Gregoire favors sobriety checkpoints

Gov. Christine Gregoire this afternoon announced her support of legislation to authorize police to set up sobriety spot checks, a practice unseen in this state since the state Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional in 1988.

The U.S. Supreme Court in 1990 upheld a Michigan checkpoint program, saying motorists' privacy rights were not violated. Legal analysts at that time said the federal ruling did not affect Washington, because the state constitution provides stronger protections that limit police searches.

Thirty-nine states, plus the District of Columbia, allow spot checks to catch drunk drivers, according to Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD).

The national organization in November released a "state progress" report card ranking Washington as 40th in the nation in its efforts to eliminate drunken driving. The rankings were based upon the percentage of fatal accidents in 2006 that involved a drunken driver.

Washington's 225 "drunk-driving fatalities" represented 36 percent of all fatal accidents in the state, MADD reported. Utah scored the No. 1 spot, with a 19 percent ratio and 54 alcohol-related traffic deaths.

Previous bills to authorize various forms of sobriety checkpoints failed to pass the state Legislature several times in the early 1990s.

The state's 1988 case stemmed from Seattle police roadblocks during the 1983-84 Christmas and New Year's holiday season. The Supreme Court found the program violated a state constitutional provision against illegal search and seizure.

But Justice James Dolliver, who participated in the majority decision, provided comments indicating the program might be constitutional if it were authorized by statute.

The federal and Pacific Northwest MADD organizations are targeting sobriety checkpoints and stricter laws for ignition interlocks as legislative priorities this year.

"Sobriety checkpoints work. The Center for Disease Control says that in states where they have sobriety checkpoints, impaired driving crashes are usually 20 percent less than in states where they don't," said Judy Eakin, executive director of MADD's Pacific Northwest region.

Doug Honig, American Civil Liberties Union of Washington state spokesman, said his organization will look to the state Legislature to kill the latest proposal.

"Our courts have found that to stop a motorist without any suspicion that the person is doing something wrong is unconstitutional. It interferes with the right of law-abiding people to travel," he said. "Our hope would be that the people in the Legislature would take a look at the proposal and say the intentions may be good but it interferes with people's rights."

The ACLU strongly prefers the increased use of drunk-driving emphasis patrols, which State Patrol and local police have been using with greater frequency in recent years.

"That's a legal way to address this concern," Honig said. "If they are pulling people over for driving in a way that appears unsafe, certainly they have the authority."

If the legislation were to pass, a legal challenge probably would be filed by attorneys representing drivers arrested at a checkpoint, Honig said. At that point, the ACLU could file a "friend-of-the-courts" brief to support the case, he said.

Diane Brooks: 425-745-7802 or dbrooks@seattletimes.com