The Facts and Controversy Concerning “No-Refusal” Checkpoints

In the last two years, Florida law enforcement has begun frequently employing the use of little-known tactic to catch DUI offenders called the no-refusal checkpoint.  Sobriety checkpoints have been commonplace in most Florida counties for many years.  However, no refusal checkpoints are a recent phenomenon, and have been the subject of considerable controversy, particularly in relation to their constitutionality.

So what exactly is a no-refusal checkpoint?  Like traditional sobriety checkpoints, local law enforcement set up a traffic stop or road blockade with or without prior announcement, where officers stop oncoming traffic and conduct random inspections of passing driver’s sobriety.

However, in previous iterations of the sobriety checkpoint, drivers were allowed to refuse chemical tests (most commonly a breathalyzer), forcing law enforcement officers to gather other evidence to support the levying of DUI charges.  In the no-refusal model, law enforcement will bring a judge on-site at the location of the sobriety checkpoint.  In the event that a driver refuses a chemical test, the judge can issue an on-the-spot warrant compelling the driver to submit to the test.  Sometimes the warrant requires the driver to submit to an extremely intrusive blood test, rather than less intrusive options such as a breathalyzer or urine test.

Not surprisingly, no-refusal checkpoints have raised the hackles of civil rights groups.  Critics argue that forced testing is a flagrant infringement on individual’s Fourth Amendment rights protecting against unreasonable search and seizure.  They question the legitimacy of findings of probably cause on which these warrants are based, and are appalled at the perceived government’s violation on citizen’s bodily integrity.

However, the use of no-refusal checkpoints has been lauded by anti-drunk driving groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), as well as the U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, as effective means of curbing impaired driving.  Ensuring the safety of all drivers on the road, proponents argue, supersedes the individuals’ right to privacy.

Both sides are waging court battles on the state and federal level.  Until the highest court weighs in on the issue, no-refusal checkpoints are likely to be a continued contentious issue for the foreseeable future.