Are Sobriety Checkpoints the Only Way?

Texas is one of 11 remaining states without statewide checkpoints. Proponents of sobriety checkpoints say they are beneficial as a deterrent, but at the same time they also allow police officials to look for other infractions or violations. This year, there is a real possibility the State Legislature will pass a law instituting sobriety checkpoints.

The proposed Legislature bill, like bills passed in other states, give officers the ability, under suspicion, to arrest and give citations for other reason besides driving while intoxicated. The bill prohibits officers from asking for a driver’s license or insurance card.

Sen. John Carona, the bill’s sponsor, uses statistics from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s 2007 report to say that about 300 could be saved by implementing checkpoints. That same agency has released its 2008 report stating that nationwide alcohol-related fatalities have declined by 9.1% and the Texas region has declined 1% from 2007.

Other regions where states do not allow checkpoints have much higher declines than Texas. The Alaska, Oregon, and Washington region declined by 11%, Rhode Island region by 14%, Wisconsin region by 11%, and Wyoming region by 8%.

Less than 1% of drivers (example: here and here) are arrested for alcohol-related reasons. Most of the people arrested at checkpoints are for other infractions or drug-related reasons. Sobriety checkpoints have been abused by many cities and counties such as drug sniffing dogs circling a vehicle to check for drugs. These types of excess have been shot down by state courts.

This leads me to believe that those same 300 lives can be saved by other means, like a statewide DWI campaign announcing even stronger penalties, and television and radio ads to discourage drinking and driving. Education and a sense of duty can be much more constructive than checkpoints, which according to the bill have to be widely publicized in advance.