April __, 2011

The Honorable Bonnie LowenthalChair, Assembly Transportation Committee1020 N Street, Room 112Sacramento, CA 95814Attn: Howard PosnerBy Fax: (916) 319-2193

Assemblymember Michael AllenState Capitol, Room 5158Sacramento, CA 95814Attn: Erica CostaBy Fax: (916) 319-2107

RE: Support for AB 1389 (Allen) regarding DUI Checkpoints & Impounds

Dear Assemblymembers Lowenthal and Allen:

On behalf of ORGANIZATION NAME, I write in strong support of AB 1389 by Assembly Member Michael Allen, which will clarify constitutional requirements about the operation of DUI checkpoints and ensure they treat all drivers in a fair way that improves public safety. Too many DUI checkpoints in California are no longer getting drunk drivers off the road as they were intended; AB 1389 will help get checkpoints back on point.

DUI checkpoints are not getting drunk drivers off the road

Local police often use traffic checkpoints to stop and identify drunk drivers who threaten the safety of our roads and highways. In recent years, however, these checkpoints have netted fewer drunk drivers and more unlicensed drivers whose cars are frequently impounded because they are being conducted in conjunction with a drivers license check. According to a 2010 investigative report by the UC Berkeley Center on Investigative Reporting, police in California impounded more than 24,000 vehicles at checkpoints.1 While the percentage of vehicle seizures in these roadway operations has increased 53% statewide compared to 2007, the number of impounded vehicles is roughly seven times higher than the 3,200 drunk driving arrests at roadway operations. As currently being conducted, these checkpoints are no longer an effective use of scarce law enforcement resources.

Without clarity on checkpoints, some law enforcement agencies continue to conduct operations in areas and in a manner that does little to deter drunk driving and instead erodes community trust in law enforcement efforts. Community reports and data show that checkpoints are 1 Ryan Gabrielson, “Car seizures at DUI checkpoints prove profitable for cities, raise legal questions,” California Watch (Berkeley, CA: 2010), available at: http://californiawatch.org/public-safety/car-seizures-dui-checkpoints-prove-profitable-cities-raise-legal-questions (see the map for the data); See also “California Checkpoints Catch Unlicensed Drivers,” New York Times (February13, 2010), available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/us/14sfcheck.html.

increasingly conducted in immigrant communities, at times and places where drunk drivers are less likely to pass through a checkpoint, nullifying any deterrent effect they are intended to have. Harsh policies at police checkpoints are resulting in severe financial hardship to working families, exposure to dangerous situations and fear of reporting crime or cooperating with police among low-income communities. This undermines public safety for everyone. These practices not only alienate the community by making immigrants targets, but come at a high cost to local law enforcement agencies. In many cases, local departments overstaff checkpoints with officers, many of whom earn overtime, yet the checkpoints net on average only three DUI arrests per night.

Consistent statewide guidance is needed to ensure that checkpoints comport with well settled case law, so that both law enforcement agencies and the communities they serve have clear expectations on checkpoints and can help to enhance community-policing efforts on the ground.

AB 1389 adds existing state and federal case law governing checkpoints to the California Vehicle Code

In its 1987 decision Ingersoll v. Palmer, 43 Cal.3d 1321 (1987), the California Supreme Court established the requirements on how, when, and where law enforcement agencies can set up sobriety checkpoints. Despite existing case law, reports of checkpoints outside churches during mass and outside grocery stores in broad daylight highlight the need for clarity among local law enforcement agencies, cities, and drivers on sobriety checkpoint policies.

Assembly Bill 1389 would codify the legal language found in Ingersoll, turning it into legislation that would strengthen protections for immigrant communities, and refocus the mandate of checkpoints towards stopping DUI’s. The Ingersoll language is already included in the guidelines used by the California Highway Patrol to determine when, how, and where to set up checkpoints. AB 1389 places legal constraints around how and where checkpoints can be set up in a local jurisdiction, such as requiring that they operate after dark, in areas with high likelihood of DUI’s, posted with advanced notice for motorists. The bill also codifies parts of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Miranda v. City of Cornelius, 429 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. 2005) to ensure that vehicles are not improperly seized at checkpoints.

The impact of this bill will provide protection for low-income communities and all drivers who are bearing the costs of unclear, unsafe, and non-uniform policies regarding checkpoints, towing, and vehicle impoundments. For these reasons, we support AB 1389 and urge your support in committee.

Sincerely,

YOUR NAMEORGANIZATION NAME

Cc: California Immigrant Policy CenterBy Fax: (916) 448-6774