Sobriety Checkpoints and Random Breath Testing for Alcohol

Public Policy Position Adopted June 2024

WHEREAS traditional efforts to detect alcohol-impaired driving by police on patrol have had limited effectiveness, and

WHEREAS sobriety checkpoints are a simple program to deploy that has wide public support, and

WHEREAS sobriety checkpoints are the single most effective enforcement strategy to reduce alcohol-impaired driving and related traffic crashes, and

WHEREAS random breath testing (RBT) has also been shown to reduce alcohol-impaired driving crashes,

BE IT RESOLVED that jurisdictions should conduct sobriety checkpoints and/or random breath testing to reduce the frequency of impaired driving and the relative risk of traffic crashes due to impaired driving.

Rationale

Traditional impaired driving enforcement has limited effects. Traditionally, police have apprehended drinking drivers by watching for signs of erratic driving. A limitation associated with this approach is that it allows the potential offender to believe that the possibility of arrest may be averted by driving very carefully to avoid attracting the attention of the police. Research has found that sobriety checkpoints reduced impaired driving crashes at a significantly greater rate than traditional saturation patrols, in which a large number of police officers are concentrated into a small geographic area to look for impaired driving behavior.

Sobriety checkpoints are relatively easy to implement, and they have strong public support. Sobriety checkpoints have been used by police since at least the 1970s as a strategy to enforce impaired driving laws. The specific laws and policies that govern the procedures for mounting such enforcement efforts vary from country to country and jurisdiction to jurisdiction. At sobriety checkpoints, police stop all vehicles, or a systematic selection of vehicles, to evaluate drivers for signs of alcohol or other drug impairment. To minimize public concern about the activity and in some cases to comply with court rulings, the plan to conduct a checkpoint may be publicized in advance, and signs may be posted at the approaches to the checkpoints warning drivers that a checkpoint is ahead. Police officers in uniform approach drivers and identify themselves, describe the purpose of the stop, and ask the driver questions designed to elicit a response that will permit the officer to observe the driver’s general demeanor. Drivers who do not appear impaired are immediately waved on, while those who show signs of impairment are usually detained in a safe holding area where they are investigated further and either arrested or released. Sobriety checkpoints are safer for the public and the police as there has not been any reported fatal shootings at checkpoints. Checkpoints typically do not require many police officers to conduct them, usually with as few as three to six officers needed for an effective checkpoint.

Research has shown that 75% of Americans support sobriety checkpoints. Additionally, studies have found 90% approval ratings for sobriety checkpoints after they have begun, meaning that support would likely grow once initiated. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the International Association of Chiefs of Police, Operation CARE, the National Sheriffs’ Association, Nationwide Insurance, and the National Transportation Safety Board also support sobriety checkpoints. Well-conducted sobriety checkpoints do not delay drivers going through them for more than a few moments.

Sobriety checkpoints are the most effective enforcement strategy. Research has indicated that sobriety checkpoints that are well publicized, conducted frequently, and have high public visibility can serve as a general deterrent to impaired driving. Studies in the early 1980s found significant decreases in alcohol-related crashes associated with sobriety checkpoint programs, and later studies confirmed that frequent, highly publicized checkpoint programs substantially reduced alcohol-related crashes by 10 to 20%. A summary of the literature in the United States examined nine studies through the early 1990s and concluded that “the accumulated evidence supports the hypothesis that checkpoints reduce impaired driving.” A demonstration program in Tennessee (“Checkpoint Tennessee”) was sponsored by NHTSA to determine if highly publicized checkpoints conducted throughout the state on a weekly basis would influence impaired driving in the state. The evaluation of the program, using interrupted time series, showed a 20% reduction in alcohol-related fatal crashes extending at least 21 months after conclusion of the formal program. A separate review of six studies on the effectiveness of sobriety checkpoints and random breath testing in reducing motor vehicle crash injuries found that checkpoints were effective in reducing alcohol-related fatalities and injuries. A meta-analysis by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) showed a median reduction of 20% in fatal and injury crashes associated with sobriety checkpoint programs. The authors concluded that these studies “provide strong evidence” that sobriety checkpoints are effective in preventing alcohol-related fatalities and injuries. Another meta-analysis concluded that checkpoints reduced impaired driving crashes by 17%.

Random breath testing programs have also been shown to reduce alcohol-impaired driving crashes. Random breath testing has been in use since the 1960s in Australia. It speaks directly to the traditional patrol enforcement problem by stopping drivers without regard to their driving behavior and requiring a breath test for alcohol. Numerous research studies have shown this procedure to produce a long-term reduction in alcohol-related crashes. Similar random stopping and automatic testing is not possible in the United States under the provisions of the 14th Amendment. However, in a series of legal decisions (e.g., Michigan Department of State Police et al. v. Sitz et al.,496 U.S. 444, 1990), the U.S. Supreme Court has provided for random stopping under a limited set of conditions generally described as “sobriety checkpoints.”

