Are DUI Checkpoints Legal in California?

The answer to the question of “Are DUI Checkpoints Legal in California?” is, simply, yes.

Amy Chapman Law Police DUI CheckpointAccording to California’s Vehicle Code, “A driver of a motor vehicle shall stop and submit to a sobriety checkpoint inspection conducted by a law enforcement agency when signs and displays are posted requiring that stop.”

As simple of an answer as “yes” may be, it becomes slightly complicated when the legal guidelines and procedures of a DUI checkpoint, otherwise known as a “sobriety checkpoint,” must be considered.

At The Law Office of Amy Chapman, we understand the importance of knowing your rights in any situation, especially on the road. Because of this, we’ve outlined important details and answered common questions you may have about DUI checkpoints in order to ensure that the law is being followed by all parties involved.

How Will I Know When and Where a DUI Checkpoint Is?

Learning about a DUI checkpoint in the digital age is easier than ever, and official releases from law enforcement agencies often outline when and where sobriety roadblocks will occur. While advance public notice of upcoming checkpoints is ­not required, posting adequate notice of roadblocks as they are occurring is.

In short, this means that you may not find out about a DUI checkpoint until you come upon it on the road. Police department websites, local newspapers and news websites, and local TV news stations are often your best source to finding out about DUI checkpoints prior to driving.

Amy Chapman Law Office Santa Rosa DUI Checkpoints

What Should I Expect at a DUI Checkpoint?

In general, a DUI checkpoint consists of a brief discussion with an officer to determine if you are driving while intoxicated. The interaction typically begins with rolling down the window and being asked for your driver’s license and registration.

More specifically, the officer conducting the test will be looking to see:

  • If you fumble or have trouble providing your license and registration;
  • If you smell like alcohol;
  • If you have trouble or hesitate in answering the officer’s questions;
  • If there are any alcoholic beverages, drugs or paraphernalia in the vehicle; or
  • If you exhibit slurred speech, red/watery eyes, or any other sign of physical impairment.

If a driver exhibits signs of impairment, further investigation may ensue as a result. This can lead to being required to perform a California DUI field sobriety test (FST) or a Preliminary Alcohol Screening (PAS) breathalyzer test.

Based on the results from these tests, you may be arrested if there is probable cause that you are:

  • Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (Vehicle Code 23152(a) VC) ;
  • Driving with a BAC of .08 or greater (Vehicle Code 23152(b) VC); or
  • Driving Under the Influence of Drugs (DUID) (Vehicle Code 23152(e) VC).

Can I Legally Avoid or Refuse a DUI Checkpoint?

According to DUI defense lawyers, it is possible to avoid a DUI Checkpoint entirely by turning around and/or taking a different route—provided it is done so in a safe and legal manner. Legal DUI Checkpoints are required to post sufficient warning to drivers regarding lane closures due to DUI checkpoints, allowing drivers to bypass them altogether should they chose.

Normal traffic laws must still be obeyed when circumventing a DUI checkpoint, and you are still liable to being pulled over if you commit a traffic violation, have a vehicular defect (i.e. a broken headlight), or display signs of obvious intoxicated driving.

Once you are at a checkpoint, however, Vehicle Code 28.14.2(a) VC requires that all drivers stop and submit to these checkpoints. Refusing to comply with the officer’s instructions will likely lead to an infraction.

Amy Chapman Law Office Santa Rosa DUI Checkpoints and the Fourth Amendment

DUI Checkpoints and the Fourth Amendment

As part of our Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution states that individuals are protected against “unreasonable searches and seizures” of property by the government. In contemporary times, this amendment has expanded to protect individuals from stop-and-frisk searches, wiretaps and other forms of surveillance without probable cause.

Some have argued that certain discriminatory checkpoint practices can constitute a search without reason. Therefore, interpretation of the Fourth Amendment becomes complicated when the implications of a DUI checkpoint are brought into question.

In general, the legal requirements for California DUI checkpoints (in compliance with both the US Constitution and the California Constitution) are:

  • Supervising officers must make all operational decisions;
  • The criteria for stopping motorists must be neutral (i.e. non-discriminatory);
  • The checkpoint must be reasonably located;
  • Adequate safety precautions must be taken;
  • The checkpoint’s time and duration should reflect “good judgment”;
  • The checkpoint must exhibit sufficient indicia (such as proper signage) of its official nature;
  • Drivers should be detained for a minimal amount of time; and
  • Roadblocks should be publicly advertised in advance.

I Believe I Encountered an Illegal DUI Checkpoint, or Was Wrongfully Charged. Now What?

Should a DUI checkpoint fail to meet Federal or State Constitutional guidelines, utilize discriminatory practices in stopping vehicles/drivers, or should investigations be conducted in an unsafe or unreasonable manner, then they may be considered illegal (and possibly, a violation of the Fourth Amendment). As a driver, you have the right to challenge the legality of a DUI checkpoint in court with the help of a Sonoma County DUI attorney.

