Through the years, sobriety checkpoint guidelines have been designed to give law enforcement agencies a uniform and successful method to plan, operate, and evaluate the use of sobriety checkpoints. Currently, 38 states and the District of Columbia conduct sobriety checkpoints. If an agency plans to attack an impaired driving problem with checkpoints, it should begin by looking at existing departmental policy and any constraints imposed by local, state, or Federal judicial systems.

What Are Sobriety Checkpoints?
Sobriety checkpoints involve the stopping of every vehicle or a specific sequence of vehicles at a predetermined, fixed location to detect impaired drivers. Sobriety checkpoints allow officers to stop vehicles without any suspicion of wrongdoing. To be judicially acceptable, sobriety checkpoints must satisfy two general goals:

• The checkpoint should be reasonably effective in detecting and preventing impaired driving.

• The checkpoint should be minimally intrusive to the motorist.

Successful sobriety checkpoint strategists advocate that this type of enforcement activity be integrated aggressively with a continuous, systematic public information and education effort. This approach maximizes the general deterrent effect and increases the perception that motorists who operate a vehicle while impaired by alcohol or other drugs are apprehended.

An effective sobriety checkpoint program consists of the following components:

• An ongoing program and departmental policy for deterring impaired driving

• Judicial support

• Site selection, appropriate warning devices, and visible police authority

• Chemical testing capabilities

• Contingency planning and operation briefings

• Comprehensive public information and education programs

• Extensive training on the latest detection and investigation techniques, including Drug Recognition Expert training, if available

• Comprehensive data collection and an evaluation plan

A written sobriety checkpoint plan outlining procedures for the activity is required under current judicial guidelines (Stitz v. Michigan Department of Public Safety) in order to minimize intrusion and officer discretion, as well as establish site selection and publicity. A major issue for the courts is site selection for the checkpoints. Law enforcement officials must consider arrest rates and impaired driver crash rates for that area and time of day. A key element to site selection is safety to both law enforcement officers and motorists.

Sobriety checkpoints may not be right for every jurisdiction or community, but they do play an important part in community awareness of the impaired driving problem.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) strongly supports the regular use of sobriety checkpoints as an integral part of any overall impaired driving program. According to various law enforcement administrators nationwide, sobriety checkpoints have provided their agencies with the most effective results in their anti-impaired driving programs.

To assist law enforcement agencies in developing or implementing a sobriety checkpoint enforcement program, NHTSA developed a publication called The Use of Sobriety Checkpoints for Impaired Driving Enforcement (DOT HS 807 656, November 1990). To obtain a copy of this publication, fax a request on agency letterhead to Use of Sobriety Checkpoints for Impaired Driving Enforcement, (202) 366-7721.

The following example outlines the sobriety checkpoint success achieved by Tennessee.

Checkpoint Tennessee:
A Sobriety Checkpoint Demonstration Project
State troopers from the Tennessee Highway Patrol, with support from local police and sheriffs, showed they can substantially reduce the incidence of alcohol-related fatal crashes and increase the use of occupant restraints by frequently conducting sobriety checkpoints, accompanied by widespread publicity.

Accomplishments
Between April 1, 1994 and March 31, 1995, law enforcement personnel conducted close to 900 checkpoints covering all of Tennessee’s 95 counties. Over 140,000 drivers in the state passed through these checkpoints. In previous years, Tennessee police had typically conducted only 10 to 20 checkpoints, and they only conducted them on holidays.

The Checkpoint Tennessee program resulted in nearly 800 arrests for driving under the influence of alcohol, 1,500 citations for safety belt or child restraint violations, over 7,000 citations for other traffic and vehicle offenses, and 300 other arrests for drug violations, stolen vehicles, and weapons violations.

Research Findings
In 1995, an analysis of crash data recorded sequentially over time showed a 20 percent reduction in impaired driving fatal crashes over the 21-month observation period. This is a reduction of about 9 impaired driving fatal crashes per month and over 180 lives saved.

Surveys conducted before and during the checkpoint program also showed changes in driver behavior. The proportion of drivers admitting to “drinking and driving within the past month” decreased, as did the percentage of drivers who said they “drink and drive often.”

The percent who claimed that they always wear their safety belt went from 60 percent before the program began to 66 percent after four months of the checkpoint program. Over 91 percent of drivers in Tennessee say they favor the use of sobriety checkpoints to enforce impaired driving.

Planning
A research plan including design, data collection, implementation, and evaluation served as the blueprint for the program. This plan called for:

• All Tennessee Highway Patrol officers who participated in the checkpoints to receive training in the NHTSA/International Association of Chiefs of Police’s (IACP) Standardized Field Sobriety Testing (SFST).

• Proper equipment to conduct the checkpoints, some of which had to be purchased:

  • Police vans and trailers were needed to transport the equipment.

  • At the checkpoint sites, officers needed evidential alcohol breath testing equipment to process drivers arrested for impaired driving.

  • Passive alcohol sensors were needed to help police detect impaired drivers.

  • Warning signs, lights, video cameras, etc., were needed at the checkpoint sites.

Essential Program Elements
The program worked because:

• The State Highway Safety Office and the Tennessee Highway Patrol served as the foundation for this program.

• The Highway Patrol took the lead in conducting the checkpoints, and local police and sheriffs made many of the Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) arrests.

• A member of the State Highway Safety Office directed the project. A Tennessee State trooper served as the police coordinator, and a public information officer from the Highway Patrol handled publicity.

• Officers conducted the checkpoints as part of routine traffic enforcement so no costs were necessary for overtime pay.

• Each weekend the checkpoints were conducted, the Tennessee Highway Patrol public information officer notified local newspapers and radio and television stations, organized press conferences, set up videotaping of checkpoints, and assisted local television stations in covering and broadcasting stories about the program.

Costs and Funding
The State of Tennessee and NHTSA funded this 2-year program under a cooperative agreement. The design and planning began October 1, 1993. The total cost of the project was $927,594, and costs were split about equally (Federal funding = $452,255; Tennessee funding = $475,339). The Federal share of costs covered planning, data collection, equipment, and evaluation. Tennessee’s contribution covered police salaries, publicity costs, and other program expenses.

Evaluation
Researchers documented all pertinent information and a report will be published soon. It will describe the process, resources necessary, and the results of the checkpoint program, such as:

• Number of checkpoints conducted

• Number of vehicles passing through checkpoints

• Number of drivers arrested for driving while impaired

• Number of drivers cited for safety belt or child restraint violations

• Number and types of other arrests and citations at the checkpoints

• Fatal and injury crash data

• Driver perceptions, attitudes, and reported behaviors

For Additional Information

Randall G. Smith

Project Director

Phone: (615) 741-2589

 

James C. Fell

NHTSA

Phone: (202) 366-5592

 

Lt. Jerry Strain

Police Coordinator

Phone: (615) 741-3218

 

John H. Lacey

Research Evaluator

Phone: (304) 876-1501