Can police check id's at DUI checkpoints without suspicion that a crime has been committed?

I thought it was pretty clear that police are not allowed to check ID's at DUI checkpoints per Delaware vs Prouse and MIchigan vs Sitz, yet police seem to be doing anyway. How is this legal?

Here is a video where police are blatantly requesting ID's at a checkpoint without suspicion that a crime has been committed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCrzEis3XBs

Youtube thumbnail

Here is a quote from MIchigan vs Sitz stating that such police activity at a DUI checkpoint is illegal:

"In Delaware v. Prouse, supra, we disapproved random stops made by Delaware Highway Patrol officers in an effort to apprehend unlicensed drivers and unsafe vehicles. We observed that no empirical evidence indicated that such stops would be an effective means of promoting roadway safety and said that

"[i]t seems common sense that the percentage of all drivers on the road who are driving without a license is very small, and that the number of licensed drivers who will be stopped in order to find one unlicensed operator will be large indeed."

440 U.S. at 440 U. S. 659-660. We observed that the random stops involved the

"kind of standardless and unconstrained discretion [which] is the evil the Court has discerned when in previous cases it has insisted that the discretion of the official in the field be circumscribed, at least to some extent."

Here is a quote from Delaware vs Prouse:

"Except where there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver's license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment."

Update:

0110, USA all the way 2 : I appreciate the effort but I think your analysis is wrong. A DUI checkpoint allows the police to briefly check for signs of impairment. A DUI checkpoint is not to function as a general crime checkpoint, and the other decisions still apply. It is illegal to have drug sniffing dogs at a DUI checkpoint per Indianapolis vs Edmond. It is still illegal to check ID's per MIchigan vs Sitz and Delaware vs Prouse. Michigan vs Sitz does not set a new precedent over Deleware vs Prouse. I'm not sure why so many people think that they should be legally required to show ID at a DUI checkpoint absent suspicion of criminal activity.

9 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    6 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Since when did the police care about what the law said? Cops are the most dangerous people on the streets. The reason they can do it is they are supposed to stop everyone, not just random drivers. That is what the supreme court ruled it is okay if they stop everyone at a roadblock.

    It depends on the type of motorist checkpoint. Roadblocks, as they are referred to by the courts, fall under what is known as a special needs exception to the 4th Amendment. The special needs exception requires that the primary purpose of the search/seizure be for regulatory, not law enforcement, purposes. Under this theory, things like drivers license/vehicle registration checkpoints pass muster because the purpose is to ensure motorists have complied with state licensing requirements. And as stated below, if there are observable signs of other wrongdoing, police may also gain probable cause for further searches at this type of checkpoint.

    DUI checkpoints require more though. When police officers extend the checkpoint from checking licensing with passive observation for signs of intoxication to actively testing every driver for intoxication (e.g. flashlight tests, simple cognitive tests, etc...), the purpose has shifted from regulatory to criminal enforcement. In Michigan v. Sitz, the court effectively ignored the regulatory requirement of special needs searches in coming to their holding that DUI checkpoints fall under the special needs exception (the court also likened DUI checkpoints to airport and boarder checks without addressing that there is no other way for the interests protected by those checks to be advanced). Rather, the court merely recognized that there was a compelling government interest, and that DUI checkpoints were a means of advancing that interest.

    In a later case, Indianapolis v. Edmond, the Supreme Court held that "narcotics checkpoints" were an unconstitutional violation of the 4th Amendment. While these checkpoints were identical to DUI checkpoints, except that police would also lead a drug dog around the motorists vehicle. The court refused to extend the special needs exception where the "primary purpose" is "to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing."

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 4 years ago

    1

    Source(s): Criminal Records Search Database - http://SearchVerifyInfo.com/?hbhh
    • Login to reply the answers
  • 5 years ago

    This Site Might Help You.

    RE:

    Can police check id's at DUI checkpoints without suspicion that a crime has been committed?

    I thought it was pretty clear that police are not allowed to check ID's at DUI checkpoints per Delaware vs Prouse and MIchigan vs Sitz, yet police seem to be doing anyway. How is this legal?

    Here is a video where police are blatantly requesting ID's at a checkpoint without suspicion that...

    Source(s): police check id 39 dui checkpoints suspicion crime committed: https://biturl.im/MdC12
    • Login to reply the answers
  • 0110
    Lv 7
    6 years ago

    The Supreme Court, as shown below, decided that such stops are not unreasonable under certain circumstances.

    In Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990), the United States Supreme Court found properly conducted sobriety checkpoints to be constitutional.

    Delaware vs Prouse was a 1979 decision. A 1990 decison supercedes.

    In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote, "In sum, the balance of the State's interest in preventing drunken driving, the extent to which this system can reasonably be said to advance that interest, and the degree of intrusion upon individual motorists who are briefly stopped, weighs in favor of the state program. We therefore hold that it is consistent with the Fourth Amendment."

    • Login to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • velma
    Lv 4
    3 years ago

    Delaware Vs Prouse

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Zinia
    Lv 4
    4 years ago

    For the best answers, search on this site https://shorturl.im/6eyBp

    It is possible that he looked like someone that was being sought. It is also possible that something he did made someone believe he looked suspicious. It is generally not necessary to prove ones identity in a public place, with the exception of proving ones age to purchase alcohol or tobacco. If one is driving, it is necessary to have a valid driver's license and to produce it if asked. Depending on a several variables, the questioning by the officer may be anywhere from legitimate to harassment.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Cheryl
    Lv 4
    4 years ago

    No i think the Law still stands when a policeman can stop and search, plus , the same law on Suspicion, ,i think he was just asking to finish hes Questioning about , why are you in this town, the officer could off said < Sorry Sir for the Inconvenience Good Day,

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 4 years ago

    Criminal Records Search Database : http://www.InfoSearchDetective.com/Support

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 6 years ago

    Well he try to see mine after 15 minutes of arguing he got a higher police to show up after 5 mins f arguing with him they let me leave but warn to arrest me if I showed up again.

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.