5 Things You Need To Know About Roadblocks
November 21st, 2007 Posted in DUI/DWI, RoadblocksQ. Are roadblocks legal?
A. The US Supreme Court has found roadblocks to be legal for a variety of purposes, the most prominent being so-called “sobriety check points.” There is a longer history of roadblock approvals related to checking vehicles near or at national border crossings.
However, many state courts take a less favorable view of roadblocks based on language in their respective state constitutions. Probably the best example of this is the Michigan case that went to the US Supreme Court, Sitz vs. Michigan, that established the legal precedent for DWI roadblocks.
While the US Supreme Court found DWI roadblocks constitutional under the US Constitution, the case went back to Michigan and the State Supreme court found DWI roadblocks to be in violation of the state’s constitution, and that decision takes precedent, in Michigan, over the decision of the US Supreme Court.
Q. Do I have to answer the questions posed to me at a roadblock?
A. You do not have to answer any questions, particularly questions that would be self-incriminating.
You may be required (forced by threat of arrest) to show your drivers license, vehicle registration, and proof of insurance, if the state requires these items to be present in your vehicle.
However, you cannot be compelled to explain your travel plans, divulge the contents of your vehicle, or in any other way converse with law enforcement officers operating a roadblock.
You can be polite and courteous to the extent of providing the documents you are required to produce. Beyond that, decline to answer any other questions you are asked.
In response to a potentially invasive question you can say something like; “Officer, I know you have your job to do, but I do not approve of roadblocks and I do not wish to have a conversation. I realize I can be required to show you my driver’s license. Would you like to see my drivers license?” End of discussion.
Q. Can they search my car?
A. Your car can only be searched under the following circumstances:
- You voluntarily give the police permission to search your vehicle.
- The Police have a warrant to search your vehicle.
- The police have “probable cause” or “reasonable suspicion” based on a reasonable explanation of why they believe you have illegal items in your vehicle. They must be able to explain what they think they will find and why they think said items are in your vehicle.
If the police use their authority or force to search your vehicle, against your will, and they do not have a warrant or reasonable suspicion to conduct a search they can be (and should be) held criminally and civilly liable for conducting an illegal search. This holds true even if the search reveals the possession of illegal items.
Q. How long can they keep me at a roadblock?
A. One of the consistent rationalizations for roadblocks is that they are minimally intrusive and minimally inconvenient to the motorist. For reasons that escape specific justification the courts seem to find 15 to 20 minutes the maximum amount of time a motorist can be detained by police before the police take formal action against the motorist or allow the motorist to leave.
However, the courts have placed the burden of forcing the issue upon the motorist.
If the motorist does not specifically request to leave, the police can successfully claim the motorist voluntarily remained under their control. Therefore, if the police seem inclined to delay your departure, after they have checked your papers, specifically ask if you may now leave.
If they say “no” you are within your rights to ask for a legitimate explanation for your delay.
If no legitimate explanation is forthcoming you should persist in asking if you may leave. There should be no confusion regarding your intentions and the fact that you are not willingly remaining within control of the police officers.
Q. Can I turn around or turn off to avoid a roadblock?
A. In theory you are allowed to make any legal maneuver, even a U-turn to avoid a roadblock.
In reality, the police operating roadblocks deliberately locate them so it is almost impossible to legally avoid them once you become aware of their presence.
It is also common practice to hold a patrol car in reserve for the specific purpose of harassing motorists who overtly avoid a roadblock.
The National Motorists Association opposes the use of roadblocks, period. The only justification for stopping citizens under a roadblock scenario is to warn them of an unseen peril that could cause injury or death to an unsuspecting motorist.
So-called “sobriety check points,” or seat belt checks, or the myriad of other excuses the government concocts to harass and intimidate its citizens through the use of roadblocks are, in our opinion unconstitutional and in direct contradiction to any honest definition of freedom.
Other Related Articles
69 Responses to “5 Things You Need To Know About Roadblocks”
By Officer Josh on Oct 18, 2008
Hubcap and Joe,
Its a shame that a few bad apples can deface the entire police force nationwide. I can agree that there are some messed up cops around here because i have heard of some bad things officers i know have done. But you just have to wait until they get caught and it puts shame to the badge i wear and i hate it.