There are times where lines are crossed and harsh sentences are made, leading to legal concerns over a tarnished driving record should these charges not be dismissed.

Your safety and wellbeing are our DUI Attorney’s number one concern.

Related: California Counties With the Most DUI Charges

“Plain Smell” Doctrine Results In Two Marijuana Busts In Sonoma County

Law Office of Amy ChapmanOver the past few weeks, police in Sonoma County have made a number of arrests for transporting large amounts of marijuana. According to a report two of the arrests resulted from an officer’s report that he could smell marijuana in the car’s cabin after making a routine traffic stop. This suspicious smell then gave the officer probable cause to search the car, where he found the marijuana.

The “Plain Smell” Exception to the Warrant Requirement

In general, any time a police officer wants to search a car or a home, they need to point to some articulable facts that would justify the search. This protection from “unreasonable searches” is provided to all citizens by the United States and California constitutions. The facts cited by the police officers should be reliable indicators that some law has been broken. Furthermore, in order to actually conduct the search, the police will need to secure a warrant from a judge.

However, in some cases judges have made exceptions to the general rule requiring a warrant before a search. More specifically, judges have created a modified definition of the word “search.” For example, courts have held that a police officer who pulls over a vehicle and smells marijuana has not conducted a “search” under the terms of the law. This means that there does not need to be probable cause established in order for a police officer to take what he smells into account when determining if a person should be arrested.

Enforcing the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution

If police and prosecutors had their way, every time they seized evidence from a driver it would fit within an exception to the warrant requirement, allowing the evidence to be used against the driver at trial. However, thankfully this is not the case.

In some cases, police take shortcuts, inadvertently (or intentionally) overlooking the strictures of the 4th Amendment. In such cases, the courts will keep the evidence that the officer seized out of court because it was illegally seized. For many drug offenses, this results in the dismissal of all charges, since without the admission of the drugs into evidence, there is nothing for the prosecution to move forward with.

It therefore becomes incredibly important in all drug offenses to ensure that the proper motions are filed pre-trial to keep out any and all illegally seized evidence. For questions about illegal searches and seizures in California, call a dedicated Sonoma County criminal defense attorney to speak about your case.

Have You Been Arrested and Charged with a Possessory Offense?

If you have recently been charged with a possessory offense–such as possession of narcotics or possession of a weapon–the seizure of the item likely was the result of a “search” under the terms of the U.S. and California constitutions. If so, in order to be legal, it must meet the dictates of the 4th Amendment in order for the evidence to be admitted at trial. Attorney Amy Chapman has years of experience arguing motions to suppress illegal evidence in all kinds of cases, including drug cases. To learn more about search and seizure law in Sonoma County, call (707) 636-3207 to set up a free consultation with Attorney Chapman.

Santa Rosa Police Seize 135 Pounds Of Marijuana And AK-47, One Man Arrested

Law Office of Amy ChapmanEarlier last month in Santa Rosa, police got word that the residents of an aging commercial facility that had been converted into three mechanic’s bays were acting hostile towards a city inspector present to issue a cease-work order. The facility is located at 1905 Sebastopol Road. According to a report by the Press Democrat, when police arrived, they were met by several people, many of whom hid in various places throughout the facility.

Police ordered everyone out, and many refused at first. However, eventually more police showed up on the scene and those who were hiding complied with police directives. Soon after, police entered the facility and saw what they claimed to be large amounts of packaged marijuana. Police then secured a search warrant for the facility.

Upon executing the search warrant, police ended up seizing 135 pounds of marijuana, one pound of methamphetamine, an AK-47, a handgun, and $3,000 in cash. Just one 39-year-old man was arrested and charged with suspicion of possession of marijuana for sale, possession of an assault rifle, and possession of methamphetamine. The exact nature of the man’s connection to the property remains unclear.

The Warrant Requirement in the California and United States Constitutions

As the article notes, before police engaged in a full search of the premises they obtained a search warrant from a judge, permitting them to do so. While this has come to be seen as a formality in some cases, in reality the warrant requirement is a critical protection offered by both the California and United States Constitutions.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I Section 19 of the California State Constitution protect citizens from illegal searches and seizures. This has come to mean that police officer must secure a warrant before conducting a search of a premises or a seizure of a person or item. Of course, there have been numerous exceptions allowed to the warrant requirement over the years, but the general rule remains the same: police need a warrant to conduct a search.

In order to obtain a warrant, police must provide a judge with “probable cause” that evidence of criminal activity will be discovered upon execution of the warrant. In the case described above, the officers’ direct observation of what they believed to be large amounts of pre-packages marijuana in open view was likely sufficient for the judge to issue the search warrant.

Have You Been Arrested and Charged with a California Drug Offense?

