Sobriety checkpoints are deemed to be constitutional in OUI, DUI, DWI cases. In two cases the defendants attacked the sobriety checkpoints as unconstitutional because the first stop is made by an officer or state trooper who inquires as to whether someone has been drinking or using alcohol. It is at that point that the trooper makes a determination as to whether or not you are to be directed to a second checkpoint where you are asked to perform field sobriety testing as well as a breath test.
The lower courts both felt that the checkpoint was unconstitutional because it was purely discretionary on the part of the first officer or state trooper’s judgment as to whether or not you should proceed to the second checkpoint. The Supreme Judicial Court, however, reversed the lower court and decided that it was constitutional as long as the officer’s training and experience will allow him to differentiate between someone who is merely drinking (which is not a crime) and someone who may be under the influence as noted by the smell of alcohol, the responses from the person, and observations about speech, movement, etc.
The court did not change the existing law that a person instructed to proceed to the second checkpoint does not have to submit to any field sobriety testing or breath testing as such refusals are still constitutionally protected.
Ianello & Brittain P.C. located in Western Massachusetts, with offices in Springfield, represent you in personal injury and criminal cases.