By Cedric on Sep 25, 2008
Thank you,Joe.that was the point i was trying to make,I cant say for other states,but the liberal government here is by far the worst,senator patricia tiser,a democrate and self proclaimed liberal,got a law passed in virginia,if a cop see,s you without a seatbelt,he can stop and ticket you..they no longer need another reason to to pull you over and than fine you for no seatbelt.Weather you think its the conservatives or liberals,that each ones oppinion iguess,but the laws and harrasment is still wrong…
By Jeff on Sep 25, 2008
New Jersey is well known for anti-motorist politicians. Remember Senator Borden? in the early 1980s - he was the one who blocked all attempts to eliminate the 55 speed limit.
By JOE on Sep 25, 2008
Hubcap I don’t know if you can label law enforcement types and their avid supporters as liberal or conservatives. One of my co-workers and I talk traffic control activities a lot at work and he’s a strong conservative and has many reservations about the motives and techniques of law enforcement. You take New Jerseys’ Senator Frank Lautenberg (democrat) for instance. He’s one of the worst enemy’s the driving public has ever seen. Between him and NHTSA I have a hard time figuring out who’s the worst. They feed off each other. Ever watched any of the congressional hearings that NHTSA participates in. There’s only three good words that describe this bunch “traffic safety Nazis’. Drivers need to watch these hearing and get a good sense of who spear heads and encourages all this ticket writing and all the creative ideas they spawn to do even more. Not exactly the kinda guys/gals you’d consider friends unless you like alligators for friends.
Back to sobriety road checks. If I recall correctly, Justice Thomas wasn’t on the Supreme Court when it authorized the use of sobriety road checks. The decision was a close one and narrowly passed. I believe I read somewhere that Justice Thomas said that had he have been on the court at the time he would have voted against this practice. That probably would have put a end to this trampling of the Constitution. Even when the court did decide to authorize the use of road checks they acknowledged that it was a violation of the constitution but they justified it by saying something like that it was just a “minor convenience” for such a worthy cause.
When I do testing on aircraft avionics equipment at work there’s an old saying “in’s in and out’s out” You can’t fudge on the specs. A couple millivolts one way or another won’t cut it.
This is a digital concept, not analog. The bible and constitution are the same way, you either live by it or you don’t. There’s no “well maybe’s” about it. Once you start justifying fudging on the constitution it’s a slippery slope and that’s just what we are seeing. Case in Point; The Patriot Act.
Mission creep seems to be modus operandi for law enforcement. Sobriety road checks have now expanded into anything they want to make it. Seat belt checks, drug checks, whatever they have a notion to do. Further, if they decide to search your car there’s little you can do about that too. Oh sure you can demand a search warrent but…how long did you say you have to wait along side the road for a search warrant ….you get the idea. What’s another old saying “the path to Hell is paved with the best of intentions”. I’m sure some of LEO’s actions are best intentions but….
It’s reminds me about one of Jay Leno’s comment during his monologue sometime ago when he was commenting about Iraq writing their own constitution. Jay said “let’em have ours…..we’re not using it!” Unfortunately there’s more truth to that then we’d like to believe. Too many Americans are willing to give up their freedom’s for safety and security. Wise ‘ole Ben Franklin warned us about that. Bottom line; You can’t have your cake and eat it too. I stagger to think how many Americans have given their lives for our freedoms only for us to willfully throw them away. Geesh.
By JOE on Sep 25, 2008
Hubcap; I’ve seen a movie like that. Can’t remember the name of it. A couple differences here. This type of incident by a actual officer is rare. Impostors ARE NOT. A recent news article says the impostors are on the rise as unmarked vehicle use is. It really calls into question just how concerned law enforcement is about the driving publics’ safety and security when they use this technique just to write more tickets and make more revenue. I’ve heard the excuses….and that’s what they are. chris presented the perfect scenario. I’m really surprised there isn’t more of an outcry about this practice. Of course since the citizenry no longer has any control over it’s law enforcement, what can we do? They pretty much have absolute power and you know what that does.
By Hubcap on Sep 24, 2008
JOE on Sep 24, 2008 writes:
“This is a little off the subject but allow me change the ending a little.”
Let me plug in a TRUE ending to your story:
Craig Alan Peyer was a California Highway Patrol officer convicted for the 1986 strangulation murder of 20-year-old Cara Knott, a student at San Diego State University.
