By David Ammons, The Associated Press
OLYMPIA — Gov. Chris Gregoire on Monday proposed “sobriety checkpoints” in selected high-accident areas as part of the state’s continuing clampdown on drunken driving.
The proposal drew immediate support from law enforcement and citizen activists, but civil libertarians vowed a battle in the Legislature and in the courts.
The American Civil Liberties Union said the plan would violate the state’s strong protections against “suspicionless” searches.
Spokesman Doug Honig said the state Supreme Court threw out Seattle’s checkpoints near 20 years ago and that the ban on DUI roadblocks is long-settled.
Gregoire spokesman Aaron Toso said the plan wouldn’t violate the court’s ruling.
“The ban is against searches without the authority of law. This proposal provides legal authority if the warrant is issued by a Superior Court judge to conduct these checks,” he said.
The governor’s plan will be sponsored by the House Judiciary Committee chairwoman, Rep. Pat Lantz, D-Gig Harbor, a lawyer.
The Senate judiciary chairman, Adam Kline, D-Seattle, has long worked on drunken driving legislation.
The proposal would require law enforcement to get a warrant from the local Superior Court after giving the judge a plan for a specific location and time period. The checkpoints would be in areas that are known for frequent alcohol and drug-related collisions.
The proposed legislation would require the judge to approve the warrant if the plan “advances the jurisdiction’s interest in reducing impaired driving, taking into account potential arrests under the program and the program’s deterrent effect.”
The measure says checkpoints should “minimize intrusions into the privacy rights of drivers and vehicle occupants.”
The bill says all vehicles except for emergency vehicles would have to stop at each checkpoint. A person who failed to stop could be prosecuted for a gross misdemeanor. That could carry a maximum penalty of a year in jail and $5,000 fine.
The plan calls for advance notice to the public and a report back to the court on how the checkpoint project worked.
“Sobriety checkpoints will be an important tool for law enforcement to catch drunk drivers and will help keep families safer when they are on the road,” Gregoire said in comments released by her office.
“Let’s hope these checkpoints will keep would-be drunk drivers from even getting behind the wheel and take those who make the bad decision to drink and drive off the road.”
Gregoire announced her proposal at Meadowdale High School in Lynnwood, north of Seattle. She was joined by State Patrol Chief John Batiste, Snohomish County Sheriff John Lovick and community leaders.
She planned a demonstration of how a checkpoint would work and met with Students Against Destructive Decisions.
“If approved, this legislation will save lives by letting law enforcement operate sobriety checkpoints in the areas most likely to have impaired drivers,” Batiste said. “We will go where the impaired drivers go, with the goal of getting them off the road.”
Gregoire was joined by Lisa McCollum, whose mother-in-law, Jenny, died in a car crash caused by a drunken driver.
“I am a witness to the painfully permanent impact that drinking and driving can have on our families,” McCollum said, endorsing the governor’s plan.
Lantz, the House sponsor, said Washington is one of just 11 states that does not use sobriety checkpoints to catch drunken drivers.
“Law enforcement needs every tool available to prevent the tragedies these offenders cause,” she said.
But Honig said there are grave constitutional questions that Gregoire’s plan doesn’t satisfy.
A landmark opinion by the state high court in 1988 said the state constitution doesn’t permit motorists to be routinely stopped without suspicion or probable cause to believe the individual is doing something wrong.
The U.S. Supreme Court has approved checkpoints, such as the approach used in Michigan, but Washington has stronger privacy protections against suspicionless search-and-seizure, Honig said.
The state allows “emphasis patrols” where law enforcement concentrates manpower in high-accident areas and pulls over people when their vehicles are weaving or showing other obvious signs of the driver being impaired, he said.
“Certainly drunken driving is a serious concern and there are effective law enforcement programs for dealing with it that are legal,” he said in an interview. “We don’t have to interfere with individual rights. Privacy means the government doesn’t intrude on you and your private affairs.”
He said calling it an “administrative” checkpoint doesn’t change the fact that suspicionless searches are illegal and that any warrants authorizing DUI stops must follow the rules for all criminal search warrants.
