People v. Banks12/23/1993
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
No. S030479
1993.CA.40331 ; 863 P.2d 769; 25 Cal. Rptr. 2d 524; 6 Cal. 4th 926
Decided: December 23, 1993.
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
v.
MARY LOUISE BANKS, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
Municipal Court for the West Orange Judicial District of Orange County, No. SBW209060PO, Martin G. Engquist, Temporary Judge.
Ronald Y. Butler, Public Defender, Carl C. Holmes, Chief Deputy Public Defender, Thomas Havlena and Alan J. Crivaro, Deputy Public Defenders, for Defendant and Appellant.
Amitai Schwartz, Paul L. Hoffman, Alan L. Schlosser, Ann Brick, Edward M. Chen, Matthew A. Coles and Margaret C. Crosby as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.
Michael R. Capizzi, District Attorney, Maurice L. Evans, Chief Assistant District Attorney, Wallace J. Wade, Assistant District Attorney, Kathleen M. Harper, James F. Bacin and Gregory J. Robischon, Deputy District Attorneys, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, George Williamson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Ronald A. Bass, Assistant Attorney General, Ronald E. Niver and Charles R. B. Kirk, Deputy Attorneys General, James K. Hahn, City Attorney (Los Angeles), Debbie Lew and Lisa S. Berger, Deputy City Attorneys, as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Respondent.
Opinion by George, J., with Lucas, C. J., Kennard, Arabian and Baxter, JJ., Concurring. Separate Dissenting opinion by Panelli, J., with Mosk, J., Concurring.
George
In this case we decide whether advance publicity is a prerequisite to the operation of a constitutionally permissible highway "sobriety checkpoint."
In Ingersoll v. Palmer (1987) 43 Cal. 3d 1321 [241 Cal. Rptr. 42, 743 P.2d 1299] (hereafter Ingersoll ), this court upheld the constitutionality of sobriety checkpoints conducted pursuant to various safeguards, observing, in the course of our analysis, that advance publicity is one such safeguard "important to the maintenance of a constitutionally permissible sobriety checkpoint." ( at p. 1346.) In the present case, the Court of Appeal interpreted Ingersoll to require advance publicity as a prerequisite to the constitutional validity of a sobriety checkpoint. As we shall explain, however, the United States Supreme Court's analysis of the constitutionality of sobriety checkpoints in Michigan State Police Dept. v. Sitz (1990) 496 U.S. 444 [110 L.Ed.2d 412, 110 S.Ct. 2481] (hereafter Sitz), decided three years after our Ingersoll decision, establishes that advance publicity is not a constitutional prerequisite to the operation of such a checkpoint. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Defendant Mary Louise Banks was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol on November 18, 1990, after being stopped at a sobriety checkpoint located on Pacific Coast Highway at the intersection of First Street in the City of Seal Beach. The checkpoint was operated by law enforcement officials of the Seal Beach, Cypress, La Palma, and Los Alamitos police departments.
A complaint thereafter was filed in municipal court charging defendant with violations of Vehicle Code former section 23152, subdivisions (a) and
(b), and other vehicular offenses. Defendant entered a plea o
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|