An alibi is a defense in criminal cases whereby a defendant demonstrates that he or she was somewhere else other than the scene of the crime at the time the alleged crime took place. In an alibi, a defendant is simply arguing that it is impossible for him or her to have committed the crime because they were at a different place at the time the crime was supposedly committed. A successful alibi rules out the defendant as the perpetrator of the offense
The Supreme Court affirmed without reaching the issue of whether Gant or Carrawell required the suppression of the evidence, holding that any error was not prejudicial because other unchallenged evidence fully supported the judgment reached by the circuit court. While Mr. Hughes has standing to challenge the seizure of the bag he admitted belonged to him, this Court needn’t reach the problem whether or not Gant or Carrawell needed the motion to suppress to be sustained as a result of no prejudice resulted from it being overruled during this court-tried case. Decent extra proof to support the conviction was introduced by the defense in its interrogation of 1 of the impressive officers and thru the defense’s stipulation to the admission of the laboratory report showing the confiscated things were hard drug and cocaine.
In the state of Missouri, law enforcement officials are permitted to set up DUI checkpoints. Typically, these checkpoints are placed on busy roads and the officers involved will either stop every car that comes through or they will use a pre-formulated system to stop cars in a seemingly random manner. Once stopped, a driver may be asked to submit to either a field sobriety test or a breath test and if they fail, they will be arrested and charged with a DUI – even if they didn’t show signs of drunk driving before reaching the DUI checkpoint.
Under normal circumstances, when a police officer initiates a traffic stop in order to determine if someone is driving while under the influence, they first need probable cause to show that there was a legal reason for pulling the driver over. For example, if a driver runs a red light or is erratically swerving across lanes, an officer has a legal reason to pull them over. Then, based on their interaction with the driver, they may proceed with a field sobriety test or ask the driver to take a Breathalyzer test. Without probable cause, the stop and subsequent DUI can be legally challenged in court.
Knowing this, it’s easy to understand why so many Americans believe that DUI checkpoints violate the 4th Amendment.
The 4th Amendment states:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Basically, this protects Americans by prohibiting law enforcement from making searches and seizures without probable cause. When applying the 4th Amendment to DUI checkpoints, the following should be noted:
Despite this, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that DUI checkpoints are legal, as long as they meet specific criteria.
In order for a DUI checkpoint to be viewed as constitutional, the following criteria must be met:
If law enforcement fails to meet with this criteria it may be considered an unconstitutional checkpoint and anyone charged with a DUI may be able to use this argument as part of their defense.
If, while driving, you note that a DUI checkpoint is ahead and you can legally turn or make a legal U-turn to avoid the checkpoint, you may do so. However, there are almost always officers posted to specifically watch drivers who avoid going through a checkpoint and if you violate any traffic laws they will pull you over.
