You asked whether (1) the Division of State Police has guidelines for sobriety checkpoints, (2) checkpoints are constitutionally permissible, and (3) the number of sworn troopers is at the minimum the law requires.

SUMMARY

The State Police Administration and Operations Manual provides guidelines for conducting sobriety checkpoints on state highways. Among other things, checkpoints must be operated under a specific plan; notice of the operation must be provided to the press at least three days in advance; and supervising officers must ensure that drivers are asked the same initial questions.

The plan specifies the criteria for selecting and operating checkpoint sites, the primary consideration being the safety of motorists and participating officers. The location must (1) have a history of traffic violations and accidents, (2) be on a route traveled by potential violators, and (3) be clearly marked and visible. A senior police official (usually a troop commander) must approve all checkpoint sites in advance; a supervisor must be on site to make decisions; and officers must use a neutral formula for stopping vehicles (e.g., every vehicle or every n^th vehicle), minimize inconveniencing drivers, and reassure them that the checks are routine.

The U.S. Supreme Court and the Connecticut Appellate Court have upheld the constitutionality of sobriety checkpoints when conducted in a reasonable manner. In judging what is reasonable, the courts looked at such things as the length and nature of the stop and the use of neutral criteria in determining which vehicles to stop.

As of February 11, 2010, the State Police had 1,137 sworn troopers on staff, 111 fewer than the minimum 1,248 the law requires (CGS § 29-4). The shortfall, according to the agency's legislative liaison, Major William Podgorski, is a result of retirements (including 125 under the state's 2009 early retirement incentive program). The agency is working with the Office of Policy and Management to begin a training class for troopers this spring. It anticipates that the class will consist of about 70 recruits. Even if they all graduate (an unlikely scenario, based on attrition rates in previous classes) and no trooper leaves, the total number of officers will still be at least 41 below the mandated minimum. (According to State Police officials, more than 200 troopers currently on staff are eligible to retire.)

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SOBRIETY CHECK POINTS

U.S. Supreme Court Decision

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. In Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a six to three decision, held that law enforcement sobriety checkpoints donor violate the Fourth Amendment (496 U.S. 444 (1990))

Chief Justice Rehnquist, who wrote the majority opinion, acknowledged that sobriety checkpoints infringed on a constitutional right. But he argued that they were effective and necessary and that the state's interest in reducing drunk driving outweighed the degree of intrusion on individual motorists. The opinion stressed the importance of appropriate guidelines governing checkpoint operations, site selection, and publicity. It stated that the guidelines should minimize the discretion of police officers at the scene.

Dissenting justices argued that the Constitution does not provide exceptions. And, while “stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving. . .[it] is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion,” dissenting Justice Brennan wrote (id at 459).

Connecticut Decision

In Connecticut v. Boisvert (40 Conn. App. 420 (1996)), the Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's judgment that roadside sobriety checkpoints do not violate the Connecticut Constitution's provision protecting people against unreasonable search and seizure (Article First, § 7). The state Supreme Court declined to review the decision, making Boisvert the controlling interpretation of Connecticut's sobriety checkpoint law.

The Appellate Court found the initial detention of the defendant at the checkpoint was not an arrest. To test whether the stop was reasonable, the trial court balanced the need to keep intoxicated drivers off the roads against the intrusiveness of roadside checkpoints.

The Appellate Court examined police procedural guidelines and police conduct and approved the trial court's determination that the stop was reasonable. It affirmed the trial court's reasoning that the initial stop of the defendant was constitutionally valid:

A citizen's reasonable right to privacy may not be subject to random or arbitrary intrusions merely at the whim of law enforcement. Minimal intrusion in the interest of public safety may be allowed in the form of checkpoint stops when the stop is conducted pursuant to a practice embodying neutral criteria. The trial court recognized these concerns in applying the balancing test to the facts of this case and determined that [the challenged traffic stop] kept interference with individual liberty to a minimum. Moreover, the trial court found that the majority of drivers were stopped for one or two minutes, were required to answer a few questions and produce the expected papers, and that there was no evidence of abusive or threatening conduct by the police against individuals stopped. No persons were singled out arbitrarily for investigation, and the officers in the field had no discretion whatsoever as to whom to stop. All drivers were stopped except during one brief period when a supervisor, in order to alleviate a traffic backup, ordered that a number of cars should be allowed to pass (Connecticut v. Boisvert, 40 Conn. App. 420, 427).

The defendant claimed the trial court improperly concluded that police followed established procedures. He pointed out that a police press release announcing upcoming sobriety checks failed to specify the planned date and time, as called for in procedures. The Appellate Court agreed with the trial court's determination that the checkpoint at issue substantially conformed to guidelines. And the Appellate Court found the defendant failed to demonstrate how or why the lower court's findings were erroneous.

VR:df/sd