The California Supreme Court under Ingersoll v. Palmer outlined several factors needed to conduct a DUI checkpoint.<\/p>\n
These factors are:<\/p>\n
1. Policy-making officials must make the decision selecting a location instead of officers. An officer in the field should not be the one to establish the site and the procedures used at the checkpoint.<\/p>\n
2. There needs to be a neutral mathematical formula used at the checkpoint. For instance, every third, fifth or tenth driver will be stopped.<\/p>\n
3. The officers must maintain a safe condition for motorists. This includes \u201cproper lighting, warning signs, signals and clearly identifiable official vehicles and personnel are necessary to minimize the risk of danger to motorists and police.\u201d Ingersoll v. Palmer, 43 Cal.3d 1321, 1341 (1980). The screening procedures can be altered depending on the flow of traffic.<\/p>\n
4. The DUI checkpoint must be at a reasonable location. The location site \u201cshould be those which will be most effective in achieving the governmental interest; i.e., on roads having a high incidence of alcohol related accidents and\/or arrests.\u201d Id at 1343.<\/p>\n
5. The time and duration is of a DUI checkpoint is based on the good the judgment of officials \u201cin setting times and durations, with an eye to effectiveness of the operation, and with the safety of motorists a coordinate consideration. \u201c Id.<\/p>\n
6. The Court wants to minimize the time each motorist is detained. The motorist should be \u201cdetained only long enough for the officer to question the driver briefly and to look for signs of intoxication, such as alcohol on the breath, slurred speech, and glassy or bloodshot eyes.\u201d Id.<\/p>\n
7. Finally, the advance publicity is needed to minimize the intrusiveness by the DUI checkpoints.<\/p>\n
These are factors are essential to validate a DUI checkpoint. The evidence gained from an unlawful checkpoint could be inadmissible in court.<\/p>\n