Sobriety Checkpoints: Myths vs. Facts

Myth:People don't like the use of sobriety checkpoints to detect and deter impaired drivers. They consider them a form of police harassment and an invasion of their privacy.

Fact: Public opinion polls indicate just the opposite. Both recent surveys and polls throughout the 1980s and 1990s show that 70-80 percent of those polled are in favor of more sobriety checkpoint use to combat drunk driving. In fact, public support tends to increase as communities experience checkpoint use. Opponents of sobriety checkpoints tend to be those who drink and drive frequently and are concerned about being caught. In those same polls, 81 percent of adults also favor mandatory safety belt use laws.

Myth:Sobriety checkpoints constitute illegal search and seizure and are, therefore, unconstitutional.

Fact: In general, sobriety checkpoints can be thought of as being very similar to other accepted operations such as security checkpoints set up at airports to detect air passengers attempting to carry on weapons or bombs. Specifically, the U.S. Supreme Court on June 14, 1990 upheld the use of sobriety checkpoints to detect and deter impaired drivers. Previous appeals to the Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of such checkpoints had been declined, which allowed high state court rulings to stand. The June 14, 1990 ruling clearly upheld the constitutionality of such enforcement measures.

Myth: Sobriety checkpoints may be successful in Australia, but they have never been shown to be effective in the U.S.

Fact: Numerous studies in the U.S. demonstrate their effectiveness. For example, in Charlottesville, VA, reduction in impaired driving; New Jersey, reductions in alcohol-related fatal crashes. A new study comparing community programs found that checkpoints along with public information efforts achieved significant deterrence. They have also been an important way of increasing safety belt usage when encouraged as part of the checkpoint procedures.

Myth: Sobriety checkpoints really aren't necessary for an adequate DWI enforcement program.

Fact: Recent research substantiates the fact that checkpoints and aggressive public information efforts are essential to achieve deterrence of impaired driving. Checkpoints also provide a means of increasing public awareness for safety belt use. Agencies are able to use checkpoints to favorably recognize sober drivers and passengers using seatbelts and to encourage non-users to buckle up before proceeding.

Myth:Sobriety checkpoints are only successful as specific deterrents and do not affect the general public's attitude about drinking and driving...only those who get caught in them.

Fact: Because of the heightened visibility checkpoints give to DWI law enforcement, they are especially valuable and effective as a general deterrent. Public information about the program and publication of arrest resulting from them further increases the general deterrent effect. If the public is aware the police will be conducting check points, they tend to be much more careful about drinking and driving. They drink less, or find alternative transportation.

Myth:Sobriety checkpoints are easy for drinking drivers to avoid. They can merely turn around and detour around them or switch drivers before being stopped.

Fact: Most well-run checkpoints have a police officer down the road to observer such behavior. If drivers make a U-turn to avoid them, the police can follow the vehicle for a short distance to observe its operation. If the driver is observed switching places, they can pull the vehicle over. And even if drinking drivers do avoid the check point, they may drive more cautiously because they are aware of active enforcement efforts.

Myth:Sobriety checkpoints hold people up for long periods of time and cause huge traffic jams.

Fact: Well-conducted sobriety checkpoints generally delay drivers for no more than 30 seconds, and cause no traffic problems. If traffic does back up, police are instructed to relieve congestion and then resume stopping cars in a predetermined pattern.