High Court Refuses to Bar Roadside Sobriety Sweeps

The Supreme Court today refused to bar police from conducting roadside sobriety tests by setting up checkpoints at unannounced locations.

The court, by a 7-2 vote, let stand a ruling from California that such tests for drunk driving do not violate the rights of motorists.

Justices William J. Brennan and Byron R. White voted to hear arguments in the case, but it takes the votes of at least four justices to grant such review.

Police in Anaheim arrested a juvenile identified as Richard T. in the early morning hours of New Year’s Day, 1985. He was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol.

Richard T. was stopped at a police roadblock set up as part of a holiday season crackdown on drunk driving. Police had announced that the checkpoints would be set up around the city, but did not advertise their locations.

Telltale Smell

Police said they smelled alcohol on Richard T.’s breath when they stopped him, and they said he told them he was coming from a party. He then was taken to a second checkpoint, where he failed a sobriety test and was arrested.

A state appeals court ordered the test evidence suppressed. The appeals court said police may conduct such tests only if there is an emergency, if there is reason to believe that a motorist is intoxicated or if the tests are carried out at fixed locations where motorists know they may be tested.

The California Supreme Court last March overturned the appeals court decision and ruled that the police acted lawfully.

Lawyers for Richard T. said the checkpoints in Anaheim were similar to roving police patrols that stop motorists for sobriety tests without reasonable suspicion of drunk driving. The U.S. Supreme Court barred such stops by roving patrols in a 1979 ruling.

No Rights Violation

California officials said the police conduct in Anaheim did not violate motorists’ privacy rights.

“Given the serious safety and social problems presented by drunk drivers and the minimal intrusion to privacy caused by momentary detention at a sobriety checkpoint . . . use of these checkpoints is reasonable,” the California attorney general’s office said.

In another action today, the justices set the stage for an important ruling on the constitutionality of enormous punitive damages awards that have become increasingly common in a range of lawsuits.

The court agreed to study the issue in an appeal by Browning-Ferris Industries Inc., a waste collection business with headquarters in Houston. The company was ordered to pay $6 million to a Burlington, Vt., competitor that accused the Texas company of undercutting its prices in an effort to drive it out of business.