Articles Posted in DUI

She never saw him.

That’s what a South Florida DUI manslaughter suspect said of the motorcyclist she was accused of striking and dragging for three miles before she was stopped by sheriff’s deputies on U.S. 41, near Fort Myers.

Our Fort Lauderdale DUI defense lawyers know that while many motorcycle crashes are blamed on motor vehicle drivers – especially if they’ve been drinking – the reality is that many motorcyclists make themselves vulnerable to crashes.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Association, some of the primary causes of motorcycle crashes include a motorcyclist’s:

–Failure to avoid distraction or impairment while driving;
–Failure to make themselves visible by wearing reflective tape or bright colors;
–Riding in weather conditions that are poor, especially considering even slight weather can be dangerous for motorcycle riders;
–Failure to use turn signals for each and every lane change;
–Failure to combine hand signals for turns or lane changes in order to draw more attention to themselves;
–Failure to position themselves in the lane most likely to be visible to other motorists.

Not all of these are illegal, of course, but they are sometimes overlooked in crash investigations where the operator of the car or truck was deemed intoxicated, despite the fact that one of these may have been a larger factor in the crash than the impairment level of the accused driver.

Just because a motor vehicle driver was drinking and was subsequently involved in a crash doesn’t mean that the impairment necessarily led to the crash. Sometimes, it is the actions of the other driver, even if he or she was stone-cold sober. In these cases, the more appropriate charge would be DUI – not DUI manslaughter.

The difference in penalties, per Florida Statute 316.193, is a misdemeanor warranting six months in jail versus a second-degree felony punishable by 15 years in prison. Having an experienced defense lawyer to prove these points to the court on your behalf is critical to ensuring a driver is not unduly punished.

In this case, the defendant is facing a multitude of serious charges, including DUI manslaughter and property damage, hit and run with death, DUI and careless driving.

While the state attorney’s office had initially requested a bail of $250,000, it was reduced by a county judge to $70,000, after it was determined she was not a flight risk.

Both she and the motorcyclist were the same age: 54.

During her arraignment, prosecutors drug up the fact that she had been arrested more than 12 years ago for DUI while she resided in Michigan. However, she was ultimately convicted of only careless driving.

In this case, according to police reports, she had been driving her sport utility vehicle south on U.S. 41 when she made a U-turn at one of the intersections. When she did this, she apparently did not see the motorcycle rider directly ahead of her. She reportedly rear-ended the motorcyclist, who was not wearing a helmet, and then dragged him, and the motorcycle, for approximately three miles before a sheriff’s deputy intervened after seeing sparks flying from underneath her vehicle.

The motorcyclist was pronounced dead at the scene.

The busy stretch of road was shut down for five hours overnight while investigators worked to piece together what happened.
Continue reading

A recent win by DUI defense lawyers in West Virginia has relevance for our Broward DUI defense lawyers, as we await a decision from our own state supreme court regarding access to breathalyzer machine data.

In West Virginia v. Overington, the primary question was whether defendants have a right to specific technological information regarding the device that is used to convict them.

The answer, according to the state court of appeals, was a resounding yes, affirming rulings by both a judicial circuit court judge and, before that, a county magistrate.

We hope this will foreshadow the decision to be made soon by the Florida Supreme Court, which is weighing whether the out-of-state manufacturer can be compelled to produce software information relative to the Intoxylizer 8000, which is used to convict tens of thousands of DUI defendants ever year.

In the Florida case, the state is attempting to argue that the powers of subpoena for those records end at the Florida border, meaning the Kentucky-based firm can’t be forced to turn over information about the machines. The company has said that the release of such information would be akin to releasing trade secrets.

The defense team, on the other hand, argues that breathalyzers have had a high rate of failure, and that the information regarding how the devices reach a conclusion is critical. What’s more, if the company can’t be forced to turn it over, the state law enforcement agency that approves its use should be able to do so. Otherwise, it can’t guarantee the effectiveness of the devices and therefore, probably shouldn’t be relying on them to obtain criminal convictions.

That case was argued before the Florida Supreme Court in February.

This case out of West Virginia is similar, only the defense team had been asking for the working history of the breath machine used in each particular case.

The case that started this was an early 2011 misdemeanor DUI arrest in which the defendant was given a breathalyzer test and failed with a reading of 0.149 percent blood alcohol level.