On the night of December 27, 1986, Knott was driving from her boyfriend’s home in Escondido to her parents’ home in El Cajon, California on Interstate 15 when Peyer, on duty in a marked CHP patrol car, signalled Knott to pull off the freeway on an isolated offramp. It later came to light that the officer had been previously harassing women drivers in the same area, pulling them over on the same isloated offramp and apparently trying to pick them up as dates. It’s believed that the situation escalated when Knott threatened to report Peyer for unprofessional behavior, and that he killed her and threw her body off an abandoned bridge into the brush below in an attempt to avoid disciplinary action.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Peyer
By Hubcap on Sep 24, 2008
Cedric, please stop refering to people like Darla and Chris as liberal.
They are quite clearly conservative in that they want more laws more cops and more restictions on individual freedom. They won’t be happy until they can put a cop in every bedroom.
Conservatives, not liberals, are the ones who want to tell you who you can have sex with, how much shaving cream you can travel with, and what religion to practice.
It’s conservatives who wrote and passed the Patriot Act and advocate for a totalitarian security state.
The only freedom conseravtives want is the freedom for corporations to rape the environment and then get taxpayer bailouts for sending American jobs overseas.
By JOE on Sep 24, 2008
This is a little off the subject but allow me change the ending a little.
chris on Aug 18, 2008 SAYS;
{if your 16 year old daughter is out on the town on your new car and she’s traveling down some lonely stretch of road one saturday night. now, imagine if}
{a impostor posing as a cop in a unmarked vehicle, like we have around here, stops her and asks her to step out of her car and come back to his car, then he slaps on the cuffs when she gets in his vehicle} …the rest is history. No witness’s, no DNA, no fingerprints, probably no tire prints on the pavement, nothing to solve the case. She’s vanishes in thin air. Not a pretty picture is it? This is the extreme danger that unmarked cop cars represent yet they continue to be used. All to write mistemenor violations.
By Jeff on Sep 23, 2008
Let’s have random searches of the homes of police officers and politicians so we can find illegal contraband.
By JohnJohn on Sep 23, 2008
Hey Stupidos lets get real here. Police Roadblocks are unconsitutional and what they are designed for is a mass roundup of motorists and a boatload of revenue for the municipality from citations given out. It is a fundamental violation of ones rights and the mere tip of the iceberg as far as that invasion of rights goes. People die from vehicle related incidents and that is unfortunate but these tactics will not put a dent in those sort of statistics. Its the Big Brother machine inching its way into your homes as well.
By Barney on Aug 22, 2008
http://www.prentissvoice.com/
By Cedric on Aug 21, 2008
to chris,talking about blowing smoke out of your ass,why dont you rant some more while your at it,ill repeat myself one more time,if you dont like what you read on here,go somewhere else,like liberal weekly maybe,if you dont agree with what we are talking about,then keep your faul mouth somewere else and let us do our thing,without having to put up your stupidity and ranting and raving..
By Stephen on Aug 18, 2008
wow chris, talk about bitching and wasting time with senseless rants!
I appreciate the work you claim to do, though!
By chris on Aug 18, 2008
ya know, if any of you whine-asses had the balls to actually get out of your beds at 3am and see some of the shit that we see, and the loss of life and property that results from us not doing all we can, then maybe you would get off this site, and spend a little more time with your family. who knows, it might just make you a better person..
By chris on Aug 18, 2008
i think this site is stupid as hell. ok, i can see the point for a few of your topics, but come on guys. ok, how would you feel if your 16 year old daughter is out on the town on your new car and she’s traveling down some lonely stretch of road one saturday night. now, imagine if you can a fucking drunk driver whose half passed out at the wheel is approaching her. wouldnt you be wishing there was a goddamn roadblock between the two to maybe, um stop the drunken driver? wouldnt that be a novel idea? you know, cops actually taking a stand against drunkards who choose to drive. life is far too short guys. stop your bitching..
By Stephen on Jun 28, 2008
Another one on whether driving is a right or privilege:
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
And supported by the aforementioned court decisions.
Show me a part of the constitution that makes driving or anything else a privilege regulated by the servant civil government, otherwise we are free to live according to our conscience unto God.
By TomV on Jun 4, 2008
Darla: Not sure from whence you hail, but having a law against something does not make it (necessarily) morally wrong. Laws do make lawbreakers, but they do not make safe societies. For instance, http://tinyurl.com/3ldbf5 is a law on the books right now that makes it illegal for Michiganders, whether private individuals or corporations, to sell an automobile on Sunday. Think of all the “freedom fighters” in the Sunday paper, totally unaware that the long arm of the law could descend upon them at any moment in a sting operation and end their wicked ways! No more brazenly advertising their forbidden wares, no more back-street deals, no more hoping the buyer doesn’t turn them in - it could all be over in a moment, and justice would triumph.
