Overview of Roadblocks in Mississippi
Roadblocks, or at least police roadblocks, are a common tool used by law enforcement in the United States. A roadblock is essentially a device, such as a barricade that blocks off part of a street or road, to control traffic. Law enforcement may set up roadblocks for numerous reasons, including, but not limited to, restrictions related to construction or surveying, school parades and other school events, festival and sporting events, to direct traffic during large political events, to assist in searches for missing persons, and for checkpoints or sobriety, DUI, DWI, pit stops. Checkpoints are specific types of roadblocks established by law enforcement that essentially restrict traffic temporarily for the purpose of checking for valid driver’s licenses, insurance, sobriety, etc. Mississippi DUI/DWI sobriety checkpoints are known as pit stops.
In Mississippi, roadblocks are commonly used for DUI and DWI check points. DUI and DWI checkpoints are approximately the same . In Mississippi, the terms "DUI" and "DWI" are interchangeable terms describing operating any motorized vehicle under the influence of any intoxicating liquor, drug, or substance (including alcohol) or with a blood alcohol content in excess of 0.08 percent for noncommercial drivers (and other levels for commercial drivers). Roadblocks are established in hopes of catching these types of offenses.
How roadblocks function under the law is a matter of much debate by lawyers, scholars, judges, politicians, and judges. Most agree that roadblocks or checkpoints violate the U.S. and Mississippi constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures (the Fourth Amendment). However, because they are a type of administrative stop that are conducted for the purposes of safety on the road by protecting the public against drunk drivers, the Supreme Court of the United States have ruled that they are permissible so long as they follow all formalities. It should be noted, however, that the general belief is that sobriety checkpoints have far greater potential to cause negative consequences than to prevent them.
Legal Authority for Roadblocks
The legal framework governing the use of roadblocks in Mississippi is anchored in both state and federal law, with most intersection-type roadblocks being unlawful under the Mississippi law. The Mississippi Supreme Court has adopted federal precedent concerning roadblocks. Under federal law, roadblocks must be set up in a reasonable manner designed to ensure public safety, and their primary purpose must be the observation of the public for criminal behavior.
On the state level, the critical statutory provision concerning roadblocks in Mississippi is found at Miss. Code. Ann. § 63-3-505(1)(d). For purposes of this statute, the term "roadblock" is defined as "a barrier, gate, spike strip or other device or manner of conduct which may be employed by law enforcement personnel to stop motor vehicles or to warn such persons of the potential danger of the road ahead."
Miss. Code. Ann. § 63-3-505(1)(d) provides:
In accordance with the provisions of Section 31-1-15, Mississippi Code of 1972, Annotated, any law enforcement personnel who witness a traffic offense may, by notification or otherwise, direct the violator to stop. Once the violator has been properly stopped, the law enforcement personnel may give verbal notice or visually display the general signal concerning motorists to stop. Furthermore, any law enforcement personnel utilizing a roadblock to stop any vehicle on the interstate highway shall follow the following guidelines:
(i) Every roadblock shall be operated by at least four (4) Sworn State, County or Municipal Officers (persons who are certified as a law enforcement officer by Mississippi Law and operated within their jurisdictional authority);
(ii) Two (2) officers will be stationed in front of the roadblock, with one (1) of them holding the general signal concerning motorists to stop, and the other signaling to the drivers that they should move towards the roadblock but stop approximately ten feet before the roadblock. The sign will be held up to be visible by the approaching drivers;
(iii) One (1) officer will be stationed in the middle of the road, signaling to the drivers to come forward to the roadblock, but will not allow them past the roadblock area;
(iv) One (1) officer will be stationed at the end of the roadblock.
If circumstances warrant, the number of officers needed can be increased or decreased as necessary for the purpose of safely completing this operation.
The Supreme Court of Mississippi adopted federal precedent concerning roadblocks in the 1989 case of Wallace v. State. In Wallace, the Court stated that with regard to checks for a valid roadblock:
Substantive constitutional violations turn on the degree of discretion exercised by officers at a roadblock. See Martinez, 728 F.2d at 1117. [A] roadblock is valid under the Fourth Amendment only . . . if it was set up pursuant to a neutral plan or policy and where the choice of the particular site and the particular time of the roadblock was based on considerations other than the submission of the particular person stopped at the roadblock. Id. at 1117-18 (emphasis added).