A few months into the case, the defense attorney filed a motion requesting a breath test discovery, pursuant to the clause in both the Sixth Amendment and the state constitution that provides defendants the right to cross-examine the accuser.

In this case, the accuser would be the breathalyzer. A “cross-examination” would be a challenge of the machine’s working history, which would reveal any prior inconsistencies that could be relevant to the current case.

The magistrate granted this motion. The prosecutors appealed, saying the magistrate had overstepped the bounds of her authority and specifically that such an order was outside the scope of discovery allowed by the magistrate.

Plus, they argued the defendant had not illustrated why this might be relevant to the case. While prosecutors conceded that this was information that could be easily obtained, they simply didn’t want to hand it over.

In the end, that argument did not sit well with the state’s court of appeals, which ruled that the defense had a right to review that data and that it was relevant to the case.

We are hopeful that the decision of the Florida Supreme Court will be along those same lines.
Continue reading

A judge was forced to re-sentence a Florida DUI manslaughter defendant, after an appellate court found that the initial sentence was too lenient.

Our Fort Lauderdale DUI lawyers know that while there are many situations for which judges have a great deal of discretion, DUI manslaughter charges carry a minimum mandatory sentence. Thus a conviction means you will spend at least the statutory minimum amount of time behind bars – regardless of what mitigating circumstances might exist.

Minimum mandatory sentencing in effect robs judges of their ability to apply judicial discretion in situations where it is due. In turn, there will be cases where justice is elusive.

In this case the defendant was just 20 years-old when she and her 22-year-old female co-worker went to a nearby bar. Being that the defendant wasn’t old enough to drink, the passenger purchased a number of shots, which the pair downed in the bathroom.

The two then left, with the 20-year-old behind the wheel.

She would later tell investigators she thought they were being followed. it was about 4 a.m. in Destin on U.S. Highway 98. She turned around to see if there was someone behind them. At that point, she veered off the road. Her vehicle slammed into a utility pole. Her 22-year-old co-worker was killed.

She was later convicted of DUI manslaughter, which under Florida Statute 316.193 is a second-degree felony, punishable by up to 15 years in prison, with a minimum mandatory sentence of four years.

Prosecutors in the case had asked for 10 years, while defense lawyers were pressing for probation or a suspended sentence, on the condition that the defendant would give talks to area high school students about the dangers of drunken driving.

The judge noted that no matter what his decision, everyone would be pained. In the end, he opted for a 15-year-sentence, of which all but 2.5 years was suspended.

However, the prosecutors appealed, citing the statute regarding the mandatory minimum. The appellate court ultimately sided with prosecutors, saying the judge had erred in allowing the defendant to serve less than that statutory minimum.

Now, she will serve those four years, followed by two years of probation, during which time she will be on house arrest. She will be allowed to leave only in order to give talks to young drivers six times annually. At those talks, she will show a montage of photographs of the victim.

Additionally, her driver’s license will be permanently revoked.

This is not the first time a judge has had to go back and re-sentence a defendant for a DUI manslaughter charge. Earlier this year, a county circuit judge in Northern Florida was forced to re-sentence a defendant convicted of DUI manslaughter in the death of his elderly father, who was dying of Alzheimer’s disease. At the initial sentencing, the judge had said the defendant lacked any moral culpability, and had never intended for his father, a passenger in the vehicle, to get hurt, let alone to die. The judge gave him two years of house arrest, followed by eight years of supervised release.

However, a prosecutor appealed that decision, and the judge was later forced to hand down the minimum mandatory sentence of four years in prison.
Continue reading

A columnist with the Sun-Sentinel recently penned an article he claimed pained him.

In it, he wrote that as much as he hated to say it, the wealthy businessman convicted of DUI manslaughter in the 2010 death of a 23-yaer-old college student deserved another round in the courtroom.

Our Broward DUI manslaughter defense attorneys know that even if an appellate court agrees to the defense’s request, it’s the kind of opportunity defendants rarely get. That’s why it’s so critical for defendants to get it right the first time, with a defense attorney who is experienced, skilled and tireless in his approach.

The reason this case may result in another trial has little to do with the facts of the case itself, and a lot to do with the actions of one of the jurors.

