Criminal Defense

in some states all over the nation, police officers set up dui checkpoints in order to catch intoxicated drivers off-cherish and guard. Also referred to as “sobriety checkpoints,” they’re normally set up amongst 9pm and 2am in areas where drunk driving is normally reported. At these checkpoints, all drivers on the route should slow down and stop as an officer asks about their drinking earlier on in the evening. Now and then not all cars are halted, but rather each few vehicles or only those drivers of whom the officer has fair suspicion of drunk driving. In addition, now and then officers may stop any car that turns around and heads the opposite direction when the driver sees the checkpoint ahead.

these checkpoints are part of a more prominent law enforcement scheme to fight versus drunk driving. The checkpoints exist in order to make the public feel that the likelihood of being caught while driving under the influence is very high, and thus deter them from doing so.

dui checkpoints fetch into question the fourth amendment of the united states constitution, which states that:

“the right of the individuals to be secure in their individuals, houses, papers, and effects, versus excessive and unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrantees shall issue, but upon probable cause, backed by oath or affirmation, and exceptionally describing the place to be searched, and the individuals or things to be seized. “

the fourth amendment thus protects individuals from being halted without probable cause that they have dedicated a crime or without a search warrant. Consequently, the constitutionality of the sobriety checkpoints was contested in michigan v. Sitz (1990). The supreme court ruled in a split decision that dui checkpoints were constitutional, though they violate person protected freedoms under the fourth amendment, because they’re fundamental and essential to stop drunk driving and are exhaustive and effective at preventing it. Notwithstanding, dissenting judges argued that investigation and research shows that sobriety checkpoints are pointless and inefficient and may even have negative effects.

despite the court ruling that dui checkpoints are constitutional, some states have had a number and potpourri of dissimilar court cases challenge the legality of dui checkpoints under their respective state constitutions. Rhode island is one of these states. Though some states have upheld the checkpoints under state law, due to the 1989 court case primental v. Rhode island, dui checkpoints are considered unconstitutional in rhode island.

for more data about drunk driving laws in rhode island, visit the internet-location of rhode island drunk driving denial and defense lawyer james powderly.