Plano DWI Lawyer Blog

A very recent case decided by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the State's highest court of appeals to hear criminal cases, has established the lawfulness of roadside checkpoints under certain circumstances.

This case will affect not only Driving While Intoxicated cases, but all criminal cases and the citizenry in general.  I'll explain.  The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ordinarily prohibits the police from stopping your car on a roadway unless the police have some specific, articulable information that gives them reasonable suspicion that you are violating the law. 

Over the years, appeals courts have carved out several exceptions to this ordinary rule, including one known as the special needs doctrine.  Essentially, the special needs doctrine provides that the Government may, for example, stop your car without any information whatsoever that you have engaged in criminal wrongdoing so long as the program set up to stop your car is designed to serve special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement.

If on the other hand, the program or checkpoint is set up to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing, this would be a violation of the Fourth Amendment as it is not a special need. 

In other words, the Consitution forbids roadside checkpoints that are nothing more than generalized crime detection.  The Constitution does not recognize a general interest in crime control as justification for a suspicionless stop of your car.

Which brings us to the recent case decided by the Texas Court of Criminal appeals.  In January of 2011 the Court decided the case of Lujan v. State of Texas  In Lujan, the Court was faced with a case where the evidence presented at the trial court was contradictory with regard to the true nature of the program.  Was the checkpoint established for the purpose of conducting a license and registration check, and therefore Constitutional, according to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals?  Or was this a case where the checkpoint was nothing more than an unconstitutional attempt at generalized crime control?

For one brief paragraph, the Court seemed as though it would embark on an extended discussion of the distinction between suspicionless checkpoint regimes justified as a special needs exception, and those suspicionless search and seizure regimes that are forbidden by the Fourth Amendment.

 The Court informed the reader that: 

the legality of the checkpoint in this case turns on whether its primary purpose was to check drivers' licences and insurance, or whether the primary purpose was general crime control.  

But the Court very quickly diposes of the issue presented, essentially holding that the trial Court impliedly found that the primary purpose of the checkpoint was to check for license and registration, and therefore lawful.

What I find troubling about the decision is that the Court is willing to premise a decision that is a significant Fouth Amendment pronouncement on a lower Court's implied findings.  Additionally, the Court is upholding a regime of suspicionless searches under a special needs doctrine and does not even once use the term or acknowledge the existence of the doctrine.

As a practical matter, all Texans should be concerned about this decision.  If our elected representatives in Austin wanted to establish a law creating a checkpoint regime  they could do so.  The Court of Criminal Appeals gave us the blueprint for a lawful checkpoint law over fifteen years ago.  What happened in Lujan is very different.  In Lujan, the Court essentially  endorsed the creation of checkpoint sytems by any law enforcement agency that chooses to undertake them. 

On July 8, 2010 the Texas Sentate Criminal Justice Commitee heard wide ranging testimony
on DWI policy. Among the topics discussed were the surcharges imposed on people convicted of DWI and the potential for legislation authorizing sobriety checkpoints.

At the Dallas Morning News, it was reported that witnesses testified that,

"stiff civil fines and mandatory punishments have prompted those arrested for driving while intoxicated to refuse plea deals and probation that could include treatment and alcohol monitoring. Instead, they are insisting on jury trials."

Resulting in a  "20 percent drop in conviction rates since 2005, and a court backlog of 125,000 casescivil fines and mandatory punishments have prompted those arrested for driving while intoxicated to refuse plea deals and probation that could include treatment and alcohol monitoring. Instead, they are insisting on jury trials."

It doens't appear that any of the witnesses attributed any portion of the drop in conviction rates to not guilty verdicts delivered by juries due to the filing of marginal or poorly investigated cases.

The Houston Chronicle coverage of the hearings reported on testimony concerning the potential that Texas may move forward on establish the legal framework authorizing sobriety checkpoints.  As I have blogged about in the past, The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled approximately fifteen years ago that sobriety checkpoints, without specific legislative authorization, are unreasonable and therefore unconstitutional.  Since that time, the political will to pass law establishing such checkpoints has not existed.  Perhaps that is changinng, perhaps not.

  In some of the testimony yesterday, Bill Lewis of M.A.D.D. analogized the public roads of Texas with airport security checkpoints while testfiying in support of checkpoints.  Said Mr. Lewis "I've never tried to carry a gun into the airport or the Capitol or the Senate gallery, yet I go through a checkpoint." 

There will always be a tension between public safety and individual privacy as guaranteed by the Constitution.  If Mr. Lewis envisions a society in which travel n public roads is as intrusive and regulated as passing through airport security, I must confess that I don't share the same view.

 

Lawmakers in Austin are considering the adoption of legislation that would authorize the establishment of sobriety checkpoints in Texas.  Senator John Carona R- Dallas has introduced SB 298 and Representative Todd Smith R- Euless authored HB 169. Both bills would authorize sobriety checkpoints. A sobriety checkpoint is a police investigation during which all motorists passing through a particular location at a particular time have their car stopped by the police. If you pass through a sobriety checkpoint police will stop your car without any level of suspicion that you are engaged in some wrongdoing. For example, at a checkpoint you may be stopped without any indication that you are Driving While Intoxicated (DWI).

It is for this reason that many people believe that sobriety checkpoints violate individual rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In fact, in a pair of cases decided by our Court of Criminal Appeals fifteen years ago known as Sanchez v. State, 856 S.W.2d 166 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) and Holt v. State, 887 S.W.2d 16 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994), the Court held that sobriety checkpoints established without specific legislative authorization, did in fact violate the Fourth Amendment.

Well, fast forward fifteen years and that specific legislative authorization is poised to become law. Very soon, sobriety checkpoints may be a reality for all Texas motorists.