The facts of this case have been well-publicized. The defendant, who is a multimillionaire polo magnate, reportedly had been drinking prior to getting in his vehicle and striking another vehicle, driven by a 23-year-old man, whose vehicle ended up in a canal, where he drowned. The defendant reportedly drove away without calling for help.

The conviction was handed down a year ago.

But the juror in question has been quite busy since then. He has written a string of self-published books. In one of those, the juror revealed that he had conducted his own at-home drinking experiment during the deliberation phase of the trial. He consumed as much vodka as the defendant was alleged to have consumed. Part of the defense’s argument had been that while the defendant had been drinking, he was not actually intoxicated. The juror set out to find out for himself how intoxicated one might be after consuming that much.

There are so many problems with this, it’s hard to know where to begin. First, jurors are only supposed to decide a case based on the evidence before them. They aren’t supposed to be conducting their own investigations in the midst of the trial.

Secondly, an at-home experiment like this lends itself to a great deal of inaccuracy. Even slight physical differences between the two could mean that one person could consume a certain amount and not be inebriated, while the other clearly might be. Tolerance levels might affect this as well, depending on how much alcohol each individual regularly drank.

Defense lawyers recognized this and requested a new trial – especially after other jurors said that this one had mentioned in during the course of deliberations.

Then, in a second publication, this same juror revealed that his former wife had once been under arrest for DUI. This was something he did not mention during the jury selection.

As the Sentinel columnist points out, the defense team has been grasping at whatever straws are available to try to get this conviction overturned, as it carries a 16-year prison sentence. However, this one juror and his improprieties may hold the key to actually getting this man a new trial.

A hearing on the matter is scheduled for later this month.

The bottom line is that everyone is entitled to a fair trial. It’s our job to make sure you get one.

If this defendant did not receive one, he deserves to have another day in court.
Continue reading

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that in most cases, if a police officer wishes to draw a blood sample and does not have your consent, a warrant must first be obtained.

Our Broward DUI attorneys know that this is a significant victory for individual rights, as the justices ruled that such action would be unconstitutional, per the portion of the Fourth Amendment that protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Law enforcement in this case, Missouri v. McNeely, had attempted to argue that the natural dissipation of alcohol in the blood stream was enough to circumvent normal procedure and initiate a blood draw without a warrant.

That reasoning did not fly with the majority of the justices, who ruled 5-4 in favor of the defendant.

An officer had stopped him for speeding and driving left of center. The defendant refused to take a breathalyzer test and also refused consent to a blood draw. Although this officer had no issues in the past quickly obtaining a warrant, he decided to skip it this time, instead transporting the defendant straight to the hospital to have a sample drawn. The defendant was handcuffed the entire time and did not consent to the procedure.

The fact that the defendant’s blood-alcohol level was well above the legal limit was found to be beside the point. The bigger issue was the denial of due process.

The justices found that in routine DUI stops, there is no reason why law enforcement officers shouldn’t be expected to first obtain a warrant if the defendant does not consent to the invasive blood draw procedure. The exception would be if there was an emergency situation in which the delay necessary to get a warrant would result in the significant and irreversible destruction of evidence. The fact that alcohol naturally dissipates in a person’s system is not reason enough to forgo the effort to get a warrant.

Now, it’s not all that difficult for law enforcement officials investigating a DUI to obtain a warrant for a blood draw. A lot of times, the entire request can be processed and granted right from the patrol car. So the justices ruled that the procedure is not such a hindrance that it poses significant delay that could result in scores of DUI defendants walking free for lack of evidence.

Further, the court pointed out there are already stiff penalties in place for those who refuse to undergo breathalyzer tests. These are known as implied consent laws, and all 50 states have them. In Florida, if you refuse to submit to a breathalyzer test, you will incur an automatic 18-month suspension on your license. You will also face a misdemeanor charge and the possibility of jail time.

It’s worth noting that if you consent to have a blood sample drawn, the officer is not required to obtain a warrant. So if you have been drinking prior to the traffic stop, you may want to carefully consider whether you should offer consent. Not giving it doesn’t guarantee the officer won’t get a warrant and take it anyway, but it could provide a potential for a strong defense in court if the officer does not obtain a warrant, as is now required.
Continue reading

Despite a breathalyzer result that showed he had consumed less than the legal blood alcohol content threshold of 0.08 percent, the mayor of Gainesville was arrested recently by state troopers on a DUI charge.

