Wyoming DUI Laws

DUI checkpoints are recognizable by the long line of cars and the group of police officers stopping each car asking questions to each driver.

Drunk driving checkpoints or roadblocks have been found to be a reasonable search and seizure by the United States Supreme Court in Michigan Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990). It found that the public concern about drunk driving outweighed the interference of the individual liberty of the driver who is stopped.

Some of the frustrations by legal motorists have been the fear and surprise of the roadblock, the feeling that they must submit to the check and can’t turn around, and the inconvenience of the amount of time for the police officer to reach their car which may be as long as 30 minutes.

Fear and surprise of an unannounced roadblock has been a concern for citizens. In Sitz, the Court reasoned that the “other drivers could see the backup of cars and how each car is being detained for a short period. This would inform approaching motorists that the stop was authorized and non-random, thereby lessening the potential for fear and surprise.”

Fear and surprise is an element that has been of concern so governments have required police agencies to prepare and follow guidelines for all checkpoints. Some states go further and require public notice of upcoming checkpoints.

What about if officers park outside of bars and wait to pull over cars? This could be considered a roving patrol where the police officers stop cars at other than fixed checkpoints. Here they would need either a warrant or probable cause for a search as ruled in Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 (1973).

There are 38 states, and the District of Columbia that conduct sobriety checkpoints.

Eleven states do not conduct sobriety checkpoints because they are either considered illegal by law or state constitution or the state has no explicit authority to conduct them.

These states are: Alaska, Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

Texas prohibits sobriety checkpoints based on their interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.

Interestingly, Michigan which was the State that the U.S. Supreme Court decided in allowing checkpoints, ended up ruling that checkpoints were not permissible under the Michigan State Constitution.

Even with the states that do allow sobriety checkpoints, there are some interesting interpretations on its checkpoint laws. It seems generally that most states allow a motorist to make a legal U-turn or turn off a side road and not need to go through the checkpoint.

Pennsylvania Has been made legal under state and federal Constitution.

Under Commonwealth v. Pacek, 691 A.2d 466 (Pa. Super. 1997), “a checkpoint does not have to provide a legal means of avoidance.”

“Checkpoints must be located in area where DUI is prevalent.” Commonwealth v. Blee, 695 A.2d 802 (Pa. Super. 1997).

“Legal U-turn in advance of checkpoint does not justify a stop.” Commonwealth v. Scavello, 703 A.2d 36 (PA. Super. 1997).

“A checkpoint conducted at a toll booth was held illegal because it was not conducted in accordance with state Supreme Court guidelines.” Commonwealth v. Yashinski, 723 A.2d 104 (Pa. Super. 1988).

New York Has been upheld under federal Constitution.

“Turning into a parking lot to evade a checkpoint is cause for an investigatory stop.” People v. Chaffee, 590 N.Y.S.2d 625 (A.D. 4 Dist. 1992); but “turning off a highway before reaching a checkpoint on to another road is not cause for a stop.” People v. Rocket, 594 N.Y.S.2d 568 (Just. Ct. 1992).

“New York does not require written guidelines for a checkpoint.” People v. Collura, 610 N.Y.S.2d (N.Y. CityCrim. Ct. 1994).

“Delaware Has been made legal under state law and federal Constitution.” Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979).

“A trial court has held that a legally executed U-turn in advance of a checkpoint did not justify a stop.” Howard v. Voshell, 621 A.2d 804 (Del. Super. 1992).

“Florida Has been made legal under federal Constitution.” State v. Jones, 483 So. 2d 433 (1986). Campbell v. State, 679 So.2d 1168 (Fla. 1996)

Found a checkpoint deficient under Jones because the written guidelines were insufficient, especially with regard to the method for choosing which vehicle(s) to stop.

“A delay of less than five minutes before a driver was asked to exit the vehicle was found to be permissible.” Cahill v. State, 595 So.2d 258 (Fla. App. 4 Dist. 1992).

Indiana Has been made legal under state Constitution

Previously, “checkpoints had been conducted in Indiana under Garcia, which held checkpoints legal under the federal constitution.” State v. Garcia, 500 N.E.2d 158 (Ind. 1986), cert. den. 481 U.S. 1014 (1987); Snyder v. State, 538 N.E.2d 961 (Ind. App. 4 Dist. 1989). In the Snyder case, the court held that “avoiding a checkpoint was sufficient cause to conduct a stop.”

“Massachusetts has been made legal under state and federal Constitution.” Commonwealth v. Shields, 521 N.E.2d 987 (Mass. 1988); Commonwealth v. Cameron, 545 N.E.2d 619 (Mass. App. Ct. 1989).

Originally published here.