References

Epperlein, T. (1985). The use of sobriety checkpoints as a deterrent: an impact assessment. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Department of Public Safety.

Erke, A., Goldenbeld, C., Vaa, T. (2009). The effects of drink-driving checkpoints on crashes—A meta-analysis. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 41: 914-923.

Fell, J.C., Langston, E.A., Lacey, J. H., Tippetts, A.S., & Cotton, R. (2008). Evaluation of Seven Publicized Enforcement Programs to Reduce Impaired Driving: Georgia, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Indiana, Michigan, and Texas. (DOT HS 810 941). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Homel, R. (1990). Random breath testing and random stopping programs in Australia. In R. J. Wilson & R. E. Mann (Eds.), Drinking and driving: Advances in research and prevention (pp. 159–202). New York: The Guilford Press.

Homel, R. (1993). Random breath testing in Australia: Getting it to work according to specifications. Addiction, 88(Suppl), S27-S33.

Homel, R., McKay, P., & Henstridge, J. (1995). The impact on accidents of random breath testing in New South Wales; 1982–1992. In C. N. Kloeden & A. J. Mclean (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety, Adelaide, 13 August – 19 August 1995 (Vol. 2, pp. 849–855). Adelaide, Australia: NHMRC Road Accident Research Unit, The University of Adelaide 5005.

Lacey, J., Jones, R., & Smith, R. (1999). Checkpoint Tennessee: Tennessee’s Statewide Sobriety Checkpoint Program (HS 808 841). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Lacey, J. H., Stewart, J. R., Marchetti, L. M., Popkin, C. L., Murphy, P. V., Lucke, R. E., & Jones, R. K. (1986). Enforcement and public information strategies for DWI general deterrence: Arrest drunk driving: The Clearwater and Largo, Florida, experiences (HS-807-066). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Lacey JH, Kelley-Baker T, Ferguson SA, Rider RP. (2006) Low-Manpower Checkpoints: Can They Provide Effective DUI Enforcement for Small Communities?, Traffic Injury Prevention, 7(3):213-218.

Levy, D., Asch, P., & Shea, D. (1990). An assessment of county programs to reduce driving while intoxicated. Health Education Research, 5, 247-255.

Levy, D., Shea, D., & Asch, P. (1988). Traffic safety effects of sobriety checkpoints and other local DWI programs in New Jersey. American Journal of Public Health, 79, 291-293.

Michigan Department of State Police et al. v. Sitz et al., 496 U.S. 444, 110 L.Ed.2d 412 (1990).

Peek-Asa, C. (1999). The effect of random alcohol screening in reducing motor vehicle crash injuries. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 16(1S), 57-67.

Ross, H. L. (1992a Mar). The deterrent capability of sobriety checkpoints: Summary of the American literature (HS 807 862). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

Ross, H. L. (1992b). Reasons for non-use of sobriety checkpoints. Police Chief, 59, 58-63.

Sampson, R.J., & Cohen, J. (1988). Different effects of the police on crime: A replication and theoretical extension. Law and Society Review, 22(1), 163-190.

Shults, R. A., Elder, R. W., Sleet, D. A., Nichols, J. L., Alao, M. O., Carande-Kulis, V. G., Zaza, S., Sosin, D. M., Thompson, R. S., & Task Force on Community Preventive Services. (2001). Reviews of evidence regarding interventions to reduce alcohol-impaired driving. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 21(4S), 66-88.

Stuster, J. W., & Blowers, M. A. (1995). Experimental evaluation of sobriety checkpoint programs (DOT HS 808 287). Washington, DC: National Highway Safety Administration.

Voas, R. B., Rhodenizer, A. E., & Lynn, C. (1985). Evaluation of Charlottesville checkpoint operations (HS 806 989). Washington, DC: National Traffic Safety Administration.

Wells, J. K., Greene, M. A., Foss, R. D., Ferguson, S. A., & Williams, A. F. (1997). Drinking drivers missed at sobriety checkpoints. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 58(5), 513–517.

Wells, J. K., Preusser, D. F., & Williams, A. F. (1992). Enforcing alcohol-impaired driving and seat belt use laws, Binghamton, New York. Journal of Safety Research, 23, 63-71.

Weiss, A., & McGarrell, E. (1999). Traffic enforcement and crime: Another look Police Chief, 66(7), 25-28.

Wilson, J.Q., & Borland, B. (1978). The effect of the police on crime. Law and Society Review, 12, 367-390.

 
X