Our Broward DUI lawyers know that situations like this are somewhat rare, but not altogether unheard of.

Although many tend to associate breathalyzer or blood sample analysis with the be-all-end-all when it comes to determining intoxication, the reality is it’s only one tool for law enforcement officers. Still, it is true that generally if you pass a breathalyzer or blood test, you will be released by the officer.

The exception to this is if you appear to be intoxicated or impaired. Officers might conclude that you are under the influence of other substances, even if it isn’t immediately identifiable which ones. You can actually be charged with DUI for taking your own prescription medications if those drugs cause you to become impaired.

Or, if the only thing you have consumed is alcohol, officers might conclude that even if you are not legally over the limit, you have a lower tolerance level and could still be charged with driving under the influence.

Anytime your blood alcohol testing results come back with a lower-than-legal limit threshold, it is going to work in your favor in court (bearing in mind that the legal limit is lower for commercial drivers and those under the age of 21).

In this case, the Gainesville mayor was reportedly found sleeping behind the wheel of his car, which had sustained significant damage. He had reportedly been involved in a nearby accident.

About an hour before the mayor was found at approximately 3:45 a.m., troopers were called to the scene of an accident. We don’t know much about that crash except for the fact that it apparently caused some property damage and no one was hurt.

When troopers discovered the mayor, he conceded to officers that he had drunk three beers the night before (this was around 4 a.m.). He told deputies that the cause of the crash was that he had dozed off behind the wheel.

Officers said that while his blood alcohol level did not put him over the limit, he displayed other indicators of impairment. He smelled of alcohol. His eyes were red. Officers said he failed a field sobriety test.

Florida Statute 316.193 holds that you may be arrested for DUI if you are in actual physical control of the vehicle AND at least one of the following:
–Your blood alcohol level is 0.08 percent or higher;
–You are under the influence of either alcohol or any chemical substance that affects your normal faculties.

When the blood alcohol or breathalyzer test doesn’t support the testimony of the officer, it becomes a he-said-he-said situation. For instance, the judge and jury can’t know to what extent a person smelled of alcohol. It’s entirely subjective.

Given that this individual holds a great deal of credibility as a public official, we suspect he has a strong chance of successfully fighting the charge.

But even if you aren’t a mayor, you can successfully beat a DUI charge – especially if you blew under the limit and most especially if you have a skilled attorney on your side.
Continue reading

Florida breathalyzer machines are coming under fire yet again.

However, as Fort Lauderdale DUI defense lawyers understand, this one has more to do with the state’s responsibility to test the devices, as opposed to the inherent accuracy or inaccuracy of the devices themselves. (Both are major legal issues).

If successful, this challenge could lay the ground work for thousands of DUI cases across the state to be scrapped entirely.

To understand the challenge, we first have to explain the device. In the state of Florida, there is only one device that is approved by state officials for use by local law enforcement agencies for DUI breath testing. This is the Intoxilyzer 8000. State and local authorities insist on its reliability, even though it has proven in countless individual cases to have spit out inaccurate results – not just in Florida, but across the country.

Still, it continues to be used.

But as with any machine, it has the potential to fail. In order to bolster their cases with claims of accuracy, state officials require that the devices be regularly tested and calibrated, to ensure each Intoxilyzer device is in proper working order.

This is where one Florida attorney, representing some 185 DUI defendants, is making his point. In a petition filed late last month with an administrative court in Tallahassee, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement is accused of skirting its own rules for testing the device. In particular, it’s alleged one of the key sensors was not appropriately tested by the agency. Further, it’s alleged that the FDLE never sought re-approval of the device after the Kentucky-based manufacturer made a number of significant changes to the product design.

Back in 2002, federal regulators approved about 16 changes to the devices. One of those included drilling a hole into one of the primary valves that is responsible for sensory detection of alcohol. This challenge doesn’t touch on whether the subsequent results are true or not. Instead, the issue is that after those changes were approved by the federal government, state regulators failed to re-approve it for their own purposes – despite rules saying that such steps must be taken.

This could be damning for the FDLE, and subsequently a host of local prosecutors, because if the state can’t show that it did in fact conduct proper testing, it will have to admit that it bypassed its own rules and procedures or that those rules and procedures are somehow unimportant. Either way, it doesn’t look good for them, and such a revelation may prompt judges across the state to toss breathalyzer results in pending DUI cases.

