By Bob Stiles, Pittsburg Tribune-Review (Pennsylvania)
State police Cpl. Ronald Zona said he walks the line when it comes to drunken-driving arrests.
He has to.
A misstep - such as in where, when or how a DUI checkpoint is set up - can mean an unsuccessful prosecution for the crime of driving under the influence.
Zona said he’s lost only one drunken-driving case in his seven years as DUI coordinator at the Greensburg barracks -- and that was over a legal point not directly related to a roadblock.
“Every challenge that we’ve had from an arrest at one of my checkpoints, we’ve won as far as the constitutionality of setting it up where we did,” Zona said.
Both federal and state court rulings dictate how and when DUI checkpoints can be used.
A 1990 U.S. Supreme Court ruling allowed police to use this method to find impaired drivers. The nation’s highest court determined that the need to reduce alcohol-impaired driving was sufficient to justify the brief intrusion of a roadblock.
At the time, several groups vigorously opposed the idea, citing civil liberties. Groups remain in opposition to the checkpoints today, saying they amount to an illegal search and are a poor use of money and manpower.
The majority of Murrysville’s council has been opposed to municipal officers being involved in these checkpoints. The council members claim the stops are a violation of motorists’ rights.
Statewide, state police checkpoints garner a small percentage of the drunken-driving arrests that troopers make: 94 drunken-driving arrests from 24 checkpoints in 2001; 193 arrests in 70 roadblocks in 2002; and 105 drunken-driving arrests in 37 checkpoints in 2003, according to state police and PennDOT records.
During those three years, state police made a total of 34,841 drunken-driving arrests.
Zona and Trooper David Andrascik, statewide DUI coordinator, said that despite the relatively few DUI arrests made via the roadblocks, the checkpoints serve several important purposes: a deterrent to drunken driving, an encouragement to use designated drivers, a chance for interaction between police and citizens and an opportunity to make highways safer.
“It’s not all about arresting the impaired driver,” Andrascik said.
“It gets them off the road before they’re involved in an accident,” Zona said. “We usually get them when they’re on their way home or they’re on their way from one establishment to another.”
State police have set up about 60 roadblocks so far this year, Andrascik said. He didn’t have a figure for the number of arrests made from those roadblocks.
Usually, three or four checkpoints are used by the Greensburg station annually, Zona said.
“We try to tie them in to the holidays, the big holidays,” he said of such times as Memorial Day, Fourth of July, Labor Day and Thanksgiving.
The station’s most recent sobriety checkpoint, held the night of Nov. 26-27, resulted in six drunken-driving arrests. Another 28 traffic citations and 101 warnings were issued at that checkpoint on Route 30, near Westmoreland Mall.
The courts require that DUI checkpoints be used only in areas shown to have a high probability for drunken drivers, Zona said. The checkpoints also must be held at times when impaired drivers are likely to be found.
Zona plots the “where and when” of drunken-driving arrests in case the roadblocks are challenged later before a judge. At the beginning of his tenure as DUI coordinator, Zona plotted those arrests on a paper map. Today he uses a computer.
The single case Zona lost involved a motorist who spotted the checkpoint and turned off into the parking lot of a closed business. After about 20 minutes, troopers decided to check what the motorist was doing. They discovered he was intoxicated and arrested him, Zona said.
Later, a Westmoreland County judge said police didn’t have the right to inquire what the man was doing, Zona said.
“Usually I pick a location where cars can’t turn around” when their drivers see vehicles are being stopped ahead, he said. “I pick a place where there’s a median in the middle of the road, or some other barrier that they can’t turn around.”
In Westmoreland County, routes 119 and 30 are the roads where state police checkpoints are most likely to be encountered.
Roving patrols - several troopers driving in a particular area and looking for problems - also are used, such as this past weekend by the Greensburg-based unit.
Zona said federal funding often dictates when the roadblocks and “saturation patrols” are used.
Because of a recent Pennsylvania Superior Court decision involving a Fayette County drunken-driving case, Zona makes certain to get permission for holding a checkpoint from Lt. Dale Blasko, the barracks’ patrol section commander. The Superior Court decision required that a high-ranking trooper be informed.
Court rulings affect how the checkpoints are set up.
Zona said 10 troopers, plus himself, typically are involved in a roadblock. Each checkpoint includes signs to let motorists know about the checkpoint; cones and lights to funnel traffic down to a single lane; and a previously established area where possibly impaired drivers are questioned.
“It’s a brief detention,” Zona said. “We tell them we’re conducting a sobriety checkpoint. We ask them for their license and registration. It’s at that point that the trooper attempts to look for signs of intoxication.”
Tip-offs include slurred speech, bloodshot or “bouncing” eyes, and the odor of an alcoholic beverage.
“If they don’t exhibit any of that - and they’re not drinking - we check their license and registration and let them continue on their way,” Zona said.
If police suspect the driver is intoxicated, they will direct the motorist to the pull-off area and administer field tests.
Tests typically include one in which a motorist walks for several steps on a piece of reflective tape. Another field exam requires the driver to stand on one leg while counting to 30.
If the motorist fails the initial tests, he may be asked to take a “breath test,” with a portable machine used to measure blood-alcohol content, or BAC.
If police conclude that a driver is impaired, the driver is taken to a hospital to have blood drawn for a BAC reading.
Jeanne Pruett, president of Responsibility in DUI Laws Inc., based in Michigan, vehemently opposes the use of roadblocks. Her group consists of about 1,000 members, she said.
“We think they are violations of constitutional rights,” she said. “The Constitution provides that police have probable cause before they pull you over for DUI. Checkpoints are the opposite of that.”
Of the 1990 Supreme Court ruling, Pruett contends it was wrong - and a later Supreme Court decision could reverse it.
She also said saturation patrols are a better use of money and manpower.
“I think that puts more police on the streets to keep an eye on drunken drivers,” she said.
In the 1990 Supreme Court case, the American Civil Liberties Union opposed use of the roadblocks, said Vic Walczak, legal director for the group’s Pittsburgh chapter.
“We do not believe there should be a search unless there’s individual reason for that search,” he said. “It should be based on individualized suspicions of wrongdoing.
“But we’re not out there challenging this issue, because the courts have spoken on it.”