NCJ Number
84994
Journal
Criminal Law Bulletin Volume: 18 Issue: 4 8 Dated: (1982) Pages: 346-351
Date Published
1982
Length
6 pages
Annotation
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Delaware v. Prouse rules out arbitrary police traffic stops that intrude excessively upon motorists' privacy, but this does not preclude roadblock stops with a rational design for countering traffic violations and with minimum intrusions upon motorists' privacy.
Abstract
Although the Supreme Count in its 'Prouse' ruling suggested that 100 percent roadblocks or the patterned stopping of cars at roadblocks would be an acceptable alternative to arbitrary roving stops, both of those alternatives are impractical and hazardous. A third preferable alternative has recently been approved by a Maryland court. A police district commander ordered an empirical study to identify traffic locations with high accident rates. Discretionary parameters were then designed to minimize the hazard and intrusiveness of car stops at these locations. The purpose of the roadblock was to identify and arrest drunk drivers. All approaching traffic was stopped. If a backup of 10 cars occurred, the roadblock was discontinued. The area was suitably marked by patrol cars with flashing lights, and the officers wore reflective vests. The officers were advised to (1) stop the motorist and advise that the purpose of the stop is to check for sobriety, (2) check the motorist's eyes and face as well as odor for signs of excessive alcohol use, (3) ask for the operator's permit if there is some question, and (4) ask the operator to move off the travel portion of the road to conduct field tests for sobriety if there are signs of drunkenness. This approach met the test of patterned stops and minimum intrusiveness, while guarding against presenting a road hazard. Nineteen footnotes are provided.