Question: In Indiana, are sobriety checkpoints a per se unconstitutional search and seizure of potential drunk drivers?
Answer: NO.
In 1999, the police conducted a sobriety checkpoint in Mishawaka. Seventy drivers pulled aside for observation. An officer who greeted the Defendant smelled alcohol and noted his glassy, bloodshot eyes and slurred speech. The Defendant failed three sobriety field tests, and a subsequent chemical test showed that his blood alcohol content was 0.11. This led the State to charge him with operating a vehicle while intoxicated (OWI), as a class D felony based on a previous OWI conviction. Defendant moved to suppress all evidence obtained from the checkpoint, claiming improper seizure under both the Fourth Amendment and Indiana’s Constitution. After a hearing, the trial court granted the motion, holding that although the checkpoint satisfied the Fourth Amendment, the failure to obtain a warrant was unreasonable under the Indiana Constitution. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that a sobriety checkpoint … conducted absent probable cause or reasonable suspicion of illegal activity, constitutes an unreasonable seizure under the Indiana Constitution, but Indiana Supreme Court vacated the opinion of the Indiana Court of Appeals.
The Indiana Supreme Court found that a minimally intrusive roadblock designed and implemented on neutral criteria that safely and effectively targets a serious danger specific to vehicular operation is constitutionally reasonable, unlike the random and purely discretionary stops we have disapproved. Indiana joins those jurisdictions rejecting the contention that all roadblocks are per se violations of state constitutional requirements. The question then becomes whether this particular roadblock was conducted in a constitutionally reasonable manner. States that have held, as we do today, that sobriety checkpoints do not violate their state constitutions per se have focused on reviewing the implementation of specific roadblocks. These states have identified a variety of factors pertinent to assessing the constitutionality of specific checkpoints. Some states have looked more favorably upon roadblocks staged pursuant to formal guidelines adopted at an appropriate policy-making level. These guidelines required, among other things, advance approval by ranking officers; a careful choice of location, date and time “after considering many factors, including the safety of the public and those conducting the operation and the potential inconvenience to the public”; advance publicity; and assurance to drivers that the stop was routine. Thus, the Indiana Supreme Court agrees that a properly approved, neutral plan would help support the reasonableness of the sobriety checkpoint. 763 N.E.2d 960