A
Delaware Superior Court Judge ruled that prosecutors did not prove that
statistics justified setting up a DUI checkpoint. He ruled that "the
constitutionality of sobriety checkpoints requires that they be
established according to some overall plan that limits the authority of
police and thereby protects the Fourth Amendment right of drivers to be
free from unreasonable search and seizure."
WILMINGTON — A Superior Court judge has gutted the
case against an alleged drunken driver who was stopped at a sobriety
checkpoint in the city because of questions about the legality of the
checkpoint’s location.Superior Court
Judge Eric M. Davis, in a 13-page opinion made public this week, ruled
prosecutors did not prove that statistics justified setting up a DUI
checkpoint at Fourth and Church streets on Aug. 17, 2012, when Willie A.
Terry was pulled over there. So the judge barred prosecutors from using
any evidence collected against Terry at the checkpoint, effectively
ending the prosecution.
Widener Law professor Len Sosnov said it is a very narrow ruling about the admissibility of evidence in Terry’s case, but it does raise a larger question about other DUI checkpoints in the state and whether they have the same legal flaw, which could force state officials to make changes.
The ruling also raises the possibility of challenges by others who have been arrested at DUI checkpoints in Delaware.
Deputy Attorney General Sean Lugg, however, dismissed the larger question, arguing that Terry’s case turned more on how prosecutors presented evidence, not how the sobriety checkpoints are operated.
Lugg said prosecutors are reviewing the Terry decision but remain confident that the sobriety checkpoints in Delaware are being operated correctly under both state and federal law. But as a result of the ruling, Lugg said, the state “will look to make sure that evidence is properly presented” in future cases so that a judge is satisfied the checkpoints are being set up correctly.
Lugg said prosecutors have not yet decided if they will appeal the Terry case to the Delaware Supreme Court.
Terry’s attorney, Thomas Foley, said Friday that he couldn’t comment because he is currently arguing a nearly identical case before a different judge.
According to Davis’ opinion, Foley requested prosecutors produce traffic data on DUI incidents at the intersection of Fourth and Church streets, and the state at first ignored the request. Prosecutors then produced information that did not show a clear statistical trend at that location, according to the ruling.
Widener Law professor Len Sosnov said it is a very narrow ruling about the admissibility of evidence in Terry’s case, but it does raise a larger question about other DUI checkpoints in the state and whether they have the same legal flaw, which could force state officials to make changes.
The ruling also raises the possibility of challenges by others who have been arrested at DUI checkpoints in Delaware.
Deputy Attorney General Sean Lugg, however, dismissed the larger question, arguing that Terry’s case turned more on how prosecutors presented evidence, not how the sobriety checkpoints are operated.
Lugg said prosecutors are reviewing the Terry decision but remain confident that the sobriety checkpoints in Delaware are being operated correctly under both state and federal law. But as a result of the ruling, Lugg said, the state “will look to make sure that evidence is properly presented” in future cases so that a judge is satisfied the checkpoints are being set up correctly.
Lugg said prosecutors have not yet decided if they will appeal the Terry case to the Delaware Supreme Court.
Terry’s attorney, Thomas Foley, said Friday that he couldn’t comment because he is currently arguing a nearly identical case before a different judge.
According to Davis’ opinion, Foley requested prosecutors produce traffic data on DUI incidents at the intersection of Fourth and Church streets, and the state at first ignored the request. Prosecutors then produced information that did not show a clear statistical trend at that location, according to the ruling.
According to Davis, the constitutionality of sobriety checkpoints
requires that they be established according to some overall plan that
limits the authority of police and thereby protects the Fourth Amendment
right of drivers to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.In
Delaware, the limits on police authority are Delaware State Police
guidelines that call for checkpoints to be set up in areas with a
“comparatively high rate of drunken driving arrests,” according to
Davis. And prosecutors did not provide the statistical information on
Fourth and Church to show a “demonstrated problem” with DUI there, he
wrote.
Sosnov said while there is a reference to constitutional rights in the case, the real issue appears to lie in the state guidelines. This means prosecutors could fix the problem either by having sufficient statistical data to back up the location of checkpoints or officials could simply change the state police guidelines on how to select areas for sobriety checkpoints.
“As long as you have guidelines set up by a government agency and [the checkpoints] are not dependent on an officer’s discretion,” Sosnov said, they are legal.
Lugg said prosecutors do have the statistical data to back up sobriety checkpoint locations.
Sosnov said while there is a reference to constitutional rights in the case, the real issue appears to lie in the state guidelines. This means prosecutors could fix the problem either by having sufficient statistical data to back up the location of checkpoints or officials could simply change the state police guidelines on how to select areas for sobriety checkpoints.
“As long as you have guidelines set up by a government agency and [the checkpoints] are not dependent on an officer’s discretion,” Sosnov said, they are legal.
Lugg said prosecutors do have the statistical data to back up sobriety checkpoint locations.
Contact Sean O’Sullivan at 324-2777, sosullivan@delawareonline.com or on Twitter @SeanGOSullivan.