Or is it just another stupid, unnecessary law that has passed its expiration date but was never taken off of the books?
Do any of us see other laws like this and give them the respect they are due (zero) and use our heads instead? Sure. Does it expose us to the whim of law enforcement? Sure. Are we “freedom fighters” alone in this position? Not a chance. That ugly feeling that you get, Darla, when it’s your turn to be paced by a cop…wondering if your speedo is calibrated correctly…if you signaled that lane change as is your habit…if you have a bulb burnt out…is a consequence of an abundance of laws that are not respectable or respected, and enforcers who all too often suffer the same description.
On whether or not driving is a right:
Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941, decided that “The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right.”
Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125 linked that same right to the 5th amendment due process clause. In other words, no end-run around this right to try to do away with it.
Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579 has very pertinent text in the decision: “The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Sorry to bore you with technical details, but I’m kind of into not being trampled. Not by one hoof or a herd.
By cedric on Jun 1, 2008
To Darla,In the great state of Virginia,they dont advertise in advance when they are going to set up road blocks,which would be kind of stupid considering people would read about it and stay home rather than be harrased,it has nothing to do with doing something illegal,its the point of be subjected to interrigations and harrasment for no cause,and if i want to wear my seat belt i will,if i dont,i wont,thats my right,and you can think what you want,but speed traps are a problem,no matter what your oppion is,but you must be one of those that never speeds or breaks a law,and what i dont understand is people like you and some of these cops get so offended by what we write on here,than quit getting on here and trying to pick arquements and let us express are oppions without having to listen to bleeding heart liberals wine because they think we are all hell raising drunkin speeders
By James Young on Jun 1, 2008
Darla writes:
{ I appreciate the roadblocks because I see car wrecks and bad drivers on a daily basis.}
You are assuming that roadblocks are an effective mechanism to combat bad driving rather than as an assault on liberty. That assumption is wrong and not yours to make on my behalf. The liberty envisioned by the creators of this great nation was not subject to the whim of bureaucrats who suspect that somebody somewhere may be doing something wrong.
{Personally, I think speed traps are made up problems by those who think speeding and driving recklessly are personal rights.}
Once again you confuse speeding and driving recklessly. Confusion seems to be a recurring theme.
By Darla on Jun 1, 2008
Speed traps, DUI roadblocks, seatbelt enforcement. Bring em all on! All you freedom fighters must be doing something illegal. Our local roadblocks are advertised in the local paper in advance. Of course, most baddies probably don’t read the paper. Also, they do catch criminals in these roadblocks and DUI drivers. I appreciate the roadblocks because I see car wrecks and bad drivers on a daily basis. Getting some of these clowns off the road is a good thing. Personally, I think speed traps are made up problems by those who think speeding and driving recklessly are personal rights.
By Cedric on May 14, 2008
As you all know,we are approaching another holiday.And you all know what that means,road blocks and cops out in their more than usual full force.God help us if we forget to put on our seat belt,thats a act of terrorism and we will be fined,and dont forget the DUI roadchecks,that might give them an excuse to search your car and treat you like a wanted criminal,and certainly dont do five miles over the speed limit.I dont know how it is in the rest of the world,but here in virginia,we go through this on a daily basis.I just left the muffler shop,having put a new,complete exhaust on my jeep,would you believe i got in one of barneys road checks and he gave me a ticket for the exhaust being to loud,and yes it has a new converter also..safety isnt the issue with virginia’s finest,if you get killed in a wreck and dont have your seatbelt on,thats one less person they get to give a ticket to.Its all about how many tickets they can hand out and how much money they can bring in….they could care less about safety of the people
By bakalli on May 9, 2008
i will not give up my rights for saftey. if yal believe that people should be pulled over and harassed,,that just tells me yal dont want your rights and freedom..if yal dont want drunk drivers on the road,,,petition the state or local government to make alchol against the law as it is a drug too. im sorry about your loved one getting killed by a drunk driver,but maybe they went through the road block and wasnt the special number car/truck and got waved through. the government makes their own laws cause they know the public dont know any of them.. maybe we should have our state a local government send out to the public , or have a place where all local and state laws are in writing . that way we can only blame ourselves if we dont know them. just my view! thanx
By JOE on Apr 6, 2008
Officer Josh, you took my statements personal. I was simply stating a fact. You guys like facts. I wasn’t trying to minimize any death.