If you have recently been arrested and charged with any kind of drug offense in California, there was likely some kind of search conducted by the arresting officer. This search likely needed to be justified by the existence of probable cause. If an officer is unable to articulate what facts gave him or her probable cause, it is possible that the search was illegal and any evidence obtained due to the search is inadmissible at trial. To learn more about search and seizure law in California, contact attorney Amy Chapman to discuss your case. Attorney Chapman has years of experience defending her clients against all types of drug and weapons offenses. Call (707) 636-3207 today to set up your free initial consultation.

Four Charged With Smuggling $250K Worth Of Marijuana From California To Pennsylvania

Law Office of Amy ChapmanEarlier this month, four people were arrested and charged with various offenses relating to the alleged smuggling of 85 pounds of marijuana. According to one local Pennsylvania news source, the four had a complex plan to transport the marijuana from Santa Rosa back to western Pennsylvania, where it would be broken down for retail sale.

Evidently, one of the four rented a car in western Pennsylvania and drove it to Santa Rosa, where it was packed up with 85 pounds of marijuana. From there, the driver picked up another friend and started their trek back across the country, heading for western Pennsylvania. However, in Kansas the couple were caught by police.

It isn’t exactly clear from the article, but it appears that the two who were caught gave statements to the police inculpating two others who remained back in western Pennsylvania, one of whom is alleged to be the man behind the plan. In exchange for her role in picking up the marijuana and driving it back, the woman driving the car at the time was to receive $2,000.

Each of the four defendants faces various drug-related charges, including conspiracy, possession with the intent to deliver, and criminal use of a communications facility. All are felony charges in Pennsylvania.

Santa Rosa Drug Crimes

Although the marijuana in the above case came from the Santa Rosa area, the people allegedly involved were caught in Kansas on their way to Pennsylvania and will be charged under the state laws of Pennsylvania. However, since they were traveling with such a large amount of marijuana, even if they had been caught here in California, where the marijuana laws are more lax, they still would have been in violation of the law.

Challenging Drug Seizures in California Courts

Even when a case seems cut and dry, that isn’t necessarily the case. There are often multiple ways that a dedicated criminal defense attorney can protect the interests of her client, including:

  • Filing a motion to suppress physical evidence of a drug crime, based on an illegal search under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution;
  • Filing a motion to suppress a verbal statement given by the client or a co-defendant, based on an illegal seizure of that person; and
  • Severing a client’s case from a co-defendant’s case when the client would be prejudiced if the cases were tried together.

Have You Been Charged with a California Drug Offense?

If you have recently been charged with any type of California drug offense, there are numerous ways that you can challenge the charges against you, ranging from motions to suppress to questioning the credibility of the witnesses against you. To learn more about how to defend against drug cases in California, contact attorney Amy Chapman. She has years of experience successfully defending her clients against all types of drug crimes. To set up a free consultation to discuss your case with Amy Chapman, call (707) 636-3207 today.

California Appellate Court Rules “Concentrated Cannabis” Counts As Marijuana Under The Compassionate Use Act

Law Office of Amy Chapman

Photo courtesy of https://wendymccormick.com/

Earlier last year in December, a California appellate court reversed a lower court’s decision holding that concentrated cannabis was not considered “marijuana” under the Compassionate Use Act of 1996. According to one local news source out of Sacramento, the appellate court determined that “marijuana” under the Act included all parts of the cannabis plant, including oils derived thereof.

The facts that gave rise to the case are as follows: A man’s probation was revoked after he was found to be in possession of concentrated cannabis in the form of “honey oil” and “dabs.” While the probation officer revoked the man’s probation, he did so under a very general term, concluding that the man “failed to obey all laws.” The man attempted to make a defense based on the Compassionate Use Act, but the judge prevented him from doing so, holding that concentrated cannabis was not covered under the Act.

The judge revoked the man’s sentence of probation and ordered him to start a new sentence of probation, effectively extending the amount of time he was to be supervised by two years. The man appealed, and the judge suspended his sentence until the conclusion of the appeal.

The Case on Appeal

The appellate court disagreed with the lower court and reversed its decision. The court noted that the man was legally prescribed to possess and use marijuana for migraine headaches and acid reflux. The court then narrowed the issue down to whether the concentrated cannabis the man possessed was covered under the Compassionate Use Act.

The court determined that it was, noting that the Act does not explicitly define what is to be included in the term “marijuana.” Therefore, the court had to look elsewhere for a definition under California law, and it found one defining marijuana as “all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L.,whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant, its seeds or resin.”

The appellate court then reversed the decision of the lower court and ordered that the case be heard again under its interpretation of the statute. The likely result is that the man will not be found to have been in violation of his probation sentence.

Have You Been Charged with a Marijuana Offense?

If you have recently been charged with a marijuana offense in Sonoma County, you should seek the counsel of a dedicated marijuana defense attorney to help you fight the charges. Attorney Amy Chapman has years of experience litigating, researching, and successfully defending against all different kinds of marijuana cases, ranging from mere possession to large-scale distribution. To speak with her about your case, call 707-636-3207 to set up a free initial consultation to discuss your case and what you can do to defend against the charges you are facing.