HIGH COURT UPHOLDS DUI ROADBLOCKS:

Catching drunken drivers at police roadblocks may cost more money and result in fewer arrests than roving patrols, but that is no reason they should be declared illegal, the state’s highest court recently ruled.

While acknowledging that “sobriety checkpoints” must be carefully planned and executed to avoid conflicts with constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, a majority of the state Supreme Court said roadblocks remain a vital law-enforcement tool.

In a 4-2 ruling, the court upheld the 2003 driving-under-the-influence conviction of Gary Beaman, of Pittsburgh, who was stopped by Pittsburgh police at a roadblock and arrested in 2001. Beaman appealed, asserting that roadblocks should be declared unconstitutional if there is a more efficient way to enforce the state’s DUI law.

In upholding the Superior Court, the justices acknowledged that Pennsylvania Department of Transportation statistics show the percentage of DUI arrests among drivers who are pulled over–7.7 percent–is more than 10 times higher than the percentage arrested for DUI at roadblocks. The statistics, from 1999 to 2001, also show each arrest at a roadblock required more man-hours than conventional roving patrols.

But “this alone does not mean they (roadblocks) are ineffectual,” Justice Thomas Saylor wrote in the majority opinion. “The statistics may be somewhat misleading,” Saylor said. “Because every vehicle that passes through a roadblock is stopped, at least briefly, and a roving patrol only stops an automobile exhibiting signs of impaired driving, it is to be expected that a higher percentage of stopped vehicles will lead to arrests in a roving-patrol scenario.”