PD Editorial: Adopting a uniform policy for checkpoints

More than two million people pass through security checkpoints in American airports every day.

Metal detectors are increasingly common at the entrances of courthouses and other public buildings, even schools.

In California, authorities use checkpoints to screen for illegal immigrants near the international border, quarantined fruit and vegetables near the state lines and drunken drivers at random locations.

The practice has been upheld by both the state Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court. But sobriety checkpoints have evolved since the courts ruled on their constitutionality in the mid-1980s, and further scrutiny may be warranted.

Checkpoints were created to educate the public and foster voluntary compliance with DUI laws, not to make mass arrests. Research by the California Highway Patrol and other agencies had shown that roving patrols were a more effective means of arresting drunken drivers, but they didn't instill a general perception that enforcement of DUIlaws was a high priority for law enforcement. Some believed that created a belief that drunken driving was a minor offense.

In its 1987 checkpoint ruling, the state Supreme Court said "each motorist stopped should be detained only long enough for the officer to question the driver briefly and to look for signs of intoxication, such as alcohol on the breath, slurred speech, and glassy or bloodshot eyes." The ruling also noted that the police guidelines for the state's first checkpoint, set up in 1985 in Burlingame, said "no motorist was to be stopped merely for choosing to avoid the checkpoint."

Today, motorists are routinely screened for warrants, licenses and insurance. Sometimes, vehicle safety checks are conducted, and drivers who try to avoid a checkpoint are likely to be pulled over. DUI arrests remain relatively rare. Checkpoints often result in far more arrests for driving without a license. In some instances, the ratio is 20-1.

The changing nature of checkpoints has prompted complaints that police are targeting illegal immigrants rather than drunken drivers. Moreover, critics say a 30-day auto impound that can accompany an arrest for driving without a license is an excessive penalty, amounting to seizure for low-income drivers or those whose vehicles are worth less than the impound and storage fees.

In response, many law enforcement agencies, including those in Sonoma County, have eased their impound policies, allowing most unlicensed drivers to park in a safe spot or call a licensed driver to pick up their vehicle.

A bill by Assemblyman Michael Allen, D-Santa Rosa, would make the relaxed impound policy state law. Assembly Bill 1389 also would codify some of the guidelines of the state Supreme Court ruling, including requiring that checkpoints be located in areas with high incidences of DUI arrests and accidents. It also would require a neutral method - such as stopping every fifth car - to determine who is stopped and questioned.

Allen's goal is to establish a uniform policy for checkpoints, not to end them, or to let unlicensed drivers off the hook. His bill, which cleared the Assembly last week, deserves to become state law.