PA DUI Checkpoints Found to be Illegal

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s recent landmark decision in Commonwealth v. Hlubin will change the way DUI checkpoints operate in Pennsylvania. Hlubin’s case concerns the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act, 53 Pa.C.S. §§ 2301–2317 (the “ICA”), and the Municipal Police Jurisdiction Act, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 8951–8954 (“MPJA”).

On September 29, 2013, Molly Hlubin was stopped at a sobriety checkpoint. Sergeant Douglas Ogden, employed by a different township, was the officer who stopped Hlubin. He asked for her ID, insurance, and registration information. Ogden says he smelled alcohol and questioned Hlubin who admitted to drinking some alcohol. Ogden escorted Hlubin to a testing area where Officer Dominic Sicilia, an officer from the jurisdiction in which the checkpoint was located, performed sobriety tests with Hlubin. Sicilia later arrested Hlubin for two counts of Driving Under the Influence (DUI).

Hlubin moved to suppress evidence obtained at the checkpoint, arguing “the task force did not comply with the ICA and that no exceptions set forth in the MPJA permitted members of the task force to operate outside of their primary jurisdiction.” The Commonwealth argued the task force was “in compliance with the statutory requirements in the ICA and that Sergeant Ogden’s presence at the checkpoint was authorized by certain exceptions in the MPJA permitting police actions outside of an officer’s primary jurisdiction.”

The Superior Court, sitting en banc, held the task force did not have to comply with the ICA because the MPJA has exceptions to the general limitation on police activities outside of an officer’s primary jurisdiction. On May 31st, 2019, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the Superior Court’s decision.

To comply with the ICA, a joint agreement between the local governments must exist, and the governing body of the municipality must pass an ordinance with respect to said agreement. Additionally, the ordinance must include seven specific terms and be adopted by all cooperating governmental units. In our experience this is never done – essentially invalidating any situation where officers from an outside jurisdiction stop motorists at a DUI checkpoint (a very common practice). According to the MPJA, in relevant part, an officer may enforce the law outside of his or her jurisdiction if he or she “has been requested to aid or assist any local, State or Federal law enforcement officer or park police officer or otherwise has probable cause to believe that the other officer is in need of aid or assistance.”

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held there is no conflict between the ICA and MPJA. Accordingly, the court went on to explain, since no ordinance was passed, the task force was not authorized by the ICA. The court rejected the Commonwealth’s broad interpretation of subsection 8953(a)(3) of the MPJA, and held the subsection “does not authorize police officers to cross jurisdictional lines to participate in pre-arranged sobriety checkpoints.” Therefore, the court held all evidence gathered at the sobriety checkpoint must be suppressed.

In sum, a cross-jurisdictional task force is required to comply with the ICA, in the form of an ordinance, or fall under an exception in the MPJA. Hlubin’s case will change the way DUI checkpoints are conducted in Pennsylvania, as cross-jurisdiction task forces will be forced to change procedure. There are many cases out there in Pennsylvania right now where people charged with DUI are entitled to dismissal of the charges as a result of this ruling – but most of them probably have no idea about that. This is one of the reasons that people charged with DUI should always get the best attorney they can – and not just an inexpensive attorney willing to accompany the person to court. If you think your case could be impacted by this ruling, contact us today.