“Numerous conditions and factors must be considered in determining whether a DUI roadblock meets the balancing test in favor of the [State]. Among the factors which should be considered are: (1) The degree of discretion, if any, left to the officer in the field; (2) the location designated for the roadblock; (3) the time and duration of the roadblock; (4) standards set by superior officers; (5) advance notice to the public at large; (6) advance warning to the individual approaching motorist; (7) maintenance of safety conditions; (8) degree of fear or anxiety generated by the mode of operation; (9) average length of time each motorist is detained; (10) physical factors surrounding the location, and type and method of operation; (11) the availability of less intrusive methods for combating the problem; (12) the degree of effectiveness of the procedure; and (13) any other relevant circumstances which might bear upon the test. Not all of the factors need to be favorable to the State but all which are applicable to a given roadblock should be considered.” Id. at 4-5 (citing Deskins, 234 Kan. at 541).
The court then goes through each individual factor, applying the facts of this case.
1) Here, the officers pulled over every passing car, gave standards greetings to each driver, handed the drivers a brochure, and asked the driver whether he or she had consumed any alcohol. The court finds the officers had very little discretion.
2) Second, the court looks at the State’s reasoning for location of the designated roadblock. The officer chose this area because there was a high number of accidents. The court finds this to be a reasonable justification.
3) Third, the court examines the time and duration of the checkpoint. Relying on past holdings, the court finds a DUI checkpoint between the hours of 11 p.m. and 2 a.m. is reasonable
4) Fourth, the court determines whether a superior officer briefed the other officers prior to operating the check point. Again, here, there were two briefings by the officer in charge of the checkpoint and this is sufficient.
5) Fifth, the court notes it is not concerned with the advance warning to the public at large. Here, however, there was an email sent to surrounding media outlets.
6) Sixth, the court notes the officers used proper advance warning to the motorist approaching the checkpoint. There was a “be prepared to stop” sign and a “DUI checklane ahead” sign posted.
7) Seventh, the court is satisfied the checkpoint’s safety conditions; Officer Koos testified she took precautions to ensure the checkpoint was well-lit and level. She ensured officers had vests and flashlights. The officers also used cones and directions to direct traffic.
8 ) Eighth, the court notes there is no evidence of fear or anxiety generated by the checkpoint. Therefore, the presumption is the mode of operation did not cause fear or anxiety.
9) Ninth, the court evaluates the average length of time each motorist is detained. Here, the police department reported the average length of the stop was 147 seconds. The court finds this time is reasonable.
10) Tenth, the court finds the officers reasonably handled the physical factors surrounding the location, type and method of operation. The checkpoint was well-lit with cones and staffed by nearly 40 officers.
11) Next, the court finds that even though there may be less intrusive methods of preventing DUIs than setting up a checkpoint, it still was effective in educating the public and getting drunk drivers off the road. As a result, it is not unconstitutional simply because the results were not good or the check point could have been done better.
12) The court finds that even though only 1.6% of the drivers were arrested for DUI at the checkpoint, that number is sufficient. Additionally, all those that were not arrested were educated.
13) The court doesn’t analyze any other relevance circumstances from this case.
The court finds nearly every factors weighs in the State’s favor and that the police department “appropriately considered and carried out the majority of the Deskins factors in the operation of its DUI checkpoint on August 22, 2008. It was, therefore, constitutional, and the district court did not err in failing to suppress the results of the stop.” Id. at 12. It is clear that this test favors the State. Unless officers conduct a checkpoint in an extreme manner, it is unlikely that a checkpoint will be found unconstitutional. However, the officer must still conduct the checkpoint in a reasonable manner. If you have recently been stopped and arrested at a DUI checkpoint, contact Bell Folsom, P.A.