You asked if police have the authority to conduct highway checkpoints where they screen drivers for valid licenses, insurance, and properly registered vehicles.

The Office of Legislative Research is not permitted to render legal opinions and this report should not be considered one.

State law requires anyone operating or in charge of a motor vehicle to produce his vehicle registration certificate, driver’s license, and insurance identification card when asked by a uniformed police officer or an agent of the motor vehicle commissioner who presents appropriate credentials (CGS § 14-217). Other law authorizes the motor vehicle commissioner, an authorized motor vehicle inspector, or any state or local police officer to examine “any motor vehicle, its number, equipment, and identification” (CGS § 14-103).

Connecticut case law appears to support the use of roadblocks by police to enforce compliance with registration, licensing, and vehicle equipment requirements. In State v. Smolen, the court held that, “Since the preservation and safety of users of our public highways are a matter of vital public concern and an appropriate subject for the exercise of the police power of the state, we hold that roadblock stopping of vehicles for

the purpose set forth herein (checking licenses and registrations) is constitutionally permissible as a valid exercise of that power where the stopping is done in good faith and is not used as a mere subterfuge or pretext, or as an excuse for failure to procure a warrant. ” (State v. Smolen, 4 Conn. Cir. Ct. 385, 392, certification denied, 155 Conn. 720, certiorari denied 885. Ct. 787)

Although this case was decided in 1967, we found no subsequent Connecticut decisions that would appear to alter this ruling. Since the case was decided in 1967, it predates the statutory requirement for drivers to carry insurance identification cards in their vehicles and the requirement in CGS § 14-217 that they be presented to police officers upon demand, which became law in 1979. However, if the court’s logic in the Smolen decision were to be applied to the issue of verifying that all drivers are meeting the statutory requirement to keep their insurance identification cards in their vehicles, there would appear to be little reason to distinguish between using a roadblock under the same conditions the court specified for license and registration checks and using the same procedure to check for insurance compliance.

In Delaware v. Prouse, the United States Supreme Court made a distinction between sporadic and random stops of individual vehicles where discretion is left entirely to the enforcing officer (which it found to violate the Fourth Amendment of the U. S. constitution) and “those stops occasioned by roadblocks where all vehicles are brought to a halt or a near halt…. ” (Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U. S. 648 (1979)). In effect, the court found that stopping individual vehicles in the absence of individualized suspicion of wrongdoing that left unbridled discretion with the enforcing officer was constitutionally impermissible but states were not precluded from developing methods for spot checks that involve less intrusion or that do not involve the unconstrained exercise of discretion. It noted that, “Questioning of all oncoming traffic at roadblock-type stops is one permissible alternative. ” (Delaware v. Prouse, 663)

JF: ts