Sen. John Carona proposes best sobriety checkpoint bill I’ve ever opposed

by Scott Henson of Grits For Breakfast

The bill focuses the tactic in tightly on its stated goal of reducing drunk driving while avoiding Big Brother-esque pitfalls and revenue generation schemes that make civil libertarians wince at the tactic.

I'm not a fan, at all, of "sobriety checkpoints" on the roadways. Having grown up in the Cold War era, the whole idea has a bit too much of a "Can I see your papers, Comrade?" flavor to it for my tastes. Checkpoints where armed, uniformed agents of the state stop and question average citizens driving down the street were the kind of thing we used to point to under Communism in the old Soviet Union and say, "That doesn't happen in America."

But today, in many states, it does. And perhaps soon in Texas, too.

That said, SB 298 by Sen. John Carona authorizing sobriety checkpoints is one of the best efforts I've seen to focus the tactic in tightly on its stated goal of reducing drunk driving while avoiding Big Brother-esque pitfalls and revenue generation schemes that make civil libertarians wince at the tactic. Carona's bill was placed on yesterday's "intent calendar" in the senate (meaning it was eligible to be debated and voted on), but was usurped on the agenda by debates over higher education and the top ten percent rule. It could be voted on in the Texas Senate as soon as today.

I still oppose sobriety checkpoints and thus on principle I oppose this bill. I just don't like the idea of police stopping motorists without probable cause, believing traditional DWI enforcement tactics work better and are less invasive. But if you think drunk driving is so bad that it warrants use of more totalitarian tactics, the limits Sen. Carona places on checkpoints are a laudable effort to address the main criticisms of the practice while still authorizing its use.

Here's a summary of the legislation, which passed 9-0 out of the Senate Transportation and Homeland Security Committee:

* Law enforcement agencies may establish sobriety checkpoints for the sole purpose of enforcing drunk driving laws, not as a way to check for warrants, liability insurance, etc..

* Agencies must put procedures for choosing sites and operating checkpoints in writing and publish them online along with dates and times (but not locations) of the checkpoints.

* Procedures for selecting who to stop must be "reasonably predictable and nonarbitrary."

* "The criteria for selecting the location ... must include the number of traffic accidents in the vicinity ... in which the use of alcohol was a factor ... in the preceding 12 months and the number of arrests for intoxication-related offenses in that vicinity in the preceding 12 months."

* Signs ahead of the checkpoint must advise oncoming motorists it's coming up.

* Officers conducting the checkpoint must wear uniforms.

* Encounters with motorists must be videotaped. (Note: Shouldn't there be audio?)

* Officers may not ask to see motorists' drivers' license or insurance unless there is reasonable susupicion to believe they've committed an offense.

* Each stop should take less than three minutes unless there is reasonable suspicion to think an offense has been committed, and police must make "reasonable efforts" to ensure each stop won't take more than one minute.

* The total time motorists must wait to get through the checkpoint should not exceed ten minutes, and "reasonable efforts" must be made to get traffic through in less than five.

* "A law enforcement agency may not operate a sobriety checkpoint at one location for more than four hours and may not operate a checkpoint at the same location more than once in a 12-month period. For the purposes of this subsection, sobriety checkpoints located within one mile of each other are considered to be at the same location."

* Finally, records about the event - including time, location, duration, procedures, number of stops and arrests, and which officers were involved - must be maintained for at least five years.

That's a pretty nifty piece of bill writing.

I've long believed the reason law enforcement so badly wants "sobriety checkpoints" was as a platform for revenue generation schemes, either nabbing the 10% of Texas drivers with outstanding arrest warrants or the 25% with no liability insurance. But this proposal essentially eliminates those motives by disallowing officers from asking for ID without reasonable suspicion and videotaping the encounter. That forces agencies to operate sobriety checkpoints transparently, without improperly expanding their focus to other areas.

Carona has crafted a serious, interesting compromise on a subject that's been a biennial source of bitter contention. Indeed, part of me almost wants to support SB 298 just so we can stop fighting about it at the Lege every two years and move onto something else.

This is by far the best sobriety checkpoint bill I've ever opposed.

Pegasus News Content partner - Grits For Breakfast

jtmbls, anonymous:

“Law enforcement agencies may establish sobriety checkpoints for the sole purpose of enforcing drunk driving laws, not as a way to check for warrants, liability insurance, etc.”

It is laughable that you consider this point a bonus. I can’t really think of a good time to give people who have outstanding warrants or drivers with no insurance a free pass.

4 years, 1 month ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal

Travis Bush, verified:

Procedures for selecting who to stop must be "reasonably predictable and nonarbitrary."

Isn't a checkpoint arbitrary enough?

"I can’t really think of a good time to give people who have outstanding warrants or drivers with no insurance a free pass."

I would be interested to know if the arrests in other states at these checkpoints have solely been DUI and DWI offenses.

And yeah MADD would suspend pretty much every citizen right if it helped their cause...

4 years, 1 month ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal

duispy, anonymous:

Part I like about this is the requirement for them to publish the dates and times on the internet. This will cause people to stop and think about whether they really want to go out that evening and get drunk. Keeping these checkpoints a "secret" eliminates much of their deterrent value. Once they are on the internet sites like www.duispy.com can pick up on them and even text them to whoever signs up. Everyone should be aware of when their county is conducting a DUI Checkpoint.

4 years, 1 month ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal

Travis Bush, verified:

Also, if you look around at reports from other states, people ARE being arrested for other violations at these checkpoints...and don't forget, we're talking about Texas cops...Think you won't get profiled?

And then there is this little gem from a MADD website..

"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."

http://www.madd-nh.org/checkpts.htm

LOL who writes this tripe?

4 years, 1 month ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal

Rick Yost, verified:

Here's a fun little quiz kids: What's the difference between auto check points and having law enforcement blatantly come knock on your door to see what mischief you might be up to...this way you come to them.

This is turning into a society that is anything but free. And we continue to let folks like MADD (thank you Travis) herd us right down the chute.

4 years, 1 month ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal

John Turner-McClelland, verified:

Maybe MADD could push along increased mass transit, so we would have more options to get home when intoxicated. And do not tell me a taxi is an option. Not at $5 a foot driven.

4 years, 1 month ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal

Jason Rice, verified:

Ah, c'mon Yost! You can be so paranoid!

Like here' s great example. Day our shopping
Nice guys just checking on the well being of a dad and kid out and about. They even have nifty little berets... now where is this.... Gaza ... oooh. Not a good example.

Lemme get back to you on that...

4 years, 1 month ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal