed that a sergeant approved the procedures used in the checkpoint, and these procedures were different from those specified by the captain.

2.       Use of a Neutral Formula was sufficient where police stopped five cars at a time, except when traffic was light. It’s okay to use a combination of systems so long as they all are neutral.

3.       Rationale of Checkpoint Location requires evidence explaining the specific checkpoint site used and showing that the location was one that had a high incidence of alcohol-related accidents and/or arrests. A location such as a major roadway can’t be selected simply on a finding that there is a lot of drinking and driving on a holiday or Super Bowl Sunday because such a justification would justify infinite locations.

4.       Findings on the Length and Nature of the Detentions require the prosecution to provide specific evidence from which the finder of fact can determine if the nature and duration of detentions were reasonable.

5.       Lack of Advanced Publicity alone will not render an otherwise proper checkpoint unconstitutional under Banks, but, where other problems are found, the lack of advanced publicity may tip the scales toward a finding of unconstitutionality.

In Part II of this series, each of the factors will be considered singularly and updated on this webpage as new webpage links as they are updated.

To learn more about DUI Checkpoints and/or Roadblocks, read these other posts:


If you were arrested at a DUI Checkpoint, contact an experienced DUI Lawyer from The SoCal Law Network today for a free DUI Consultation and Case Evaluation.

DIRECTIONS TO PETER F. IOCONA - ATTORNEY AT LAW IN LAGUNA HILLS















Website Builder