The Supreme Judicial Court defended the constitutionality of police sobriety checkpoints in a ruling issued yesterday, striking down a Brockton District Court opinion that concluded that state laws governing such checkpoints sanctioned illegal search and seizure.
The Brockton court argued that state law on the subject was vaguely worded and permitted police to decide who to pull over and who to wave through, enabling officers to screen drivers for drugs and other contraband.
Case law, the SJC pointed out, prohibits roadblocks for the purpose of screening drivers for drugs, considered a violation akin to an illegal search of a person’s home.
But Justice Ralph Gants, writing for the court, concluded that “a sobriety checkpoint does not become a roadblock whose purpose is to search for evidence of drug trafficking and other contraband simply because officers are directed that, when looking for signs of intoxication, they are not to ignore contraband or evidence of criminal activity in plain view.’’
The SJC ruling arose from the case of Gregory Swartz, who was pulled over at a sobriety checkpoint on Route 18 in Bridgewater in October 2006. Officers suspected Swartz of being intoxicated and directed him to a separate screening area, where he was arrested and charged with his third operating-under-the-influence offense.
Swartz filed a motion to dismiss the charges on constitutional grounds, and the Brockton judge, David Nagle, allowed the motion after a hearing in which no one testified.
“We conclude that the Commonwealth has satisfied its burden of establishing that the roadblock involved in this case was governed by lawful guidelines,’’ Gants wrote, remanding the case to district court for further proceedings.