The Wallace Court went on to state that—although the Mississippi Constitution has a higher expectation of privacy than the Fourth Amendment—that somehow the federal constitutional analysis was applicable to any violation of the Mississippi Constitution when an individual was stopped at a roadblock:
Although the appellant relies with persuasive force on language in our state constitution requiring a higher expectation of privacy than that required by the federal constitution, such requirements have generally been narrowed by courts consistently applying the federal constitutional analysis to any substantive violation of the Mississippi Constitution. . . . Wallace then deals specifically with roadblocks in its discussion of substantive constitutional violations involving police ‘roadblocks,’ noting that the federal circuit courts of appeal have consistently applied a requirement of neutrality to police ‘roadblocks’ that has been adopted by this Court. Wallace, 666 So.2d at 407.
Court Decisions and Case Law on Roadblocks
Over the years, the expansion of police power has engendered a number of interesting legal questions. In Mississippi, some of those questions have arisen from the use of so-called road blocks. Over time, the Court has ruled that, although roadblocks constitute a search and seizure, they do not violate the Constitution so long as they are set up pursuant to specific guidelines. The first case along these lines was Burkett v. State, 491 So. 2d 843 (Miss. 1986). In that case, the Court established certain guidelines that needed to be followed for roadblocks. Over the years, the Court refined the guidelines. See Gray v. State, 799 So. 2d 52 (Miss. 2001) and Brigham v. State, 904 So. 2d 1003 (Miss.2004). Even today, Burkett, Gray and Brigham are still cited when the issue of roadblocks arises. To date, the Court has found roadblocks to be constitutional, but with a caveat: As long as those conducting the roadblocks follow Burkett and its progeny.
Legal Basis for Roadblocks
While roadblocks can seem to be little more than an easy way to round up cash or drugs, law enforcement must have a legal justification for each roadblock. Thus, police may not stop you simply because they have a roadblock in place. Instead, they must have a valid reason for why the roadblock is in its location. Police are justified in establishing roadblocks and stopping vehicles when that roadblock serves a legitimate purpose. Some of those purposes include: To be a legitimate control of vehicular traffic , not allowing all traffic through would serve a legitimate purpose. The court will examine the burden on the public through any inconvenience that is caused by the roadblock. If the burden is greater than the purpose, then the roadblock is illegitimate. While a roadblock has to serve a legitimate purpose, it also needs to be set up properly. Failure to adhere to roadblock guidelines can result in evidence obtained from traffic stops at the roadblock being suppressed. In short, failure to follow the law when it comes to roadblocks can prohibit police from lawfully stopping vehicles.
Challenging a Roadblock
Should an officer obtain blood or other bodily fluid for purposes of testing, in violation of the 4th amendment, I have challenged the taking of the fluid as against public policy and that it was illegal from the beginning. (A similar challenge could be made for a Breathalyzer.) The 4th amendment is the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. A police officer cannot just stop you at will without probable cause. The test: On occasion courts have looked to the legality of checkpoint procedures, saying that there must be a valid balance between the State’s interest in keeping the public safe and the individual’s right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. If you are improperly arrested, you should have the ability to fight the arrest. To that end, you must be free from having your blood or breath taken. The factors courts have examined include: Does the roadblock stop everyone or just a randomly selected few? Is advance warning given of the roadblock? Was the function of the roadblock the discovery of illegal drugs (versus drunk driving)? Generally, the court conducts a balancing test – weighing the intrusion of the roadblock against the government’s need to make certain investigations.
Effect on Mississippi Drivers
Legal roadblocks can have a profound impact on Mississippi drivers, both positively and negatively. These checkpoints can help reduce drunk driving and illegal immigration by making it more difficult for those who may be breaking the law to pass through certain areas. This may help keep roads safer and cut down on the number of traffic accidents that occur in the state. Because suspected criminals are often caught at roadblocks, law enforcement officers indicate that these checkpoints have the power to change the overall criminal environment.
On the other side of the coin, however, the legality of roadblocks in Mississippi is an infringement on the rights of citizens traveling on roadways. Drivers are often singled out by officers and searched for no substantial cause, and they can be held up indefinitely at roadblocks. These checkpoints can also be set up without proper warning , including at times when people are least able to safely stop their vehicles. This can lead to a greater risk of accidents at the areas of these commands.
Furthermore, roadblocks are often placed in locations that are less than ideal for citizens. In the case of Washington County, Mississippi, the legal road blocks had been located at exit ramps to Highway 61. The resulting impact was that people had no option but to leave the highway and drive down a narrow, two lane road with no sidewalks or shoulders to pull over onto. Because this roadway was heavily wooded on either side, this left traffic and pedestrians vulnerable to severe accidents.
Due to the dangers that these types of checkpoints posed for citizens, a lower court made the ruling to issue a preliminary injunction against the Washington County roadblocks in Mississippi. As a result of this order, the roadblocks were discontinued in this part of the state.