For a lot of defendants, breathalyzers represent an important piece of evidence against them. While prosecutors could still theoretically press forward based on more subjective evidence (i.e., officer observations or field sobriety tests), the case would be substantially weakened, sometimes fatally so.

The FDLE reported that in 2011, police throughout the state tested some 41,000 people with the Intoxilyzer 8000 device. This includes both motorists and those operating marine vessels.

Police agencies say that officers at individual departments run their own calibration on the devices both before and after each use. Additionally, they say, the FDLE conducts an annual inspection of the devices.

Still, if the court finds the state didn’t follow proper protocol with regard to testing, it would open a window of opportunity for DUI defense lawyers across the state.
Continue reading

There are probably no sweeter words to a defendant facing DUI charges than, “Case Dismissed.”

But unless you have hired a skilled Fort Lauderdale criminal defense lawyer, you’re unlikely to hear those words. This is not a reality you want to face entering a New Year. It should be a clean slate, and that’s exactly what we strive to offer our clients.

New Year’s Eve has the unfortunate title of being the worst day in the year for DUI arrests and fatalities. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety reports that half the fatal crashes that occur on New Year’s Eve and New Year’s Day involve alcohol. It’s the single deadliest day on our roads.

Florida Attorney General has announced that December is Drunk and Drugged Driving (3D) Prevention Month, following a resolution signed by Gov. Rick Scott, Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam and Chief Financial Officer Jeff Atwater. This means officers are out in full force – in aggressive roving patrols and sobriety checkpoints – to nab as many suspected drunk drivers as possible.

Definitions and penalties for driving under the influence are spelled out in FL Statute 316.193. Essentially, anyone caught driving with a blood alcohol content of 0.08 percent or more can be arrested.

This seems fairly straightforward, but there are a number of ways attorneys can challenge the charge. The first of which is the circumstances under which you were stopped. If it was during a routine stop, we will research to find out what probable cause the officer had to stop you. If the stop was during a sobriety checkpoint, we analyze each step of the process to ensure that the meticulous legal steps were followed to the letter. These include making sure cars are pulled over at random, making sure there is enough probable cause for the officers to further question you and checking to see if a supervisor was present at all times.

The next thing we will look at is the method used to obtain the 0.08 percent reading. In some cases, this will be a breathalyzer test. Problems with these machines have been well-documented. So one of the first things we’ll look at is whether the machine was properly calibrated. We will also look to see whether there may have been improper handling of the device by the officers. Additionally, there are a number of dietary factors and medical conditions that can have an impact on the test.

The other way law enforcement will determine your blood alcohol content is through a blood test. These might seem full-proof. However, these results can be challenged as well, based on the way they were collected, stored and analyzed. The protocol for conducting these tests is very specific; one misstep, and the results could be suppressed.

Then of course there are other procedural elements, such as seeing whether the officer read you your Miranda rights, that their reports are 100 percent accurate and that their courtroom testimony is truthful. Training of the officer conducting field sobriety examinations is another important element. These may seem simple enough, but when officers are quickly moving from stop to stop, it can be fairly easy to slip up somewhere.

Of course, we ultimately want you to have a safe and happy New Year’s Eve celebration. If you can avoid getting behind the wheel while intoxicated, that is best. However, if you are arrested, don’t allow it to cast a cloud over the new year. Call us today to see how we can help.
Continue reading

The Florida Supreme Court has delayed a hearing until early next year on the issue of whether the maker of the only state-approved breathalyzer machine must turn over evidence showing how it works.

Fort Lauderdale DUI attorneys know this ruling could impact the future of a huge number of DUI cases – both past and pending.

The Intoxilyzer 8000 is a machine that is used by law enforcement to test the blood alcohol content level of a suspected drunk driver. It purports to measure this amount through breath samples.

But problems with calibration method of the Intoxilyzer 8000 have been known for years. However, lower courts have typically ruled that defense attorneys could not compel the out-of-state manufacturer, CMI Inc., to hand over the software showing exactly how it comes up with the figures it does.

If defense analysts had access to this software, they would no doubt find inherent problems with its process, leading to a potential suppression of all blood alcohol content measurements in DUI cases where the machine was used. That is a huge number of cases.

