THE LEGALITY OF TRAFFIC STOPS

Based on Ruse Checkpoints

Based on recent questions received on this topic, there are apparently some intrepid law enforcement agencies using “ruse” or “phantom” checkpoints with some success in DUI enforcement. A ruse checkpoint is exactly what it sounds like. Law enforcement will set up the trappings of a real checkpoint. There will be signs indicating the checkpoint ahead and perhaps even a squad car or two at the location of the supposed checkpoint. In reality, there is no checkpoint and drivers who continue through the area will not be stopped or encounter any law enforcement.

These checkpoints can be used for two purposes: First, to make it seem as though law enforcement is out in greater numbers than they really are.

The second is to observe drivers' behavior as they encounter the signs and develop reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop based on that behavior. This second type of ruse checkpoint is the focus of this article. Ruse checkpoints of this nature are typically set up in areas where the driver would have to take obvious evasive maneuvers to avoid the checkpoint they believe is coming. Some examples of this might be a roadway where the only way to avoid the checkpoint would be to make a U-turn. They also occur on highways with signage occurring shortly before rest stop exits or rural exits with no services. They can be DUI sobriety checkpoints or purported drug interdiction roadblocks. It is the false drug interdiction road block that is going to result in the most motions to suppress being filed.

First, we need to acknowledge that drug interdiction road blocks are illegal under the U.S. Supreme Court case of City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S.32 (2000). In Edmond, the City of Indianapolis was conducting clearly stated drug interdiction roadblocks on public roads. The roadblocks were operated in the same manner policy-wise as a sobriety checkpoint. The difference came in that once selected cars were stopped, a narcotics dog would walk around the car as the officer asked for the driver's license and registration. The Court found that roadblocks of this nature, which were indistinguishable from general crime control, violated the 4th Amendment guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures. There is a difference, the Court found, from roadblocks conducted for highway safety purposes or to keep impaired drivers off the road. This case, however, cannot be read as prohibiting a drug interdiction checkpoint that does not exist.

Only one published case in Illinois has addressed the issue of ruse checkpoints, People v. Ray, 764 N.E.2d 173 (4th Dist. 2002). In this case, the Effingham County Sheriff set up signage for a drug interdiction checkpoint that did not exist. This checkpoint was announced shortly prior to a rural highway exit with no services. Motorists could not see the supposed checkpoint from the point of the exit. A real drug interdiction checkpoint was located at the bottom of the exit ramp and all cars exiting the highway were stopped. At the hearing, the Sheriff testified that anyone coming down that ramp would be a suspect for “[N]o valid driver's license. No valid insurance. Carrying drugs, wanted on warrants. It could be a variety of things.” The appellate court took issue with this statement, calling it an “unparticularized and unsubstantiated hunch,” (Id. at 178) and therefore in violation of the 4th Amendment. Further, because the stop occurred at an actual drug interdiction checkpoint, Edmond was controlling and the stop was invalid.

The key to a traffic stop based on behavior upon a driver's approaching a ruse checkpoint is that it be “justified by some quantum of individualized suspicion,” Edmond, 531 U.S.at 47. In another U.S. Supreme Court case, this one out of Illinois, the Court found that flight from the presence of law enforcement could provide reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop. Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000). Further, short of outright flight, nervous, erratic and obviously evasive behavior may all justify a stop. Some examples of this may include a sudden movement to exit a highway, an abrupt turn without a turn signal, or an obvious U-turn prior to reaching the location of the ruse checkpoint.

Ultimately, the legality of the stop is going to be based on the totality of the circumstances which allow the officer to form an individualized and objective basis for conducting that traffic stop. An officer's reports in these cases should be detailed and specific as to those circumstances, to allow the prosecutor the best arguments for defending the motions that will surely come in these cases.

By Elizabeth Earleywine, Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutor

Archives