Sobriety Checkpoints

Sobriety checkpoints provide an effective enforcement strategy against drunk driving. Checkpoints present a highly visible way to catch violators, but their greatest benefit may be deterring people from driving drunk by increasing the perceived risk of arrest. Sobriety checkpoints are most effective when they are highly publicized and when the consequences of drinking with a BAC above the legal limit are highly publicized, too.

Checkpoints are particularly useful in pinpointing hardcore drunk drivers because the face-to-face contact allows the officer to spot drivers who have a higher alcohol tolerance and, despite high BAC levels, may have modified their driving behavior to avoid detection. Checkpoints are also a good way to apprehend people driving with a suspended or revoked license due to an alcohol related offense.

According to the National Hardcore Drunk Driver Project Survey, sobriety checkpoints are used in 38 states and the District of Columbia.

Publicized DWI enforcement that includes sobriety checkpoints can be effective in identifying the hardcore drinking driver and in reducing alcohol-involved driving and alcohol-related crashes (National Transportation Safety Board 2000). A recent review of 23 sobriety checkpoint studies (Shults et al. 2001) found:

• Crashes thought to involve alcohol dropped a median of 20 percent following implementation of sobriety checkpoints that used selective breath testing (where police administer a breath test only to drivers suspected to have been drinking).
  
  
• Fatal crashes thought to involve alcohol dropped a median of 23 percent following implementation of sobriety checkpoints.
  
  
• Crashes declined regardless of the follow-up time of the study, dropping a median of 18 percent for follow-up times of less than one year and 17 percent for follow-up times of more than one year.

However, research shows approximately half of all legally impaired drivers stopped at checkpoints, including the hardcore, go through undetected (Simpson and Robertson 2001). When implemented alone, sobriety checkpoints may not be the most effective enforcement tactic; it should be used as a part of a comprehensive enforcement program.

Fell, J. et al. Winter 2002. Why sobriety checkpoints are not widely adopted as an enforcement strategy in the United States. Impaired Driving Update. Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute, Inc.

Lacey, J.H., Jones, R.K, and Smith, R.G. 1999. Evaluation of Checkpoint Tennessee: Tennessee’s Statewide Sobriety Checkpoint Program. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Miller, T.R., Galbraith, M.S., and Lawrence, B.A., 1998. Costs and benefits of a community sobriety checkpoint program. Journal of Studies on Alcohol: 462–468.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. July 17, 2002. Highway Checkpoint Strikeforce Debuts for July Fourth Holiday: Multi-State Blitz to Enforce Laws Against Impaired Driving, NHTSA Now, Volume 8, No. 7.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. June 2001. Saturation Patrols and Sobriety Checkpoints: A How-to-Guide for Planning and Publicizing Impaired Driving Enforcement Efforts. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Shults, R.A., et al. 2001. Reviews of evidence regarding interventions to reduce alcohol-impaired driving. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 21(4S): 66–88.