You’re driving down a desolate highway in Gurnsey, Wyoming. It’s 2:30 in the morning and you feel as though you’re going to be sick. The Bud Lights and Yeager Bombs you drank at The Snake Pit are slowly sending poison through your body. The roads seem eerily vacant, yet the inherent lack of fellow motorists is comforting. A beer between your legs suddenly seems like a bad idea. You’re too drunk to be driving, and a sense of alcohol poisoning lurks in the darkness of the road ahead.

Ahead in the distance the headlights of an oncoming car demand your attention. Will he know you’re drunk? “Focus on the road” a voice screams from your head. Unable to choose between the voice in your head or your instinct to focus on the approaching car, you weave back and forth while attempting to focus on both. Cop! The patrol car passes, instantly applying the brakes and turning around.

You immediately stop, knowing the officer’s only logical reason for his abrupt u-turn is to pull you over. You wait in your car impatiently, suddenly realizing that a white cup displaying “Bud Light” rests between your legs. Knowing the officer is watching, you cautiously place it out of sight. Your heart beats so fast you begin to feel light headed. The lurking alcohol poisoning has subsided, giving way to more urgent matters. The waiting seems unbearable. Thoughts of putting the car in drive and leaving this mess in your rear view mirror cross your mind. As impatiently as a man awaiting the electric chair, you wait.

The officer exits his car and saunters towards the driver’s side of your car. His apathetic approach to your circumstance has made you depressed. “Why doesn’t he feel sorry for me?” The officer reaches the window. A look of indifference shields his stern and unwelcoming face. “Good evening officer” you say, hoping a little civility will bring a smile to his face. ” I need to see your driver’s license, registration and proof of insurance” says the emotionless patrolman. You reach into the glove box and remove the necessary papers. You hand them to him, realizing you are shaking like a stroke victim. He reaches in and gently removes them from your trembling fingers. The officer looks at the paperwork with a black flashlight. After a moment, he shoves the paperwork under his arm. “The reason I pulled you over sir, is because you’re not displaying a front license plate. I’m only going to issue you a warning tonight. I’ll be right back”.

The officer returns with your paperwork and hands it over. He then hands over a copy of a warning. “Drive safe” he says, and returns to his car. As you drive away you realize, once again, the system has lost. The real question is; when will your luck run out? The answer has always been the same; eventually.

Originally published here.

DUI laws seem to be constantly changing. At any given point, multiple state legislatures may be debating new laws that change how drunk driving is charged, how evidence is collected and what penalties are handed down for convictions.

Consider, in the first three months of 2009:

Two states passed new DUI laws (Utah and New Mexico) New DUI laws went into effect in two other states (Illinois and South Caroilna) Eight states are currently debating changes to their existing DUI laws (Oregon, Rhode Island, Kentucky, Kansas, Wyoming, Louisiana, Maryland, West Virginia)

With drunk driving laws changing so rapidly in so many states, what can you expect if you get pulled over?

During your traffic stop

A police officer must have ?probable cause? in order to pull you over on suspicion of drunk driving. Reasons for a traffic stop may include:

Erratic driving, such as swerving in and out of lanes Failure to stop at a stop sign or red light Illegal turn Driving with headlights off Stopping in the road for no reason

Once you have been pulled over, a police officer may ask you to perform field sobriety tests (such as the one-leg stand test). The officer may also ask you to submit to a breath test. Using a small machine, such as a breathalyzer, you breath into a tube and the machine uses the breath sample to gauge blood alcohol content, or BAC.

Some of the new DUI laws being considered are making it easier for police officers to get the search warrants needed for a blood sample, used to determine blood alcohol content. Some states are also increasing the penalties for anyone who refuses a breath test.

DUI Penalties

The penalties for drunk driving vary widely from state-to-state. In general, drunk driving sentences for first-time offenders will include:

Jail time Fines Driver?s license suspension

Some states DUI punishments may also include:

Ignition interlock device use Community service Alcohol rehabilitation program Vehicle seizure

The penalties for a DUI conviction increase, sometimes dramatically, for multiple DUI arrests. There may also be additional penalties for anyone that refuses a breathalyzer during a DUI traffic stop and is later convicted.

Most of the new state DUI laws increase the punishments for DUI convictions, whether it?s a first-offender or someone with a history of drunk driving.

The most common changes include increasing fines and jail time, but the use of ignition interlock devices is also on the rise.

Ignition interlock devices must be rented, installed and monitored at the driver?s expense. Once installed, the devices require the driver of the car to pass a breath test or the car will not stop. Typically, the driver must also pass additional tests while driving.

The devices also have built-in features, such as digital cameras, to prevent tricking the machine or altering test results.

Originally published here.