Just consider some of the problems that have already cropped up with the machine: In 2010, an estimated 40 percent of the Intoxilyzer 8000 results tested by the state were discovered to be incorrectly measuring breath volumes. The machines were recording volumes of breath in the range of 10 to 15 liters. Problem is, the maximum human lung capacity is five liters.

One analyst who examined the machine in the course of a DUI case in Venice found that in addition to recording breath volumes that are impossibly high, the machine also was recording unrealistically high blood-alcohol numbers – to the point where scores of defendants were blowing BACs that surpassed three times the legal limit of 0.08 percent.

The one being considered by the state supreme court is Meinken v. State of Florida et al. It’s a case out of Daytona Beach, and three other similar cases out of the same area with the same issue are being lumped in to the hearing that will take place before the high court. The hearing was originally scheduled for this month, but has now been pushed back to February.

All of these cases challenge the accuracy of the test. But specifically, they say that a ruling by the 5th District Court of Appeals barring the defense from obtaining the machine software is incorrect because it conflicts with earlier rulings compelling other out-of-state companies to comply with such requests. A trial judge had previously granted the defense request, only to have the appellate court quash that order.

A ruling in favor of the defense in this case could mean even more DUI arrests will be successfully challenged on the basis of inaccurate BAC readings. Already, the 12th Circuit state attorney’s office, which covers the Sarasota area, decided not to use the results from the Intoxilyzer in about 100 cases last year.

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement had even admitted back in 2010 that some of the machines had problems, but said those have been pulled from use, fixed and are now back in circulation and being used with reliable accuracy.

We wouldn’t count on it. And neither should you. This is just one more reason why simply pleading guilty should not be an option.
Continue reading

December is one of the busiest months for law enforcement officials, with many agencies gearing up to host a large number of DUI checkpoints.

The Florida Highway Patrol recently announced that with the holidays, officers would be conducting a series of checkpoints, as well as saturated patrols, known as “wolf packs.”

Fort Lauderdale DUI attorneys know that despite all the work that goes into preparing a checkpoint, arrests made during the course of these operations can often be easier to fight. That’s because the rules about what constitutes an appropriate checkpoint are so strict.

Too often, many people assume they have no choice after a checkpoint arrest but to simply plead guilty and accept whatever deal the government decides to dole out. This is incorrect, and failing to fight the charges with the help of an experienced attorney can end up costing you a great amount of time, money and headaches in the long-run.

First, we have to tell you that in Florida, checkpoints are in fact legal. This is the case in the majority of states, though there are 12 that do not conduct them.

Florida, unfortunately, is one of the states known for conducting them the most frequently. While other states may have checkpoints weekly or every other week, Florida has anywhere from 15 to 20 every single month. Many of those take place in South Florida.

December is a prime month for these operations because of the increase in travelers and the abundance of holiday parties and celebrations.The day before Thanksgiving (sometimes referred to as “Black Wednesday) has become synonymous with wild parties, and from then through New Year’s Eve, police agencies are on the prowl for suspected drunk drivers.

But even if you were drinking before you got behind the wheel, there are ways that your attorney can call into question the validity of the checkpoint, and therefore the evidence obtained. This often results in a dismissal of the case or a favorable plea deal that involves a reduction in charges.

For example, in Guy v. State, decided by the Florida District Court of Appeals in 2008, the defendant was stopped in a DUI checkpoint. His license was suspended and he was already on probation for a Felony DUI. He wasn’t drinking in the latest stop, but given his past history, he was facing jail time. However, the Court of Appeals panel sided with the defendant in finding that the written DUI checkpoint guidelines as they existed gave officers too much discretion in determining which vehicles would be stopped. Essentially, this amounted to an illegal arrest under the Fourth Amendment.

This is just one example of how DUI cases can crumble under more intense scrutiny.

Just recently in Pasco County, a number of DUI arrests were dismissed after it was proven that the officers, after saying ahead of time that they planned to stop every third vehicle, in fact broke that rule and were pulling over four cars at a time.

Other rules that govern how sobriety checkpoints in Florida must be carried out include:

1. They have to be part of an ongoing program to deter drunk driving.
2. Drivers have to be sufficiently warned that they are about to enter a checkpoint.
3. The selection of where a checkpoint will be held can’t be random – there has be a specific objective in the interest of public safety.
4. Any change in the original planning of the checkpoint has to be well-documented.
5. Detection and investigation techniques have to be standardized and well-planned.

Continue reading