Maybe this was not your intention but here’s why I made light of it. It’s a statement that I commonly hear almost as a canned response when a LEO is trying to “back down” someones recent criticism.
I could go into a long dissertation about how different professions react to fellow co-workers deaths on or off of the line of duty. You can bet the death of a comrade in Iraqi is viewed the same way you guys in law enforcement view the death of a fellow officer. I know Vietnam (yea, I’m that old) veterans who have became life long friends after their near death experiences together in combat. It’s a normal reaction. Nobody is trying to minimize that. But lots of jobs are dangerous. We all accept a risk of some kind when we accept a job in a particular career. And while it is clear that LEO’s have a higher then normal risk than many professions do, you choose that profession willfully. It’s part of the job. Sometimes a death results from some function while protecting the public. We all appreciate those valiant efforts and sacrifices just as we currently do the fighting men and women in Iraqi and Afghanistan.
As I think you and I have discussed before, your experiences in your part of the country can be dramatically different than mine as a driver out here in the SW. Many little towns in this state have very little crime (you can see them on the speed trap site) but a substantial police force. Why? They are basically ALL expert in the use of a radar gun. While never documented you can bet their prime mission in life is fattening the coffers of their employer’s. Even larger town’s with specific traffic units are in the same boat. It may not be fair but it is under these circumstances and environment that many of us view ALL LEO’s (law enforcement officers). When we note a officer in our field, instead of feeling protected, we feel uneasy. Not because we are guilty of something, it’s just a conditioned response after years of watching law enforcement in action out on the radar range (highways). All of you wear the same uniforms. You may be the best cop in the USA, you may have nothing to do with traffic control, but the public has no way of knowing that unfortunately. I don’t know what the answer to that is. Maybe a better public relations campaign. More rational traffic control would go a long way.
As a member of the driving public, I don’t give a damn if some driver is speeding as long as they are doing it courteously and as conditions permit. Yes they’re breaking the law but does that affect my safety, that is my concern and ONLY concern. Only observation over time can tell. As a driver in traffic, I see bad driving behavior, some dangerous, the majority actually driving at or UNDER the speed limit. Hiding in a bush with a radar gun will not revel that information…. thus the debate will go on. In a nutshell, bad traffic control practices backed by bad laws have resulted in a lot of distrust between law enforcement and the public. I don’t like it and I’m sure you don’t either. I wish it was different but that’s not reality. Many years ago I was the prime culprit in getting a “Citizens Police Commission” started in my town but it never gained much support and eventually died. As far as I know it’s still on the books. Local law enforcement support could have made a big difference but it was not to be. I’m probably one of the few people on these blogs that can honestly say “I tried”.
Again, to qualify my statements, some of this may not pertain to your situation.
As James and some others have expressed, my prime beef with the good officers is that they don’t stand up against the bad stuff that goes on in police departments. Bad personnel and bad practices. And until good officers such as yourself decide to pursue traffic laws in the spirit of the law as opposed to absolutes, purge abusive officers out of your ranks, and embrace public input, then I don’t see things changing much…and as Martha Stewart doesn’t say, “that’s not a good thing”.
By Officer Josh on Apr 6, 2008
Do you guys realize that speed traps are only a small portion of our duties. We have specific departments that handle traffic and others that do the rest of the stuff you guys dont see. Maybe traffic police units are a little shady but you dont think about the other 75% or so that do other things.
Joe,
Just because police deaths didnt rake up the top ten percent doesnt mean its not one too many. Im sure if your friend died you would be pretty upset. We are all friends even if we dont know eachother (for the most part) and if i see that a cop died in my community whether i know him or not. You’d be best damn sure ill be at his funeral.
By arthur on Apr 3, 2008
If one road block nets one DWUI and takes that intoxicated person off the streets, is that not worth 5 or 10 minutes of your time? Or think of the drunks that would not be caught if there was not check points at all. And how many of these drunks would end up in an accident and hurting or killing someone?
NO. Especially if it is “one”. The loss of liberty is too great. Furthermore, horrific accidents always seem to involve habitual drinkers who can tolerate levels of .25. Observing some one actually driving at .25 and getting them off the road is more likely to accomplish something.
I was stopped in CT and Daneher the safety director thiniks it is perfectly reasonable for the police to detain me because I told them they had no probable cause to stop me.
They “were keeping me safe”, while 20 miles down the road the mayor declared his city a sanctuary city. I would prefer they protect me by enforcing the immigration laws and arresting that mayor.