Sobriety checkpoints are subject to the same Constitutional standards as other types of vehicle stops conducted by police officers. United States Supreme Court Justice Warren E. Burger summarized these standards in Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 654-55 (1979), “A central concern in balancing these competing considerations in a variety of settings has been to assure an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy is not subject to arbitrary invasion solely at the unfettered discretion of officers in the field.” Objective and specific facts must demonstrate that the vehicle stop is in “society’s legitimate interests.” The officer must conduct the seizure according to “officially specified neutral and courteous procedures.” State v. DeCamera, 237 N.J. Super. 380 (App. Div. 1989)
New Jersey’s treatment of checkpoints that comply with the requirements of Prouse is included in State v. Kirk, 202 N.J. Super. 28, 40-41 (App. Div. 1985). A checkpoint is constitutional “if the roadblock was established by a command or supervisory authority and was carefully targeted to a designated area at a specified time and place based on data justifying the site selection for reasons of public safety and reasonably efficacious or productive law enforcement goals. Other important factors are “adequate warnings to avoid frightening the traveling public, advance general publicity designed to deter drunken drivers from getting in cars in the first place, and officially specified neutral and courteous procedures for the intercepting officers to follow when stopping drivers.” See State v. DeCamera, 237 N.J. Super. 380 (App. Div. 1989).
Therefore, if you are pulled over for avoiding a checkpoint, but that checkpoint wasn’t sufficiently marked as such on the road where you were approaching, you cannot be proven to have been trying to avoid that checkpoint. In-State v. Badessa, 373 N.J. Super 84, 90 (App. Div. 2004), the Court states, “On-the-scene warnings for a DWI checkpoint must comply fully with the State and federal constitutional requirements. State v. Camera, 237 N.J.Super. 380, 384 (App. Div. 1989). Therefore, we hold that when a DWI checkpoint zone encompasses intersecting roads, proper on-the-scene warnings must include signs indicating no turns. Absent adequate warnings, the stop of a driver who makes a lawful turn onto an intersecting road within a DWI checkpoint zone is invalid unless there is an independent probable cause for the stop.” When the New Jersey Supreme Court heard this case, it upheld this part of the Appellate Division’s reasoning.
Any time you are pulled over by police while driving a vehicle, and you believe it was done unfairly or that your rights were somehow violated by improper conduct or questionable practices, consult a skilled attorney who can examine all the elements of the search and seizure for the strongest possible defense.
At Chamlin, Uliano & Walsh, our DUI attorneys have many years of experience handling drunk driving cases in West Long Branch, Red Bank, Colts Neck, Asbury Park, and Monmouth County, ensuring that they receive the full extent of the benefits to which they are legally entitled.
For additional information about how these Monmouth County DWI defense attorneys of Chamlin, Uliano & Walsh can assist you or someone you love in combating the state’s case and delivering the best chance of success, contact the West Long Branch, NJ office at 732-440-3950 or toll-free at 888-328-9131.
Did you suddenly get fired after filing a workers’ compensation claim? When you are injured…
February 2025 Edition In This Issue Love and Passion: The Keys to Success in Life…
Your first appearance (also known as initial appearance) in court for a criminal case in…
Talented Gym Injury Attorneys Fighting for Justice and Damages for Clients Harmed in Fitness Center…
Can't Locate the Will in NJ, Then What? Your lone surviving parent has passed away,…
Slip and Fall Accidents are happening much more often than most people realize, at about 1…