The U.S. Supreme Court in City of Indianapolis v. Edmond explicitly prohibits the use of DUI checkpoints for the sole purpose of catching and prosecuting drunk drivers. That said, when attempting to attack the constitutionality of such checkpoints at the suppression hearing, a knowledgeable Carmel DUI lawyer will undoubtedly ask certain questions that will be geared towards determining the exact purpose of the checkpoint that was in place at the time of his or her client’s stop.

Edmond notes that the determination of the purpose of a checkpoint must be made at the “programmatic level.” This means that at the hearing, an inquiry should be made of the officer as to his or her exact involvement with the DUI checkpoint. If the officer answers that he or she was the person who actually developed and took charge of the DUI checkpoint, then that will be sufficient to show that he or she was the officer responsible at the programmatic level and not merely a street officer.

Once that determination has been made, a skilled Carmel DUI lawyer will proceed to ask a few additional questions that are meant to put the officer at ease such that he or she will start to feel more comfortable and be more inclined to provide answers that go far beyond the scope of the question asked. For example, the lawyer might ask the officer to confirm the location of the checkpoint, as well as its start and finish times. When these simple questions are answered, the attorney might then ask the officer something like, “So, you arrested seven people for DUI that night, right?” Instead of the officer simply stating, “Yes, we did,” he or she may decide to elaborate further by making statements like, “Yes, we put the roadblock in the right place that night,” and “Yes, we netted a good haul of folks, to include your client who was quite impaired.”

An answer like that from the officer will be the perfect time for the attorney to ask the main question that will bring in the applicability of the Edmond suppression motion defense. The lawyer should say something like, “Well, wasn’t that the main idea of the checkpoint in the first place, officer?” or “Wasn’t the checkpoint put there to catch and prosecute individuals who violate the law against driving under the influence of alcohol?” The officer will most assuredly answer in the affirmative, and that will be all that is needed to show the impermissible nature of the checkpoint.

If you need the services of a competent Carmel DUI lawyer, please contact Thomas Nash at (803)624-5000 for a free consultation.