HB 140: Improving DUI Enforcement
By eliminating DUI checkpoints, more vehicles and officers will be put on random patrol, essentially saturating the roads with law enforcement. “It is proven that saturation efforts will bring more DUI arrests than sobriety checkpoints.”(ii)
But HB 140 has run into some stiff opposition. Layton Police Chief Terry Keefe, president of the Utah Chiefs of Police Association, even went so far as to say that the Legislature is, “taking away a tool law enforcement uses to reduce the incidence of driving under the influence, both alcohol and drugs.”
It’s true, the bill does take away a tool. An ineffective tool.
But forget that HB 140 would make more DUI arrests than the current check point system, what about safety?
Data from NHTSA suggests no correlation between states that practice checkpoints and safety (measured in alcohol-impaired fatality rates per 100M VMT).
When we rank the states from lowest rates to highest rates (using 2008 data), it is easy to conclude that checkpoints don’t seem to be an important variable. For 2008 data, non-checkpoint states rank 5th, 10th, 12th, 16th, 18th, 23rd, 28th, 31st, 40th, 44th, and 49th. Six of the eleven non-checkpoint states rank in the upper half while five rank in the lowest half.(iii)
But let’s ignore check points don’t make roads safer, what about the arrests DUI checkpoints make? Aren’t those worth it?
Checkpoints can be considered unreasonable searches. Unreasonable searches can be defined as warrantless and suspicion-less searches.
If a checkpoint is considered an unreasonable search, it’s also considered unconstitutional.
That makes prosecuting arrests made at checkpoints problematic. For example, a May 2010 checkpoint in South Salt Lake was ruled constitutionally infirm and charges had to be thrown out. Which means that rather than be convicted of a DUI, a drunk driver simply walked away.
Back to what HB 140 will do:
• HB140 eliminates inefficiency when it comes to DUI checkpoints.
• HB140 puts more officers on the road, resulting in a higher number of DUI arrests.
• HB140 is constitutional and protects the civil rights of Utahns.
(i) Governor’s Traffic Safety Bureau & Iowa Dept of Public Safety, “Alcohol Fact Sheet 2010.”
(ii)FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, “Battling DUI: A Comparative Analysis of Checkpoints and Saturation Patrols,” January 2003, Volume 73 Number 1
(iiI)Traffic Safety Facts, “Fatalities and Fatality Rates in Alcohol-Impaired-Driving Crashes by State, 2007-2008,” December 2009.
If you’re looking for more information on HB140 you can find the actual bill here.
and a message from Rep. Butterfield here.
Brad Merritt says
As a livelong conservative Republican I strongly urge you to vote NO on HB140. This is the most ill conceived, idiotic bill presented this year! I’m real sorry that Rep Frank was “disturbed” when he had to go through a DUI checkpoint. How “disturbed” are those who have lost a loved one or been personally injured, paralyzed, and/or maimed by a drunk driver. The only person who should be “disturbed” about going through a DUI checkpoint is someone who has been drinking. Contrary to what Rep Butterfield says, the US Supreme Court has ruled DUI checkpoints legal if certain procedures are followed. You have heard from Chiefs of Police, LEO experts and the president of MADD urging you not to pass this bill. Yet you feel you know better how to enforce DUI laws than the experts?! If this law passes, and you voted for it, you will NOT get my vote for re-election and I and my wife vote in EVERY election. Do not take away this useful tool to make our highways safer from drunk drivers.
Brad Merritt
Woodland Hills, UT. 84653
David Tibbetts says
I don’t care about checkpoints. I don’t drink and it’s inconvenient. Big deal. I would like to see changes in other DUI policies. People are charged with DUIs for simply having their keys in their pockets. They chose not to drive because they knew they shouldn’t but they still get nailed because they could drive. Instead they should be rewarded for their good judgement not busted because they might drive.
Daniel says
I would like to see the DUI metabolite statute done away with. For example, if someone admits to smoking marijuana two weeks ago and gets conned by the officer into admitting they did so, then they can be booked into jail for DUI metabolite even though they aren’t impaired at the time of the traffic stop. This is nothing more than revenue generation for the municipalities and it also takes time for the officers to drive to the jail and book in the person when they could be going after real criminals.
Also, DUI checkpoints seem very close, if not in violation of, the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. Just because an agency announces it in the back of the newspaper doesn’t mean they have the right to stop you without probable cause or a traffic violation. It seems akin to Nazi Germany in so many ways. Just have officers and deputies patroling roads most likely to have drunk drivers duting holiday weekends and spring break. Why should the law-abiding be subject to a checkpoint where all officers see everyone as suspects. Might as well be the TSA.