Minnesota should use sobriety checkpoints, Mothers Against Drunk Driving says

In 2012, more than one-quarter of fatal traffic accidents in Minnesota were alcohol-related, according to the state’s Department of Public Safety. Mothers Against Drunk Driving rated the state poorly in terms of having countermeasures in place in order to reduce drunk driving, despite the fact that there were 5,000 fewer DUI arrests last year than the year before. The group suggests that the state should start utilizing checkpoints to nab intoxicated drivers.

Violating basic rights

The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution protects U.S. citizens from unreasonable searches and invasions of privacy. According to the Governors Highway Safety Administration, 12 states, including Minnesota, do not allow sobriety checkpoints, citing that they violate either the federal or state constitution. In essence, these states contend that checkpoints permit law enforcement to investigate drivers without any indication that there has been wrongdoing.

Under ordinary circumstances, law enforcement officers are not permitted to pull over vehicles without a good reason: speeding, driving erratically, failing to stop at a light or for equipment concerns like a missing taillight. However, a checkpoint permits officers to bypass this rule, raising concern that such a loophole could open the way to other types of searches without the need for cause or a warrant.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a split decision regarding roadblocks in Michigan that the checkpoints are necessary to reduce drunk driving, even though they violate a basic constitutional right. As one dissenting justice pointed out, however, it is not prudent to limit individual rights for checkpoints that research shows may only have a small effect on overall traffic safety. Clearly, several states agree with the dissenting opinion that checkpoints are a violation of individual liberty.

Permitting the practice

In the many states that do permit checkpoints, law enforcement must abide by guidelines that the U.S. Supreme Court developed. Those guidelines mandate that the date and location of the checkpoint must be announced. Additionally, law enforcement must have a good reason for holding the checkpoint, such as an increase in drunk driving in a particular area. Lastly, there must be a set plan in place for determining which cars will be pulled over, such as every other car or every third car. Some states have developed exceptions to these guidelines, providing a more lax environment.

Max Keller has won countless jury trial cases involving misdemeanors and felonies, sex crimes, and DWI’s. He is a member of the Minnesota Society for Criminal Justice, which only allows the top 50 criminal defense attorneys in the state as members. Max is a frequent speaker at CLE’s and is often asked for advice by other defense attorneys across Minnesota.

Experience: Practicing since 1997
Minnesota Registration Status: Active
Bar & Court Admissions: State of Minnesota Minnesota State Court Minnesota Federal Court 8th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals State of Maryland

What to Do If You Have Been Charged with a Criminal Offense

Can You Be Charged With a Drug Crime Based on Text Messages Alone?

You can be charged with a drug crime based on text messages alone in Minnesota, especially when the messages show intent to purchase, sell, distribute, or traffic drugs. Prosecutors often use text messages to demonstrate intent to commit a drug crime, show a history of drug activity, link you to a specific phone, and corroborate physical evidence. Text messages often strengthen the probable cause required for the police to arrest and charge you. They are, however, not sufficient for a conviction without compelling supporting physical evidence.

Can the Police Lie to You During an Interrogation in Minnesota?

Criminal defendants who interact with police officers for the first time are often left wondering, “Can the police lie to you during an interrogation?” Police officers can lie to you during an interrogation. In fact, deception is a lawful and fully permitted police technique provided the officers do not use it to force a confession. Police often claim possession of non-existent evidence or witnesses to trick you into disclosing information that can aid their investigation.